Teachers and their summer holidays

Tom Dunne

sup_dude wrote: »

I think teachers should be paid on performance. I don't think it's fair that a successful teacher who cares about the kids education and makes the effort for the kids to learn is getting the same pay as ones who come in and work just for their pay check. The difference in the standard of the two is amazing. Teachers that care, make a difference... But don't get anymore recognition than those that don't really give a damn.
I know teachers can stop caring after years, which is why the system in the Netherlands is brilliant. They assess the teachers every year, and those who don't want to teach anymore are re-educated for another job. Only teachers that care are teaching and the importance of education is recognised. Due to this, they have a very low drop out rate.

The big issue here is how do you define what is good performance vs. bad performance of a teacher? Kids grades? Ranking of the school in national tables? Those that do extra-curricular activities?

Look across the pond to the UK to see the massive issues with attempting to measure teacher performance.

I personally believe there is a bigger issue in the Public Sector of performance and accountability, and it is within that context that these issues can be managed, but that's a can of worms debate for another day.

Foxtrol

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Where's your evidence of that?

% of students going on to third level. I'd like to use other matrices but I’m pretty sure teachers unions have set their stall out against proper performance ratings for teachers above the bare minimum inspections.

"same length' in school . . .Only they're not the same length in school. I thought I made that clear. They do less hours in the grinds schools as they are closed for a month longer.

Here's a prominent grinds school - School begins 09 September and classes end on 14 May.

http://ioe.ie/6th-year/6th-year-calendar

So they have they’re students performing better with less time. Ok so which do you think is more important to that, shorter years or better teachers (I know there are other influences but out of those two)?

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

So they have they’re students performing better with less time. Ok so which do you think is more important to that, shorter years or better teachers (I know there are other influences but out of those two)?

Its not really fair to compare the performance of a grind school class to that of a normal school as the students are in the grind school for one reason only and that's to preform as well as possible (and their parents are paying for this and you can be sure the student is reminded of this also). This will not be the case in a normal school where you have plenty who don't want to push themselves etc and there is very little a teacher can do if the student hasn't the interest.

Foxtrol

Maren Ashy Sarsaparilla wrote: »

Its not really fair to compare the performance of a grind school class to that of a normal school as the students are in the grind school for one reason only and that's to preform as well as possible (and their parents are paying for this and you can be sure the student is reminded of this also). This will not be the case in a normal school where you have plenty who don't want to push themselves etc and there is very little a teacher can do if the student hasn't the interest.

So if you look at a student’s full day schedule you’re saying as a whole the quality of teacher is the exact same as they’d get in a public school? Why do many, many public school students pay extra to get revision classes with these mostly these grind school teachers on their school holidays?

You’re deluded if you think it’s not far more likely that you’ll have more dud teachers in the public school schedule than you would in the grind school, which is exactly why they’re paid more in the grind.

Jiggers77

Deleted User wrote: »

Why on earth do teachers at both primary and secondary schools get two and three months of summer holidays respectively? And why do they get paid for it? Wouldn't their talents and time, and public money be better spent if they stayed at the schools and helped weaker students who fail exams, etc. Any student who performs poorly in exams, etc. or performs badly in general during the school year should attend summer school to help them progress and the teachers should be there to facilitate this. If no students fail exams couldn't the teachers be sent to Africa as part of Irish educational aid or something similarly productive? It just seems like a huge waste educating these teachers, paying them a salary and then giving them 2/3 months off to do as they please.

A lazy shower the lot of them!

Dostoevsky

sup_dude wrote: »

I think teachers should be paid on performance.

How is 'performance' measured? Because little Deco, who 20 years back would have been termed "mildly mentally handicapped" and is now merely a 'special needs' student, whose parents are both unemployed with drug problems, getting 5 OL Ds in the LC is at least as big an achievement for his teacher as little Max in the fee-charging school whose highly-educated parents can buy him grinds galore throughout hs schooling, getting 7 HL As is for his teacher.

goz83

john.han wrote: »

It's basis was that children were needed for work at home in the summer, Ireland was heavily reliant on small farms. That is no longer the case. That is why it's up for debate and they should be able to justify the length of the holidays, they can't. Would it be beneficial for students and society to give children more time in school? Definitely. That's a reason for cutting them.

But teachers are bound by the holidays given to them. My wife is a second level teacher and while I slag her off for all the holidays she gets, I would never be able to be a teacher and I have LOTS of patience. She spends most of August preparing for the return in late August, so that cuts a third from the holidays effectively, but she is one of few who actually spends so much time preparing for the year to come.

Back to the holidays.....the basis may have been because kids were needed to work during the summer, but the system was never changed, which is why some people are jealous and/or feel hard done by because they don't get those holidays. For those people I would ask "Would you be a teacher?"

Another thing; when teachers get holidays, it is ALWAYS the most expensive time of the year to go away on holidays...including a local holiday in Ireland. Prices shoot up and it's depressing. Teachers can't choose holidays, so it's a bit of a sacrifice on that end.

The real waste of time are these stupid croke park hours they have introduced, where they have talking shops and the time is not used constructively, but they have to be "seen" to be doing something.

If people are having trouble with the pay and holidays, it's easier to just think of all the contract hours worked over a school term being calculated with holiday pay, which is then spread out over 52 weeks, or 12 months. It's kind of like the average joe working a full year, having taken a week here and there (average 1 month holiday over the year) and still getting paid for 12 months. The teacher might get paid more on average for the most part, but they also have no choice over when they can take holidays. Not many industries are bound to holidays this way.

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

So if you look at a student’s full day schedule you’re saying as a whole the quality of teacher is the exact same as they’d get in a public school? Why do many, many public school students pay extra to get revision classes with these mostly these grind school teachers on their school holidays?

The revision classes are a lot to do with students realising they haven't been doing enough and suddenly with the exams getting close they need to get the finger out and go back over stuff. I went to revision classes and it was for this very reason, I didn't work hard enough myself, nothing to do with teachers. Even with working hard its no harm going to revision classes to go back overstuff and increase your chance of doing well in an exam.

I also wouldn't say grind school teachers or revision class teachers are better teachers either in general. They may have gone down that route simply because of the lack of jobs in the public sector. They also don't need a Hdip so it makes sense for someone with a degree who wants to go teaching but doesn't want to go back to college.

Even when I get my PhD I'd still need to go and do a Hdip to teach in the public sector but not in a grind school (if I wanted to go teaching that is).

Foxtrol wrote: »

You’re deluded if you think it’s not far more likely that you’ll have more dud teachers in the public school schedule than you would in the grind school, which is exactly why they’re paid more in the grind.

Grind schools teachers make up such a small minority of teachers therefore of course you re less likely to find a dud one.

Dostoevsky

goz83 wrote: »

The real waste of time are these stupid croke park hours they have introduced, where they have talking shops and the time is not used constructively, but they have to be "seen" to be doing something.

Amen. Couldn't have phrased it better.

Feathers

Peter Flynt wrote: »

The policy now is - Pay teachers less and demand higher standards. Do not contribute in any way to a teacher furthering their own education (e.g. doing a Masters) and yet demand evidence of CPD.

Apart from the couple of grand teachers get for a Master's allowance each year, even if it's unrelated to what they're teaching?

Feathers

Feathers wrote: »

Apart from the couple of grand teachers get for a Master's allowance each year, even if it's unrelated to what they're teaching?

The vast majority would have the higher degree in the area they are teaching and its an incentive to get higher educated people teaching which can only be a good thing.

Not getting that extra few grand a year would put me off going teaching anyway that's for sure.

Mardy Bum

Feathers wrote: »

Apart from the couple of grand teachers get for a Master's allowance each year, even if it's unrelated to what they're teaching?

For all teacher post 2011 that no longer exists.

Peter Flynt

Foxtrol wrote: »

% of students going on to third level. I'd like to use other matrices but I’m pretty sure teachers unions have set their stall out against proper performance ratings for teachers above the bare minimum inspections.

The schools which send the highest percentage of students onto third level are state schools.

So they have they’re students performing better with less time. Ok so which do you think is more important to that, shorter years or better teachers (I know there are other influences but out of those two)?

Now you're admitting that they do less time. . .Fine. Backtracking.

There's so many holes in your argument you run a triton power shower out of it.

Peter Flynt

Feathers wrote: »

Apart from the couple of grand teachers get for a Master's allowance each year, even if it's unrelated to what they're teaching?

New Masters Graduates no longer receive this allowance

Foxtrol

Peter Flynt wrote: »

The schools which send the highest percentage of students onto third level are state schools.

How does that have any bearing on the argument? It's like saying Dublin Bus gives a better quality service than a limo company because it gets a greater number of people to their destination. We're talking about the quality not overall quantity (ie: the percentage of students going to college from a class, not the overall number of students going in total).

Now you're admitting that they do less time. . .Fine. Backtracking.

It doesn't make a difference whether they do the same or less time, they still get better results than the state schools. Correcting me that they get less class facing time actually makes state school teachers look even poorer in comparrsion.

There's so many holes in your argument you run a triton power shower out of it.

Feel free to get that triton shower going as all you’ve done so far is to state statistics that have no bearing on the discussion and correct a point that makes the state school teachers look worse in comparison to grind school counterparts.

tigger123

tigger123 wrote: »

I've worked for Private Sector companies that (amongst other perks) operate a flexi time system and allow you to take a flexi day per month. It's not that unusual.

Agreed. It's not unusual at all. I do sometimes wonder if people who trot out these lines have ever actually had a decent job.

Rightwing

Deleted User wrote: »

Agreed. It's not unusual at all. I do sometimes wonder if people who trot out these lines have ever actually had a decent job.

Well tell me some companies that allow 1 month off per day.

Where companies beat the PS is on benefits like health insurance, life assurance. Certainly not in areas like time off.

Foxtrol

Maren Ashy Sarsaparilla wrote: »

The revision classes are a lot to do with students realising they haven't been doing enough and suddenly with the exams getting close they need to get the finger out and go back over stuff. I went to revision classes and it was for this very reason, I didn't work hard enough myself, nothing to do with teachers. Even with working hard its no harm going to revision classes to go back overstuff and increase your chance of doing well in an exam.

I also wouldn't say grind school teachers or revision class teachers are better teachers either in general. They may have gone down that route simply because of the lack of jobs in the public sector. They also don't need a Hdip so it makes sense for someone with a degree who wants to go teaching but doesn't want to go back to college.

Even when I get my PhD I'd still need to go and do a Hdip to teach in the public sector but not in a grind school (if I wanted to go teaching that is).

Grind schools teachers make up such a small minority of teachers therefore of course you re less likely to find a dud one.

You actually think the grind schools are going out paying higher wages to their teachers in order to attract ones who weren’t able to find a job elsewhere?

Hire worse teachers, that’s how they get the better results… :rolleyes:

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

Feel free to get that triton shower going as all you’ve done so far is to state statistics that have no bearing on the discussion and correct a point that makes the state school teachers look worse in comparison to grind school counterparts.

It's a ludicrous argument. You are comparing apples and oranges - on the one hand a group of highly-motivated students, whose parents are paying for their education, and expecting / demanding a certain set of results. On the other hand everyone else.

To prove the case, you would have to take a random sample of children from a typical sink school, put them into a grind school, and vice versa. Then track results. I have an open mind on that, but as it stands you can make no value judgement.

Interesting research from the US, which was covered in the (not particularly good) book Freakonomics a few years back:
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/CullenJacobLevitt2003.pdf

The conclusion of that paper is that children who applied to good schools but didn't get in fared just as well as those who DID get in. In other words, the key determinant of student achievement was parental support / desire

evolving_doors

defo apples and oranges and pears in this ludicrous state versus fee charging versus
Grind school comparison...

I've worked in all 3 and theres just different pressures from different angles..

This has nothing to do with the summer holidays thread as all three are off for the summer..and the teaching requirements are just as difficult and different for each

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

You actually think the grind schools are going out paying higher wages to their teachers in order to attract ones who weren’t able to find a job elsewhere?

Hire worse teachers, that’s how they get the better results… :rolleyes:

No I didn't say that they are picking people unable to get a job else where but they aren't picking teachers that are particularly better than your average teacher in the private sector either.

For instance I know one person offerd a job teaching maths in a grind schooll, just finished a physics degree, never taught a day in his life and obviously never did a Hdip etc. He declined the job to do a PhD instead.

Are you saying he would necessarily be better than a maths teacher in a public sector school?

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a ludicrous argument. You are comparing apples and oranges - on the one hand a group of highly-motivated students, whose parents are paying for their education, and expecting / demanding a certain set of results. On the other hand everyone else.

To prove the case, you would have to take a random sample of children from a typical sink school, put them into a grind school, and vice versa. Then track results. I have an open mind on that, but as it stands you can make no value judgement.

So you're saying the standard of teaching in Grind Schools plays no part, that Grind Schools go out and lucky dip experienced teachers from State Schools and then charge student’s fees just to have motivated students around them?

Seriously just accept the obvious fact that Grind Schools hire the best teachers they can, and pay a premium for this, which means the overall level of teacher is above State level. This doesn't mean they're aren't good or better teachers in State Schools, just that the overall level is higher as there are less 'duds'. If you honestly believe the level of teaching in Grind Schools and State Schools then we might as well leave it there as you’ve clearly set your stall out for whatever reason.

Interesting research from the US, which was covered in the (not particularly good) book Freakonomics a few years back:
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/CullenJacobLevitt2003.pdf

The conclusion of that paper is that children who applied to good schools but didn't get in fared just as well as those who DID get in. In other words, the key determinant of student achievement was parental support / desire

So by that logic then the quality of teacher doesn't matter. There goes the worry that lowering wages/holidays will mean the loss of good teachers, as the key determinant of student achievement according to that has nothing to do with them. I'm obviously being facetious but I think Freakonomics takes a few liberties in cause and effect, this being one of them.

Foxtrol

Armelodie wrote: »

defo apples and oranges and pears in this ludicrous state versus fee charging versus
Grind school comparison...

I've worked in all 3 and theres just different pressures from different angles..

This has nothing to do with the summer holidays thread as all three are off for the summer..and the teaching requirements are just as difficult and different for each

Well it ties in with the fact they get better results with less time in school is that because they have shorter holidays or because the teaching standards are better? If it's the latter, seeing as getting rid of a poor teacher is pretty near impossible would it make sense to lenghten the school year, have those students who arent performing stay in longer?

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

So by that logic then the quality of teacher doesn't matter. There goes the worry that lowering wages/holidays will mean the loss of good teachers, as the key determinant of student achievement according to that has nothing to do with them. I'm obviously being facetious but I think Freakonomics takes a few liberties in cause and effect, this being one of them.

Well, I certainly agree about Freakonomics.

The conclusion would be that all schools do a decent job of supporting the learning process, but that it is parental involvement that makes the single biggest difference to outcomes. I agree with this.

It isn't longitudinal research, so you can't draw any conclusions about what would happen if teachers in general became worse or less qualified.

I absolutely disagree with your argument that it is obvious that teachers in grind schools are better. They might be better at the specific job they do (getting passes in exams) but even that is debatable.

A much more significant factor (as above) is the self-selecting children in the class. That effect dwarfs contact hours or teaching quality

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, I certainly agree about Freakonomics.

The conclusion would be that all schools do a decent job of supporting the learning process, but that it is parental involvement that makes the single biggest difference to outcomes. I agree with this.

It isn't longitudinal research, so you can't draw any conclusions about what would happen if teachers in general became worse or less qualified.

I absolutely disagree with your argument that it is obvious that teachers in grind schools are better. They might be better at the specific job they do (getting passes in exams) but even that is debatable.

A much more significant factor (as above) is the self-selecting children in the class. That effect dwarfs contact hours or teaching quality

Look given the hiring techniques, premium level pay and student expectations it is obvious that grind schools will have less ‘dud’ teachers than the local CBS/Convent and this is the key as to why the average overall teaching level will be better in a grind school. A dud teacher can bring an honours student down to a pass while an excellent teacher can do the opposite so I think the quality of teacher is very important and it’s why the grind schools and parents of students pay a premium to avoid such 'duds'.

Anyway I’ve allowed myself to be dragged once again off topic, as has been tried so often, by those who can’t actually justify teacher holidays.

Rightwing

So the conclusion is, teachers have it very good both in terms of pay and hours/conditions etc.

Good luck to them.

But as with the rest of the public sector, I can't see it last much longer....not from the want of a strong government, but from economic realities.

evolving_doors

Foxtrol wrote: »

Well it ties in with the fact they get better results with less time in school is that because they have shorter holidays or because the teaching standards are better? If it's the latter, seeing as getting rid of a poor teacher is pretty near impossible would it make sense to lenghten the school year, have those students who arent performing stay in longer?

and there lies the crux of the results driven private sector debate... A student could be busting their nut to get a B and thats just the standard they are at (thats just the way it goes, everyone can't get an A in honours maths). I've heard it loads of times in the "private sector"of education.."....I want you to get my son an A, I'm paying you good money.." Then the parent asks you if the student needs more grinds to get that magical A for medicine...

So would you say this student should be kept on for more of the same, even though they might be achieving quite well by their own standards? For some student, going to school is an achievement.

Foxtrol

Armelodie wrote: »

and there lies the crux of the results driven private sector debate... A student could be busting their nut to get a B and thats just the standard they are at (thats just the way it goes, everyone can't get an A in honours maths). I've heard it loads of times in the "private sector"of education.."....I want you to get my son an A, I'm paying you good money.." Then the parent asks you if the student needs more grinds to get that magical A for medicine...

So would you say this student should be kept on for more of the same, even though they might be achieving quite well by their own standards? For some student, going to school is an achievement.

I'd like teachers to be properly performance rated in a holistic manner, part would obviously include student results, and be rewarded as such.

Have your teacher unions been opposed to such measures of moving to performance rather than time served pay scale?

Peter Flynt

Foxtrol wrote: »

Well it ties in with the fact they get better results with less time in school is that because they have shorter holidays or because the teaching standards are better? If it's the latter, seeing as getting rid of a poor teacher is pretty near impossible would it make sense to lenghten the school year, have those students who arent performing stay in longer?

They don't get better results. I've worked in a very prominent grinds school. What they do is they get students out who do very well with a picture to appear in the media to fool the likes of you. All schools produce students who get exceptional grades.

You've no evidence to back up your claims other than what's going on inside your own head.

At this stage I don't debate with posters who just make stuff up and expect to be taken seriously . . . So G'luck.

Feathers

Maren Ashy Sarsaparilla wrote: »

The vast majority would have the higher degree in the area they are teaching and its an incentive to get higher educated people teaching which can only be a good thing.

Not getting that extra few grand a year would put me off going teaching anyway that's for sure.

In secondary school, yes. In primary school, an MEd is about the only thing that could be relevant.

Glad to hear it's been stopped in those cases, pity about where it was actually bringing benefit though.