Teachers to oppose Quinn's education reforms

thebman

#15 wrote: »

- Class sizes: if Ireland is to continue with relatively high class sizes, then it needs to modify the curriculum to reflect that. Currently it operates with a curriculum designed for small classes. And the results are predictable (falling test scores, etc.). It is possible to operate with higher class sizes if the curriculum and methodologies are adpated to suit. Japan is a good example of a country which has done this. Reducing class size is probably the most expensive and least effective ways of improving student performance. So adapting the curriculum and methodology is a good alternative. The current curriculum is unaligned with class sizes and appropriate methods of instruction. It's not a major surprise that the first cohort of the 1999 curriculum are the ones to score poorly in PISA's literacy and numeracy tests. Not the science scores - they recieve little publicity, but they were above average.

Irish unions have been lobbing the exact opposite point of view that class sizes are all that matters while claiming they only have the childrens best interests at heart...

dashboard_hula

The subject of the LC and continuous assessment aside (two words I can never, ever spell correctly first time), what possible reason could the ASTI have for opposing surprise inspections?
I'll rephrase that - what reason could the ASTI have for opposing unannounced inspections in such a manner that doesn't have them coming across as terrified that an inspection might actually find some areas for improvement?

jimmycrackcorm

The teaching unions should be charged with the responsibility to improve our education levels or face pay cuts. They are worth what they get paid if they can deliver results that match that pay.

But that itself is only one issue. From my own memory, individual underperforming teachers are a problem that is often addressed in the private sector but not with teachers that never get fired.

I wonder what would happen if we applied the universal health insurance idea to education, e.g. Give every parent an allowance to use to pay to a school instead of direct school payments.

Matt Holck

dashboard_hula wrote: »

The subject of the LC and continuous assessment aside (two words I can never, ever spell correctly first time), what possible reason could the ASTI have for opposing surprise inspections?
I'll rephrase that - what reason could the ASTI have for opposing unannounced inspections in such a manner that doesn't have them coming across as terrified that an inspection might actually find some areas for improvement?

why do the inspector need anonymity to do their work

Godge

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is the obvious end-game in the mind of the teacher unions. Given that the current pay agreement does not allow for pay increases, they will food-drag and procrastinate and delay the negotiations until there is a possibility of securing extra money.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

#15

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So again, yet another post repeating information already posted and discussed multiple times, and without a single mention of any kind of reform.

You were right in that feedback thread - it is frustrating trying to make an effort at discussing things in good faith, when such effort is not forthcoming from others.:rolleyes:

Igiveup.com

Irish teachers enjoy some of the shortest working hours ....in the OECD

:rolleyes:

This is not true. It's the opposite. They have more hours than most other OECD countries.

Godge

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

#15 wrote: »

So again, yet another post repeating information already posted and discussed multiple times, and without a single mention of any kind of reform.

You were right in that feedback thread - it is frustrating trying to make an effort at discussing things in good faith, when such effort is not forthcoming from others.:rolleyes:

Igiveup.com

From what I could read, Permabear takes some information, some factual information and draws some logical conclusions from that information that teachers are under-prepared and over-pampered. You then accuse him of taking pot-shots at teachers. However, what I don't understand is whether you are challenging the factual information or the conclusions drawn.

While you have made some good points earlier in the thread about the Finnish example (and the Finns are not the only decent education system in the world) and also about a mismatch between curriculum and class size, it is still not clear whether you agree with the basic information about qualifications, working hours, rates of pay and findings of inspections. If you do agree with those conclusions, common ground might be found as to the best way of moving forward with reform. I mean if the findings of the inspections are true, they are true, or are they misinterpreted? Are the findings with respect to working hours and pay true or not?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

#15

Ok Godge, let me clarify. FWIW, I usually find your education-related posts interesting, even if I don't always agree.

Godge wrote: »

From what I could read, Permabear takes some information, some factual information and draws some logical conclusions from that information that teachers are under-prepared and over-pampered. You then accuse him of taking pot-shots at teachers. However, what I don't understand is whether you are challenging the factual information or the conclusions drawn.

No, not challenging the factual information at all.

The problem is not even wholly with the conclusions. It's a longer running issue with cherrypicking statistics and using the information in misleading ways.

Sorry if it's not completely apparent from the evidence of this thread alone.

There is a flip side to every point made.

Irish teachers are amongst the most highly paid - true. The flipside is that they work longer and teach more children than almost every other country. This is never taken into consideration or is just ignored when pointed out.
There's also the 'out-of-context' statistic that is repeatedly posted (hasn't made an appearance on this thread yet though). Apparently, 80% of the education budget is spent on salaries. This is posted as if it is evidence of the corrupt nature of the education system in Ireland. A quick look at the OECD report reveals that all but 3 countries spend between 70% and 80% on salary. That is the nature of education budgets in general.
Even then, govt estimates for this year puts the expenditure on pay and pensions at 66%. But still, pre-recession salaries are quoted constantly in these debates.

People also ignore the OECD statistics on investment in education. Ireland, during the last ten years, has underfunded its education system in general. Going by GDP - it is underfunded.
Going by GNP - it is funded at the OECD average.
Apparently, it is fine to fund the system at average levels, but there is outrage and moralising all around when education performance and outcomes are also average. That is somewhat hypocritical IMO.

The findings of the inspectorate - 14% of the lessons given by a relatively small number of teachers being inspected were unsatisfactory, not 14% of all lessons given by every teacher. x% of teachers didn't have enough paperwork for the inspectors either. Yet these specific findings are used to generalise all teachers as being underprepared. Going from the specific to the general is highly questionable. It hardly contributes to a balanced discussion. More like mud slinging - I've got some dirt on a few teachers, I'm gonna throw it at all of them
Yet the 86% of lessons that were satisfactory are apparently not worth talking about.

PISA - Some fairly abusive work going on here. PISA is consistently portrayed as evidence that Ireland has a disastrous education system. Literacy and numeracy results are used as a tool to hammer teachers. The only conclusion that seems to be drawn is that the teaching quality is substandard. Frankly, that is laughably simplistic for anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge about educational processes.
Is teaching quality the cause? Quite possibly. But I strongly object to it being presented as the only possible cause.
Literacy in particular is one of the most complex areas in education science and there are lots of contributing factors to student performance, chief among them socio-economic factors. This is routinely ignored or dismissed.
Unaligned curricula is another possible cause.
Statistics Canada and the ERC both produced reports (re: PISA results) which I have previously quoted on boards. Again, ignored or dismissed.
The head of the OECD said that the results were not conclusive evidence of decling standards.
The national assessments (not the LC and JC) of literacy and numeracy have remained stable over the previous decade, which also makes it difficult to conclude anything.
The head of the Finnish education system says that they place no emphasis on the PISA tests.
Note that I am not saying the PISA results are not important or not worth heeding. They are, but there is a balance to be struck and a context to be considered.

There is also the problem with the frequent implication that Ireland is somehow languishing way behind in the international league tables. This is another simplistic presentation designed for a bit of thanks whoring.
The reality is a little different. Ireland is somewhat of a mixed bag.
We are below average in Numeracy, average in Literacy and above average in Science.
Amusingly, PISA's Science results are ignored. If teachers are to be condemned on the basis of below average results, why the intellectual dishonesty in failing to recognise the above average Science results and praise them to the same extent as the numeracy results are criticised?
The results overall put Ireland in the same range as countries like the UK and Germany. It's hardly the crisis that some make out.

I am not denying there are problems, but the hyperbole in these threads is actually obstructing discussion on the actual problems.

While you have made some good points earlier in the thread about the Finnish example (and the Finns are not the only decent education system in the world) and also about a mismatch between curriculum and class size,

I know, Singapore, Japan and Ontario were also mentioned in my earlier post.

it is still not clear whether you agree with the basic information about qualifications, working hours, rates of pay and findings of inspections.

If you do agree with those conclusions, common ground might be found as to the best way of moving forward with reform. I mean if the findings of the inspections are true, they are true, or are they misinterpreted? Are the findings with respect to working hours and pay true or not?

I thought I had covered some of this in my earlier post?
Other elements I have covered a long time ago in other discussions and I find it pointless to keep covering the same ground. I value my sanity too much to engage in those kinds of circular discussions.
Briefly:
- Qualifications: check my earlier post, I advocate rigorous training for all teachers and the idea of any teacher teaching a subject that they don't have at least a degree in, is beyond the pale for me. The way that Permabear throws around the 'unqualified Maths teachers' stats is just a bit ridiculous. Firstly, that is a stick to beat the Dept. with, and not the teaching profession. Secondly, I don't think anyone could justify that situation. It's a point that everyone should agree on.
- Hours: Irish teachers are in the middle of the pack at secondary level, and near the top at primary level (OECD data). One area that could be tightened up is planning time. As well as it being good practice, it would also end the debate about teachers never doing anything outside of the class time. It would actually work to the advantage of teachers to have their planning time officially regulated - they are mostly doing the work anyway (there are always exceptions, obviously) and having it in plain statistics would end much of the pointless cribbing that goes on.
- Inspections: I had the figures a while ago but cannot find them at the moment so you will have to excuse me if I give a comment based on memory. There were a few hundred teachers selected and most teachers taught one or two lessons. There was no breakdown of why the lessons were unsatisfactory, or the class/school/teacher profile. They would be interesting and could tell a lot. The small sample size makes it impossible to apply it to the general though, IMO. On the whole, the inspectorate do a good job and despite what the public think, they provide support to, as much as 'inspection' of, teachers.

nice_guy80

There is more to education than coming out with high results delivered by a private school

paul71

Matt Holck wrote: »

why do the inspector need anonymity to do their work

Is that a trick question? To ensure independance.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

#15

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's either strawmanning or baiting. I'm not sure which is worse. It's like you didn't even read the posts, especially the one where I spoke about the need for improved teacher education and recruitment. But never mind, pretend it didn't exist.
I'll humour you though.

The Irish educational system is not producing graduates of the caliber that companies located here are demanding. Companies such as Google have openly said so. The American Chamber of Commerce has said so. Our own industry leaders have said so.

How do you solve this problem?

PISA 2009 showed that 23 percent of Irish males achieved a literacy score below the level needed to participate effectively in a modern society.
PISA 2009 also showed that only 6.7 percent of Irish students achieve the higher proficiency levels in maths, almost half the 12.7 percent OECD average.

In reading, the percentage of male students scoring below proficiency Level 2 increased by 10 percent between PISA 2000 and PISA 2009. The percentage of all students performing at the highest literacy level halved from 14% in 2000 to 7% in 2009.

Why on earth are you repeating this? We already know the PISA results.

The debate is about the cause of the results, and what can be done to improve performance.

Ireland has one of the highest secondary-level drop-out rates in the world, according to the OECD. A 2005 Department of Education study tracked the progress of 64,000 students who enrolled in 1995 and 1996. It showed that 5 percent of students left school before their Junior Cert and 28 percent of male students left school before sitting the Leaving Cert.

Again, what do you think is the root cause of this?

#15

With regard to drop-out rates, a key point is the coherence of transition programs between school and work.

Finland and Singapore both have systems that allow for the development of occupational skills at the upper secondary level. Japan has a different system - high-quality candidates have opportunities to attend special schools and are able to benefit from training with major firms.

It is a feature of many of the high-performance systems.

The Irish education system has little to appeal to marginalised or even uninterested young men. This is a serious issue, and deserves a bit more consideration than is being given. Teacher quality is one aspect, but not the only one. The raging desire to focus on one single area of reform (i.e. teachers, and to hell with everything else) comes across as completely insincere.

Godge

#15 wrote: »

Ok Godge, let me clarify. FWIW, I usually find your education-related posts interesting, even if I don't always agree.



No, not challenging the factual information at all.

The problem is not even wholly with the conclusions. It's a longer running issue with cherrypicking statistics and using the information in misleading ways.

Sorry if it's not completely apparent from the evidence of this thread alone.

There is a flip side to every point made.

Irish teachers are amongst the most highly paid - true. The flipside is that they work longer and teach more children than almost every other country. This is never taken into consideration or is just ignored when pointed out.
There's also the 'out-of-context' statistic that is repeatedly posted (hasn't made an appearance on this thread yet though). Apparently, 80% of the education budget is spent on salaries. This is posted as if it is evidence of the corrupt nature of the education system in Ireland. A quick look at the OECD report reveals that all but 3 countries spend between 70% and 80% on salary. That is the nature of education budgets in general.
Even then, govt estimates for this year puts the expenditure on pay and pensions at 66%. But still, pre-recession salaries are quoted constantly in these debates.

People also ignore the OECD statistics on investment in education. Ireland, during the last ten years, has underfunded its education system in general. Going by GDP - it is underfunded.
Going by GNP - it is funded at the OECD average.
Apparently, it is fine to fund the system at average levels, but there is outrage and moralising all around when education performance and outcomes are also average. That is somewhat hypocritical IMO.

The findings of the inspectorate - 14% of the lessons given by a relatively small number of teachers being inspected were unsatisfactory, not 14% of all lessons given by every teacher. x% of teachers didn't have enough paperwork for the inspectors either. Yet these specific findings are used to generalise all teachers as being underprepared. Going from the specific to the general is highly questionable. It hardly contributes to a balanced discussion. More like mud slinging - I've got some dirt on a few teachers, I'm gonna throw it at all of them
Yet the 86% of lessons that were satisfactory are apparently not worth talking about.

PISA - Some fairly abusive work going on here. PISA is consistently portrayed as evidence that Ireland has a disastrous education system. Literacy and numeracy results are used as a tool to hammer teachers. The only conclusion that seems to be drawn is that the teaching quality is substandard. Frankly, that is laughably simplistic for anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge about educational processes.
Is teaching quality the cause? Quite possibly. But I strongly object to it being presented as the only possible cause.
Literacy in particular is one of the most complex areas in education science and there are lots of contributing factors to student performance, chief among them socio-economic factors. This is routinely ignored or dismissed.
Unaligned curricula is another possible cause.
Statistics Canada and the ERC both produced reports (re: PISA results) which I have previously quoted on boards. Again, ignored or dismissed.
The head of the OECD said that the results were not conclusive evidence of decling standards.
The national assessments (not the LC and JC) of literacy and numeracy have remained stable over the previous decade, which also makes it difficult to conclude anything.
The head of the Finnish education system says that they place no emphasis on the PISA tests.
Note that I am not saying the PISA results are not important or not worth heeding. They are, but there is a balance to be struck and a context to be considered.

There is also the problem with the frequent implication that Ireland is somehow languishing way behind in the international league tables. This is another simplistic presentation designed for a bit of thanks whoring.
The reality is a little different. Ireland is somewhat of a mixed bag.
We are below average in Numeracy, average in Literacy and above average in Science.
Amusingly, PISA's Science results are ignored. If teachers are to be condemned on the basis of below average results, why the intellectual dishonesty in failing to recognise the above average Science results and praise them to the same extent as the numeracy results are criticised?
The results overall put Ireland in the same range as countries like the UK and Germany. It's hardly the crisis that some make out.

I am not denying there are problems, but the hyperbole in these threads is actually obstructing discussion on the actual problems.




I know, Singapore, Japan and Ontario were also mentioned in my earlier post.



I thought I had covered some of this in my earlier post?
Other elements I have covered a long time ago in other discussions and I find it pointless to keep covering the same ground. I value my sanity too much to engage in those kinds of circular discussions.
Briefly:
- Qualifications: check my earlier post, I advocate rigorous training for all teachers and the idea of any teacher teaching a subject that they don't have at least a degree in, is beyond the pale for me. The way that Permabear throws around the 'unqualified Maths teachers' stats is just a bit ridiculous. Firstly, that is a stick to beat the Dept. with, and not the teaching profession. Secondly, I don't think anyone could justify that situation. It's a point that everyone should agree on.
- Hours: Irish teachers are in the middle of the pack at secondary level, and near the top at primary level (OECD data). One area that could be tightened up is planning time. As well as it being good practice, it would also end the debate about teachers never doing anything outside of the class time. It would actually work to the advantage of teachers to have their planning time officially regulated - they are mostly doing the work anyway (there are always exceptions, obviously) and having it in plain statistics would end much of the pointless cribbing that goes on.
- Inspections: I had the figures a while ago but cannot find them at the moment so you will have to excuse me if I give a comment based on memory. There were a few hundred teachers selected and most teachers taught one or two lessons. There was no breakdown of why the lessons were unsatisfactory, or the class/school/teacher profile. They would be interesting and could tell a lot. The small sample size makes it impossible to apply it to the general though, IMO. On the whole, the inspectorate do a good job and despite what the public think, they provide support to, as much as 'inspection' of, teachers.

Thanks for that. A lot there to think about. I have a long-standing interest in education policy even though I am not trained as a teacher. My current work brings me in contact with the public sector and also the education sector (mostly third level) which keeps up the anecdotal knowledge and the reading of reports also helps.

Your point on planning strikes a chord with me. In another thread on boards, I have said that the problem with teaching may not be in the number of hours taught but with the lack of accountability and supervision of preparation time. Bigger schools with joint planning may help solve this issue.

I also agree with you with regard to investment in education. We are at the low end of investment. But that may not be the full story as we have the highest rate of child benefit and also the back to school allowance. Direct provision to parents in the form of child benefit and back to education allowance should be ended and the money put into non-pay parts of school - free school books, better computers etc.

As for pay, to me, teachers are now paid correctly at the bottom following the latest pay cuts but remain overpaid at the top of the 25-year scale. They are one of the only groups left in the public sector who get automatic increments. Everyone else has to have a performance assessment. Even though few get refused, it provides an opportunity for managerial feedback on a twice or thrice yearly basis.

You are right that the literacy question is complicated. One thing you don't cover is the amount of time spent on Irish, and in particular, religion, at primary level. I know the amount of preparation involved in children for communion and confirmation and it seems to dominate to an inordinate extent. I would be in favour of moving religious instruction outside of the current class time.

On maths, the fact is there are not enough maths graduates prepared to do a H.Dip. I saw someone on another thread mention the possibility of conversion of engineering graduates as a possibility and that intrigues me as they would understand the practical aspects of maths and with the right training could bring that through to students.

One final thing that applies to second level is the current focus on the CAO points system. I am not sure that the points system is the problem. The first year experience at third level needs improvement. The use of teachers to set and correct the Leaving Cert, as well as the wide availability of complicated marking schemes has led in my opinion to teachers being able to teach to the exam. Take the Leaving Cert away from teachers and they will have to teach to the curriculum (would be fiercely resisted because of the exam payments). Also requiring English and Maths to be two of the six subjects counting for points will help focus on maths and literacy.

Again, thanks for the post and the time you took to respond. Plenty to ponder even if I don't agree.

Godge

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There is more to the above problems than teachers (or lecturers).

If you ask me, there is a strange dichotomy at work in the higher education sector. The Institutes of Technology are better at working with the multi-nationals and responding to their demands (and also to SMEs through innovations like incubation centres etc.) However, the calibre of students they attract is less than those who go to university (just look at the points from the CAO) so the graduates they produce reflect that.

If universities could train like IoTs (rather than over-producing Arts graduates) or IoTs could attract students as good as go to universities, we would solve a lot of the problems identified by the likes of Google.

Also, from my experience, a lot of that is people shooting off, and doesn't always reflect what the recruiters are saying (or more importantly doing). Finally, you also have to ask the question how well the multinationals are reaching out themselves to the third-level institutions?

Mike 1972

Dirk Gently wrote: »

I'm all in favour of continuous assessment over learning exam papers of by heart for one big bottle neck exam but how is it proposed to be implemented?

Im actually pretty wary of the whole notion of continuous assessment I think it would create a lot more problems than it would solve. Look at the UK experience with GCSE coursework.

As an alternative I would favour giving those who felt they had done badly on the day the opportunity to repeat their exam(s) around December/January time rather than having to wait a whole year to do so.

Godge

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Im actually pretty wary of the whole notion of continuous assessment I think it would create a lot more problems than it would solve. Look at the UK experience with GCSE coursework.

As an alternative I would favour giving those who felt they had done badly on the day the opportunity to repeat their exam(s) around December/January time rather than having to wait a whole year to do so.

I share your wariness. Quality control would be one factor.

A second issue would be the pressure on teachers in fee-paying schools. Can you imagine a parent saying "What do you mean my Johnny only deserves a D. What am I paying all this money to you lot for?"

At the same time, the Leaving Cert in its current form needs change.

#15

Godge wrote: »

You are right that the literacy question is complicated. One thing you don't cover is the amount of time spent on Irish, and in particular, religion, at primary level. I know the amount of preparation involved in children for communion and confirmation and it seems to dominate to an inordinate extent. I would be in favour of moving religious instruction outside of the current class time.

You are preaching to the converted on that front. I forgot to include that point, but it's such a no-brainer that I don't see how there can be much debate on it at all - I know others think otherwise though. Religious instruction should have no place in the regular school day, and the time allocated to Irish needs to be reduced fairly significantly in my view. Both topics are worthy of seperate threads!
On that note, I'm out of this thread!

edanto

digme wrote: »

Less rote learning and more critical thinking.

One way of doing that is to support this idea: http://www.bridge21.ie/

byhookorbycrook

goose2005 wrote: »

We need to fire bad teachers. It's simply astounding that there exists a job where you cannot be fired for bad performance.

Bad teachers do get fired.Not enough perhaps, but yes they CAN be fired.

bamboozle

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

+1

bamboozle

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Bad teachers do get fired.Not enough perhaps, but yes they CAN be fired.

well i did hear about a kerry footballer who was fired...after many complaints.

Amtmann

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm a professional writer of technical information and I fully concur with this. It's astonishing that so few Irish people can write cogently. Many of my friends are qualified primary teachers trying to get positions somewhere. In my *professional* opinion, not one of them can write to an acceptable standard. Frankly, it surprises me that they were awarded a primary degree, let alone admission to teacher training courses.

I don't like writing this because they are my friends. But when I recently read, rewrote and restructured their CVs, and helped them to write their application forms, a sickening feeling grew in the pit of stomach. It told me that these people are fundamentally incompetent as teachers. Unfortunately, they're also par for the course. And so the blind will continue to lead the blind in Irish classrooms.

I'd like to know why such people are being admitted to teacher training colleges. I really cannot emphasize enough that the ability to write well is now exceedingly uncommon. Perhaps that's the reason: the admissions staff in Saint Pat's and Mary I know that unless they admit sub-par applicants, their institutions will be quite empty.