Department of Education to increase class sizes

thehamo

Here we go again. Goodbye to my hopes of any sort of a career as a Primary School teacher, goodbye to any remnants of a quality education for anyone in this country. So much for a new goverment new hope!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0804/school.html

steve9859

thehamo wrote: »

Here we go again. Goodbye to my hopes of any sort of a career as a Primary School teacher, goodbye to any remnants of a quality education for anyone in this country. So much for a new goverment new hope!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0804/school.html

We have to save money across every sector and education is not exempt. To be honest this seems like one of the less painful money saving proposals out there.

(and anyone that thought a new government was going to magic away the facts was living in sone parallel universe)

thehamo

steve9859 wrote: »

thehamo wrote: »

Here we go again. Goodbye to my hopes of any sort of a career as a Primary School teacher, goodbye to any remnants of a quality education for anyone in this country. So much for a new goverment new hope!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0804/school.html

We have to save money across every sector and education is not exempt. To be honest this seems like one of the less painful money saving proposals out there.

(and anyone that thought a new government was going to magic away the facts was living in sone parallel universe)

Education is being used as a scape goat and had already been hit hard 3 times. Less painful? Making 1200 people unemployed? And don't believe they are increasing it by 1 pupil. Classes will be increased by at least 3 or 4 pupils with all support taken away from their last slash and burn. They are complaining about literacy levels in this country. Give it ten years and all the kids will be walking around like zombies

E.T.

steve9859 wrote: »

We have to save money across every sector and education is not exempt. To be honest this seems like one of the less painful money saving proposals out there.

Less painful how? Just to clarify it - an increase of 1 pupil in the ratio could mean a school loses a teacher next year. That means that the same number of pupils, less one, are now split between the remaining teachers/classes, not just that there's one extra pupil for each teacher.

The ratio has already been fiddled by including all teachers in any school, not just class teachers. The government includes these non-classroom teachers in the statistics to give a much lower, misleading ratio. We already have the situation where many teachers have numbers in the mid and high thirties in their classes (many already split-class situations).

ShamoBuc

E.T. wrote: »

Less painful how? Just to clarify it - an increase of 1 pupil in the ratio could mean a school loses a teacher next year. That means that the same number of pupils, less one, are now split between the remaining teachers/classes, not just that there's one extra pupil for each teacher.

The ratio has already been fiddled by including all teachers in any school, not just class teachers. The government includes these non-classroom teachers in the statistics to give a much lower, misleading ratio. We already have the situation where many teachers have numbers in the mid and high thirties in their classes (many already split-class situations).

Correct!!

Isn't it amazing the number of people who comment on something despite not knowing anything about it:rolleyes:

Trotter

Someone correct me if Im wrong, but..

Lets say theres a primary school with 8 class teachers, one at each level. 28 in each class = 224 children in total.

If the pupil teacher ratio goes to say 29 to 1, that means that the school needs 232 to hold the 8 teachers. Am I right?

They don't have that number, so they lose the last teacher in. That means 224 children now have to be taught by 7 teachers, averaging out at 32 a class with some split, not the "just one extra" Ive heard in the response to the media all day.

Am I correct?

E.T.

More amazing that they got a rake of them on Vincent Browne tonight to talk publicly about something they know nothing about! I'm bringing my car to the mechanic next week, does that mean I get to go on a show about car maintenance?

E.T.

That's it Trotter. And another big fact that nobody comments on is that a new teacher is appointed on the number of pupils in the school at the end of September. So in your hypothetical school, even if an extra 8 kids enrolled on the 1st October and were staying for good, the school wouldn't get the new teacher for 2 years.

An Bradán Feasa

Trotter wrote: »

Someone correct me if Im wrong, but..

Lets say theres a primary school with 8 class teachers, one at each level. 28 in each class = 224 children in total.

If the pupil teacher ratio goes to say 29 to 1, that means that the school needs 232 to hold the 8 teachers. Am I right?

They don't have that number, so they lose the last teacher in. That means 224 children now have to be taught by 7 teachers, averaging out at 32 a class with some split, not the "just one extra" Ive heard in the response to the media all day.

Am I correct?

In that case, the reality would not be 32 in each class. You have to take into account the age and class level of each child.

A very frightening consequence of this would be for 1 of the remaining 7 class teachers to teach 2 class levels. 28 + 28 = 56 children in a classroom with one teacher.

A less drastic measure would be to split one class between the two class levels on either side of it. 28 + 14 = 42 children in two separate classes.

Neither option is ideal. But this is the consequence of increasing the pupil-teacher ratio by just one pupil. There are a lot of people out there who think it means one extra pupil per class. Far from it!

winterlight

The School Principal is also counted as one of these 'class teachers', as are the Resource Teachers.

The government are really misleading people with their wording.

I'm amazed at the amount of media commentators who think it just means one extra child in each class...maybe those people need to go back to school and learn how to do 'sums'!

Orion

That's exactly right trotter. It's the 'average class size' that's increased. We've currently the second highest class size in Europe in primary education and we're going to increase the already high ratio!

E.T. wrote: »

And another big fact that nobody comments on is that a new teacher is appointed on the number of pupils in the school at the end of September. So in your hypothetical school, even if an extra 8 kids enrolled on the 1st October and were staying for good, the school wouldn't get the new teacher for 2 years.

That's not right. The school would get the teacher(s) required the following September. I don't know where you're getting this 2 year thing from.

The issue with the 30/9 cutoff is that a teacher may have been hired at the start of the school year but at the end of the month the numbers mean that he/she has to go. And without notice too - if a school is short 1 pupil the last hired teacher is out of a job on 1/10.

An Bradán Feasa

Orion wrote: »

That's not right. The school would get the teacher(s) required the following September. I don't know where you're getting this 2 year thing from.

It actually is right. 30th September is the cut-off date for determining the staffing schedule for the year after. If a number of children enrolled on 1st October and stayed for good, their numbers would be counted on 30th September the following year, which would determine teacher numbers for the year after. So E.T. was correct when he/she stated that it would take nearly 2 years for these extra children to make an impact on the number of teachers employed in the school.

That said, if they enrolled a day earlier, their impact would be seen the following year.

Orion wrote: »

The issue with the 30/9 cutoff is that a teacher may have been hired at the start of the school year but at the end of the month the numbers mean that he/she has to go. And without notice too - if a school is short 1 pupil the last hired teacher is out of a job on 1/10.

This is not true. See above.

E.T.

Orion wrote: »

That's not right. The school would get the teacher(s) required the following September. I don't know where you're getting this 2 year thing from.

My facts are absolutely right, we've been in this situation in my own school where we were 1 pupil short on the 30 September but got new pupils in October. We didn't get the new teacher the next September, we had to wait another year and carry huge class sizes for that time.

Orion wrote: »

The issue with the 30/9 cutoff is that a teacher may have been hired at the start of the school year but at the end of the month the numbers mean that he/she has to go. And without notice too - if a school is short 1 pupil the last hired teacher is out of a job on 1/10.

As An Bradan Feasa has pointed out, this isn't true either, the teacher doesn't leave the school til the end of the school year.

Orion

My mistake. I was basing my comment on our school which is a developing school. Different rules apply.

E.T.

It would make way more sense if all schools got the new teacher the next year. It's a ridiculous situation.

TeachMealog

Class size i would rather it be increased and teachers have to do a bit more work, rather than closing medical facilities.

I think there was 35 in my class in primary school (maybe that explains something)

Long Term Louth

There were also 35 students in my class at school, I know for sure that four are dead, all alcohol related and recall each one and a number of others having learning difficulties, all were left behind mainly due to class size.

Very few if any attended third level, therefore increasing class sizes will not encourage teachers to work harder but will instead have a negative impact on those attending, those who bear no responsibility for the condition the education system is descending into.

mat cauthon

And who will educate future staff for these medical facilities? If the kids are in classes of 40 plus?
Sure we had them in primary school but we had no different. We used to live up trees and in caves once upon a time... want to go back there?
Bit foolish?
This is the result of the country going into recievership, and the savage prolonged attack on public services - cheered on by the private - who want the same service for less money.
So long as it doesnt affect them.

timmydel1

My 9 year old came home from first day back at school to tell us there were now 37 in his class ! What great attention each will get from the poor bedraggled teacher this year ! Parents will have to get grinds for 8/9 year olds in future so as to help their child keep up.
Is their any hope for the future of this country. Please tell me where I can sign up for the revolution , there must be something we can do.I feel we are all helpless and just bending over to take all this up the A**.:mad:

Toto Wolfcastle

How is it even allowed that there are 37 in his class? That's just so wrong.

Trotter

Teachers have been warning about this for a long time. The way the stats are produced gives a ratio of all teachers (including non class teachers) to children produces a nice ratio closer to 26 or 27 but if you exclude the support teachers from the pupil teacher ratio, the ratio becomes a likely bit more accurate.. ie 30-1 +.

sylwunia

Hi All my daughter is due to start school this September and I have a choice between two schools: one established few years ago and the other one just getting the first Junior Infants. I spoke to few people and they advised to send her to the new one as fir sure there would be smaller number of students in the class. Someone mentioned here that different rules apply to developing schools-does it mean that if she starts in class of 18 she will finish with more less the same number of students Will it mean that the following years would have to accommodate more students to meet the teacher -student ratio? I don't like the idea of sending my child to prefabs for several years before the new school is built but the smaller size class is tempting. ..

purplecow1977

Trotter wrote: »

Someone correct me if Im wrong, but..

Lets say theres a primary school with 8 class teachers, one at each level. 28 in each class = 224 children in total.

If the pupil teacher ratio goes to say 29 to 1, that means that the school needs 232 to hold the 8 teachers. Am I right?

They don't have that number, so they lose the last teacher in. That means 224 children now have to be taught by 7 teachers, averaging out at 32 a class with some split, not the "just one extra" Ive heard in the response to the media all day.

Am I correct?

You are correct.

The PTR is rarely adhered to because other classes have less than 28.

for example, if a class has 27 pupils, another class will need 29, to balance the 'ratio' of 28.

Also means if a class has 25, another 3 pupils need to be picked up somewhere along the line.

I'm teaching a fair few years now and the lowest I had in my class was 26 pupils. The last 3 years I've had 30, 32 and 31! I think the ideal would be about 22 pupils in a class as it would give far more benefits, but of course that would mean more teachers required to deal with the numbers which means more salaries, so the government don't want to do that.

Although if you think about it - more teachers = more salaries = more tax = more spending = more mortgages etc etc.

katydid

purplecow1977 wrote: »

The last three years I've had 30, 32 and 31! I think the ideal would be about 22 pupils in a class as it would give far more benefits, but of course that would mean more teachers required to deal with the numbers which means more salaries, so the government don't want to do that.

Although if you think about it - more teachers = more salaries = more tax = more spending = more mortgages etc etc.

Well, if teachers insist on teaching classes over the PTR, that's not going to happen, is it??? The only way the government will listen is if teachers stand up to them.

purplecow1977

katydid wrote: »

Well, if teachers insist on teaching classes over the PTR, that's not going to happen, is it??? The only way the government will listen is if teachers stand up to them.

Haha so if I arrive in on September 1st, with my class list, and there's 31 on it - what do you suggest I do???? :rolleyes:

katydid

purplecow1977 wrote: »

Haha so if I arrive in on September 1st, with my class list, and there's 31 on it - what do you suggest I do???? :rolleyes:

There is no INTO directive. You and your colleagues should push for one, and then stick to it.

purplecow1977

katydid wrote: »

You refuse to teach them. You, and every other teacher who is asked to teach over the PTR. Your union will support you.

Numbers are needed to retain teachers overall.
I refuse to teach a class, you can be damn sure there's something in my contract which would allow me to be 'let go' as someone else would be more than willing to teacher 29 or 30 children.
Those numbers are NEEDED to make up for the shortfall in other classes sub 28 children. If every class was guaranteed to have 28, it would be different.

You're not thinking rationally. Refusing to teach a class like that is impossible. There would be no support, least of all from the union either.

katydid

purplecow1977 wrote: »

Numbers are needed to retain teachers overall.
I refuse to teach a class, you can be damn sure there's something in my contract which would allow me to be 'let go' as someone else would be more than willing to teacher 29 or 30 children.
Those numbers are NEEDED to make up for the shortfall in other classes sub 28 children. If every class was guaranteed to have 28, it would be different.

You're not thinking rationally. Refusing to teach a class like that is impossible. There would be no support, least of all from the union either.

Sorry, I actually changed my post there - had a rethink. I don't mean refuse now, but go through the union and push them to issue a directive. THEN you have union backing.

purplecow1977

katydid wrote: »

Sorry, I actually changed my post there - had a rethink. I don't mean refuse now, but go through the union and push them to issue a directive. THEN you have union backing.

They will not issue a directive, because of what i've outlined above. In my school, several classes are above 28, several classes below, some as low as 22/23. Taht means those 5 children have to be made up elsewhere!

The union talk about lobbying the government regarding class size, and I imagine will do again in September/October, but that's all. There'll be no directives. Directives aren't always adhered to anyway (Jobridge anyone?!)

katydid

purplecow1977 wrote: »

They will not issue a directive, because of what i've outlined above. In my school, several classes are above 28, several classes below, some as low as 22/23. Taht means those 5 children have to be made up elsewhere!

The union talk about lobbying the government regarding class size, and I imagine will do again in September/October, but that's all. There'll be no directives. Directives aren't always adhered to anyway (Jobridge anyone?!)

The union is you and your colleagues. If you want a directive, you can push for one. Otherwise, no point in complaining about large class sizes, if you just roll over and play the game.

purplecow1977

katydid wrote: »

The union is you and your colleagues. If you want a directive, you can push for one. Otherwise, no point in complaining about large class sizes, if you just roll over and play the game.

I am one person in a union of what, 50,000 members?

We cannot refuse to teach a class. We just can't. It is not an option.

Directives aren't always adhered to, as I've stated, so even if one WAS issued - who is really going to benefit? Would parents be happy with Ms. Purple Cow if she refuses to teach because there are 29 children in her class?! I doubt it! Have to pick your battles. Remember INTO were one of the few unions who recommended an acceptance of LRA so....... we, yes we, as a union, don't have much of a backbone!

katydid

purplecow1977 wrote: »

I am one person in a union of what, 50,000 members?

We cannot refuse to teach a class. We just can't. It is not an option.

Directives aren't always adhered to, as I've stated, so even if one WAS issued - who is really going to benefit? Would parents be happy with Ms. Purple Cow if she refuses to teach because there are 29 children in her class?! I doubt it! Have to pick your battles. Remember INTO were one of the few unions who recommended an acceptance of LRA so....... we, yes we, as a union, don't have much of a backbone!

Go to union meetings. Bring it up. Get your union rep to bring it further. Make a motion for congress...

You can refuse to teach a class if your union has a directive that says you shouldn't take a class larger than the recommended class size. If Ms. Purple Cow and Mr. Yellow Elephant and Mrs. Red Monkey, and animals of all colours all over Ireland refuse, it will have an effect. arents may not realise that you are doing what you are doing for the long term benefit of Irish children.

If directives aren't adhered to, the individuals should be disciplined by the union.

purplecow1977

katydid wrote: »

Go to union meetings. Bring it up. Get your union rep to bring it further. Make a motion for congress...

You can refuse to teach a class if your union has a directive that says you shouldn't take a class larger than the recommended class size. If Ms. Purple Cow and Mr. Yellow Elephant and Mrs. Red Monkey, and animals of all colours all over Ireland refuse, it will have an effect. arents may not realise that you are doing what you are doing for the long term benefit of Irish children.

If directives aren't adhered to, the individuals should be disciplined by the union.

I do go to meetings. I'm staff rep actually. Motions for Congress aren't always prioritised either - see NQT equalisation.

If Ms. Purple Cow decides not to teach a class, others will step in.
Teachers do not want to create a fuss.
It's not that simple.

katydid

purplecow1977 wrote: »

I do go to meetings. I'm staff rep actually. Motions for Congress aren't always prioritised either - see NQT equalisation.

If Ms. Purple Cow decides not to teach a class, others will step in.
Teachers do not want to create a fuss.
It's not that simple.

I do know who unions work...as do you, clearly. You have to keep plugging away, persuading people of the value of your case. Or just sit back and accept.

Actually some teachers DO want to create a fuss, and are not prepared to sit back and take everything dished out to them. They do so not for their own sake, but in the interest of their students and future students.

If you get a union directive, and you follow it, and another teacher steps in the breach, they are scabs. And should be, as I said, disciplined by their union.

You have a strange attitude for a union rep, I have to say.

purplecow1977

katydid wrote: »

I do know who unions work...as do you, clearly. You have to keep plugging away, persuading people of the value of your case. Or just sit back and accept.

Actually some teachers DO want to create a fuss, and are not prepared to sit back and take everything dished out to them. They do so not for their own sake, but in the interest of their students and future students.

If you get a union directive, and you follow it, and another teacher steps in the breach, they are scabs. And should be, as I said, disciplined by their union.

You have a strange attitude for a union rep, I have to say.

Teachers do not want to fight.

You saw how 1) INTO were so quick to recommend a YES vote for the LRA and secondly 2) How the members accepted it

I also work with people who believe that strikes are 'so so wrong'.

I'm a fairly active member at my local meetings, I stay informed & inform all my staff frequently.

It's not enough to change the world, but I take your point and in an ideal world, it might work. Campaigning and lobbying in September again will have to be the way it goes for now.

katydid

purplecow1977 wrote: »

Teachers do not want to fight.

You saw how 1) INTO were so quick to recommend a YES vote for the LRA and secondly 2) How the members accepted it

I also work with people who believe that strikes are 'so so wrong'.

I'm a fairly active member at my local meetings, I stay informed & inform all my staff frequently.

It's not enough to change the world, but I take your point and in an ideal world, it might work. Campaigning and lobbying in September again will have to be the way it goes for now.

No, teachers don't want to fight. But sometimes they have to fight to make things better.

It sounds like your members are not really interested in improving things, just in not rocking the boat.

purplecow1977

katydid wrote: »

No, teachers don't want to fight. But sometimes they have to fight to make things better.

It sounds like your members are not really interested in improving things, just in not rocking the boat.

Yes, were you not aware of that?! Sad but true

katydid

purplecow1977 wrote: »

Yes, were you not aware of that?! Sad but true

Oh, I am indeed aware of it. The INTO are particularly non-confrontational. It doesn't mean that those of you who have some cojones shouldn't try. Why else are you school rep?

purplecow1977

katydid wrote: »

Oh, I am indeed aware of it. The INTO are particularly non-confrontational. It doesn't mean that those of you who have some cojones shouldn't try. Why else are you school rep?

Why? Because nobody else wants to do it, nobody else goes to meetings (ever) and I happen to have an interest in it.

katydid

purplecow1977 wrote: »

Why? Because nobody else wants to do it, nobody else goes to meetings (ever) and I happen to have an interest in it.

I know about the pathetic attendances. Same in my place. But you have to keep plugging away.

Robsweezie

Good to hear. I was put back a year when I was supposed to be entering third class in a new school due to overcrowding, so I ended up in second class and as a result was a always a year behind what I was technically meant to be. I finished school at a slightly older age, I did TY(optional in some schools) which meant even later. For example finishing the leaving cert when I would've been finishing my first year college exams if I hadn't of been put back in primary . But I'm not complaining, it didn't affect me in any negative way.

purplecow1977

That's interesting. I've known classes of 35/36! I wonder what was classed as 'overcrowding' in your particular sense as i've never heard of that happening!

Robsweezie

purplecow1977 wrote:

That's interesting. I've known classes of 35/36! I wonder what was classed as 'overcrowding' in your particular sense as i've never heard of that happening!

I don't know, maybe they had their student quota rigidly filled out, then I came along and they weren't allowed squeeze me in??? I haven't a clue. Is there a law enforcing the limit on class sizes?

purplecow1977

No law, no ceiling on the amount that can be in a class! That's why I find it strange! My friend taught 36 Junior infants one year!!

byhookorbycrook

I taught 42 junior infants in 1990.

purplecow1977

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

I taught 42 junior infants in 1990.

Thankfully those days are gone!

Out of interest, do you feel the class size made a difference?

I mean, with 42 children in a class, surely there's less time & attention given to those struggling? At least, I find that the case in my class of 30 (not Junior Infants) and many lessons are aimed towards 'the middle' as there's simply not enough time each day to focus on those struggling. I hate to admit that, but it's true. I just wonder then with class sizes so much bigger in the past, if adequate time and support COULD be given to weaker children, or if it is our 'new' curriculum that provides such a challenge?

pooch90

I was a pupil in a 6th class of 41 in 97.
Those below the middle definitely got left by the way-side.
There was simply no time to differentiate in a class with behaviour/socio-economic issues etc added in. It could be no more than crowd control and teach to the middle.

In September, I will have 30 Senior Infants, a few of which have major behavioural issues but those of course are still waiting on assessment and then it will be a further wait until any resources or guidance on how to deal with those issues is presented.

I think the introduction of the new curriculum was a good idea in theory. Presenting teachers with new methodologies etc could only make their teaching more inclusive. However, there is just too much to be covered that it can become an exercise in box ticking, cutting the time that you can really work with those struggling/push on those more capable. Add in external teachers for drama, days for swimming (which means a full 1/2 day gone from teaching when you are a rural school), external drama, Christmas plays, religious sacraments etc. It's just too much.

katydid

pooch90 wrote: »

I was a pupil in a 6th class of 41 in 97.
Those below the middle definitely got left by the way-side.
There was simply no time to differentiate in a class with behaviour/socio-economic issues etc added in. It could be no more than crowd control and teach to the middle.

In September, I will have 30 Senior Infants, a few of which have major behavioural issues but those of course are still waiting on assessment and then it will be a further wait until any resources or guidance on how to deal with those issues is presented.

I think the introduction of the new curriculum was a good idea in theory. Presenting teachers with new methodologies etc could only make their teaching more inclusive. However, there is just too much to be covered that it can become an exercise in box ticking, cutting the time that you can really work with those struggling/push on those more capable. Add in external teachers for drama, days for swimming (which means a full 1/2 day gone from teaching when you are a rural school), external drama, Christmas plays, religious sacraments etc. It's just too much.

So why are the INTO just taking it lying down?

byhookorbycrook

purplecow1977 wrote: »

Thankfully those days are gone!

Out of interest, do you feel the class size made a difference?

I mean, with 42 children in a class, surely there's less time & attention given to those struggling? At least, I find that the case in my class of 30 (not Junior Infants) and many lessons are aimed towards 'the middle' as there's simply not enough time each day to focus on those struggling. I hate to admit that, but it's true. I just wonder then with class sizes so much bigger in the past, if adequate time and support COULD be given to weaker children, or if it is our 'new' curriculum that provides such a challenge?

There was no question of taking individual differences into account, it was teach to the middle and hope others might get something. In hindsight there were at least 3 children with significant behavioural needs (and not because the NQT couldn't manage) To be honest, I wonder how much the children really learned. To even listen to each child read for a minute took the best part of an hour, before I ever tried to teach them.

The revised curriculum is great, if we had the class sizes, resources and time to actually teach all of it.