Teachers behave like children at their conferences

Chucky the tree

No Pants wrote: »

Is LC Maths not already compulsory?

Meant to put in honours.

No Pants

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Meant to put in honours.

Okay. I'm not sure what the official argument is, but from what I remember of primary school maths, Leaving Cert maths at honours level would be way over the top. Wasted effort?

byhookorbycrook

Ok, seeing as we teach Irish, English, Maths,Drama, Science, History, Geography, Music,Religion,PE Art and SESE should all primary teachers have honours levels in l/cert in all of those?
People, ye are falling into the trap of RQ who has cut education to the bone and still wants more. SPIN to hide it. Look at the new circular on SNAs for starters!

No Pants

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Ok, seeing as we teach Irish, English, Maths,Drama, Science, History, Geography, Music,Religion,PE Art and SESE should all primary teachers have honours levels in l/cert in all of those?

Add in a golf handicap of +4 and able to run a sub 4:20 mile.

Chucky the tree

No Pants wrote: »

Okay. I'm not sure what the official argument is, but from what I remember of primary school maths, Leaving Cert maths at honours level would be way over the top. Wasted effort?

That's what it seems like alright, wasn't sure though.

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Ok, seeing as we teach Irish, English, Maths,Drama, Science, History, Geography, Music,Religion,PE Art and SESE should all primary teachers have honours levels in l/cert in all of those?
People, ye are falling into the trap of RQ who has cut education to the bone and still wants more. SPIN to hide it. Look at the new circular on SNAs for starters!

Do Primary school teachers not need honours level in any subject?

No Pants

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Do Primary school teachers not need honours level in any subject?

I think his point is that the primary school curriculum is broad and that there's only one teacher assigned for the year. Compare that with the average Leaving Cert containing seven subjects.

lily09

Can I just refer to the thread title.I attended the congress today and did not feel the teachers "behaved like children". Once Ruairi had made his comments there was a general outbreak of chatter, yes rude but I think it took people by surprise. Do remember however this comment affects nobody in the room i.e present teachers.There was applause at either end of the speech and at no other point was Ruairi made to feel uncomfortable.
I am a teacher with HL Maths, I think that this topic should be discussed. Perhaps research could be done into the beneficial effect to children to be a taught by a teacher with HL Maths. Otherwise teaching will become more elitist as only those who can afford grinds will do Honours Maths. 7 honours subjects and a minimum of 460 points is quite a big ask. As Ruairi stated today entrants to initial teacher training colleges are in the top 15% of LC candidates.
I also think his main point is that many who are able to do Honours maths after a good Junior Cert drop back because they don't need to continue in honours.
I wouldn't be the biggest fan of the minister but felt his points on inclusivity were much more important than this issue as it effects much more children on a daily basis.

Chucky the tree

No Pants wrote: »

I think his point is that the primary school curriculum is broad and that there's only one teacher assigned for the year. Compare that with the average Leaving Cert containing seven subjects.

So is the argument to scrap all Honours compulsory for subjects? Just interested to see a valid reason for teachers objecting to it. Although it seems the objection is that it doesn't do anything to effect class sizes.

sock puppet

It wasn’t the honours maths that made the Irish women the way they are today, let me tell you. It was the boys who did the honours maths led the country to ruination

So a leader of the trade union representing primary teachers doesn't think education is a good thing. Fantastic...

No Pants

From here. Says it is the "ENTRY REQUIREMENTS FOR INITIAL TEACHER EDUCATION COURSES FOR PRIMARY TEACHERS 2013". Apologies if it is not, or if I am misunderstanding something. 2013 is the latest version for this, there is a 2014 paper for "mature students", but the requirements look similar.


2. Minimum Academic Requirements 2013 – Leaving Certificate Examination:
General
 Grade C3 on a Higher Level paper in not less than three subjects
 Grade D3 in three other subjects in accordance with the Rules and Programme for
Secondary Schools

Essential Subjects
 Irish: Grade C3 Higher Level.
 English: Grade C3 Ordinary Level or D3 Higher Level
 Mathematics: Grade D3, either Ordinary or Higher Level.

Woodville56

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

He is their employer. Employees do what they are told or they get sacked. This is what is needed in the public sector and we are getting there gradually.
Quinn is elected. The teachers are not.

Indeed he is ! And soon hopefully he and his merry band will be unelected :D
The scapegoating of the public service in the recession years by this so called government won't be forgotten and their first reality check is coming down the tracks on May 23rd !!

No Pants

Chucky the tree wrote: »

So is the argument to scrap all Honours compulsory for subjects? Just interested to see a valid reason for teachers objecting to it. Although it seems the objection is that it doesn't do anything to effect class sizes.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. I've posted above on what I see as the entry requirements for primary teacher training according to the Department of Education website. I do think that honours level Leaving Cert maths is overkill for primary education.

ledgebag1

I agree with the minister looking at revising the system of rote learning , I think this is a good step towards preparing students for third level education, just thought i would throw that out there for opinion.

In regards to primary school teachers having to hold an honours maths grade, it seems possibly beyond what is required to teach maths within primary schools. Why not honours irish, English, geography.

ZeitgeistGlee

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Ok, seeing as we teach Irish, English, Maths,Drama, Science, History, Geography, Music,Religion,PE Art and SESE should all primary teachers have honours levels in l/cert in all of those?
People, ye are falling into the trap of RQ who has cut education to the bone and still wants more. SPIN to hide it. Look at the new circular on SNAs for starters!

So a smokescreen can't yield a reasonable area of discussion? To spin your question around, why should honours levels be required in any of those subjects? What aspects of Honours English and Irish are so vital to primary education that they can't be taught in college? What's the effective difference between someone who can get an A1 in OL Irish vs someone who scrapes a C3 in HL?

ian87

ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »

Genuine question, given you feel your Ordinary Maths was a motivator for you becoming capable of teaching primary-level maths well, would you feel the same could apply of people who would only have Ordinary Irish and English? The question has been asked a few times without a thorough answer.

Tough question. Teaching is a skill in itself. As I've alluded to in my post, knowing the content to a very high standard and being able to deliver it are two different things. Without a shadow of a doubt, the higher level standard of Irish is a must for primary teaching. I managed a c1 in the leaving and if I'm to be brutally honest I don't even think that is enough. Teaching a language demands a very high level of fluency. I find Irish lessons at times difficult as I'm am sometimes unsure of grammar etc myself or need to reference dictionaries etc for help. I have a reasonable standard of Irish but truth be told it could be better and ordinary level simply wouldn't cut it.

To answer your question about literacy, the emphasis, especially with younger readers, is on the mechanics of the words, eg sounds of letters, letter rules and so on. I'm not qualified enough to make the judgement but I think what is expected of leaving cert students appears to be knowledge of the content and ability to critique it first and semantics, syntax and grammar 2nd. Obviously a higher standard is to be welcomed but the skills needed to excel at teaching literacy don't exactly match up to the higher level English curriculum as far as I know. A ordinary level student may have perfect grammar, perfect understanding of sentences structure, fluency and the other skills required but may find the course content and analysis harder to work on.

It is not very clear cut as it is impossible to differentiate a persons ability to critique a piece of text and their ability to teach how to get read and get through that text.

No Pants

sock puppet wrote: »

So a leader of the trade union representing primary teachers doesn't think education is a good thing. Fantastic...

I see the point that was being made and that wasn't it.

pragmatic1

ledgebag1 wrote: »

I agree with the minister looking at revising the system of rote learning , I think this is a good step towards preparing students for third level education, just thought i would throw that out there for opinion.

In regards to primary school teachers having to hold an honours maths grade, it seems possibly beyond what is required to teach maths within primary schools. Why not honours irish, English, geography.

Math is different to the rest. It requires innate intelligence.

Cantremember

Quinn has pushed project Maths and bonus points for it. The strategy is to change HONS Maths from what it was to a more typical LC. HONS subject. In effect this is reducing the academic nature of it; it will not be what it was, more akin to shifting the subject toward an amalgam of the top of the ordinary level grade to the d/c on higher.
What he did today was take the next step in changing maths from what it was.

sock puppet

No Pants wrote: »

I see the point that was being made and that wasn't it.

Why else would she attempt to link someone's level of education with their ability to manage a business, other than to imply that the extra education did them no benefit?

It's the exact same as when you hear tradespeople etc. disparage those with a college education. That is to be expected somewhat but from someone who I presume went to college herself and is a former teacher it's frankly bizzare.

ledgebag1

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Math is different to the rest. It requires innate intelligence.

Would you explain your point further please

ZeitgeistGlee

ian87 wrote: »

Tough question. Teaching is a skill in itself.

Indeed. The ability to actually impart knowledge should, IMO, be arbiter of qualification for any teacher. If you don't possess that ability then its a waste of everyone's time (including your own obviously).

ian87 wrote: »

As I've alluded to in my post, knowing the content to a very high standard and being able to deliver it are two different things. Without a shadow of a doubt, the higher level standard of Irish is a must for primary teaching. I managed a c1 in the leaving and if I'm to be brutally honest I don't even think that is enough. Teaching a language demands a very high level of fluency. I find Irish lessons at times difficult as I'm am sometimes unsure of grammar etc myself or need to reference dictionaries etc for help. I have a reasonable standard of Irish but truth be told it could be better and ordinary level simply wouldn't cut it.

To answer your question about literacy, the emphasis, especially with younger readers, is on the mechanics of the words, eg sounds of letters, letter rules and so on. I'm not qualified enough to make the judgement but I think what is expected of leaving cert students appears to be knowledge of the content and ability to critique it first and semantics, syntax and grammar 2nd. Obviously a higher standard is to be welcomed but the skills needed to excel at teaching literacy don't exactly match up to the higher level English curriculum as far as I know. A ordinary level student may have perfect grammar, perfect understanding of sentences structure, fluency and the other skills required but may find the course content and analysis harder to work on.

It is not very clear cut as it is impossible to differentiate a persons ability to critique a piece of text and their ability to teach how to get read and get through that text.

Cheers for the answer.

So in your opinion HL is required because it's ultimately it's the quickest/most efficient way to ensure candidates have a proper level of fluency and understanding of the structure of the language needed to facilitate successful teaching? The expected, but hardly an unfair answer. I suppose then we enter the grey area of grinds, study aids, etc which can artificially bolster someone's performance.

I guess really it comes down to questioning how the LC Irish curriculum is structured and how it's split between OL/HL. Logically fluency should be the aim of both with a superiority of fluency and comprehension occurring at HL. My own experience was that the curriculum seems geared around passing the format of the LC via regurgitation rather that true understanding (learning a language at University level was quite different in that regard).

myshirt

Majority appear to be overpaid and underworked reprobates.

Plain and simple.

Millicent

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Math is different to the rest. It requires innate intelligence.

No, it requires a particular kind of intelligence. One popular categorisation system for intelligence identifies nine types of intelligence. Any combination of the nine could make a great teacher.

Cantremember

myshirt wrote: »

Majority appear to be overpaid and underworked reprobates.

Plain and simple.

Should they be whipped out to the cotton fields m'lud?

ZeitgeistGlee

myshirt wrote: »

Majority appear to be overpaid and underworked reprobates.

Plain and simple.

Are you talking about TDs or teachers? :pac:

ian87

ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »

Indeed. The ability to actually impart knowledge should, IMO, be arbiter of qualification for any teacher. If you don't possess that ability then its a waste of everyone's time (including your own obviously).



Cheers for the answer.

So in your opinion HL is required because it's ultimately it's the quickest/most efficient way to ensure candidates have a proper level of fluency and understanding of the structure of the language needed to facilitate successful teaching? The expected, but hardly an unfair answer. I suppose then we enter the grey area of grinds, study aids, etc which can artificially bolster someone's performance.

I guess really it comes down to questioning how the LC Irish curriculum is structured and how it's split between OL/HL. Logically fluency should be the aim of both with a superiority of fluency and comprehension occurring at HL. My own experience was that the curriculum seems geared around passing the format of the LC via regurgitation rather that true understanding (learning a language at University level was quite different in that regard).

Our system of selection for teachers is based upon a system where the ability to regurgitate information is paramount. (CAO) We need an entrance exam for medicine (hpat), for law of sorts (kings inn), apprenticeships are an ongoing entrance exam, the list goes on. An aptitude test for teachers would really benefit the profession. It exists for postgrad applicants and the standard of teachers who came through the postgrad system versus undergrad system (of which I'm a product of) tends to be of a higher standard. I know of several principals who actively look for and put a higher value upon post grads over undergrads when sorting through the many hundreds of cvs they recieve when advertising a job.
Not to say that the undergrads who trained aren't more than capable. One may say I'm putting 2 and 2 together to make 5 with my statement but I think there is more to it than coincidence.

Inspector Coptoor

myshirt wrote: »

Majority appear to be overpaid and underworked reprobates.

Plain and simple.

Appear to your highly trained eye?
:roll eyes:

Here's an idea, only give your toxic opinion when it's based on something called fact, and not sound bites taken from an obviously angry body of professionals coming together to thrash out issues affecting them, their profession at large and the students in their care after listening to inflammatory remarks from a bull headed and poorly performing Minister for Education

Inspector Coptoor

ian87 wrote: »

Our system of selection for teachers is based upon a system where the ability to regurgitate information is paramount. (CAO) We need an entrance exam for medicine (hpat), for law of sorts (kings inn), apprenticeships are an ongoing entrance exam, the list goes on. An aptitude test for teachers would really benefit the profession. It exists for postgrad applicants and the standard of teachers who came through the postgrad system versus undergrad system (of which I'm a product of) tends to be of a higher standard. I know of several principals who actively look for and put a higher value upon post grads over undergrads when sorting through the many hundreds of cvs they recieve when advertising a job.
Not to say that the undergrads who trained aren't more than capable. One may say I'm putting 2 and 2 together to make 5 with my statement but I think there is more to it than coincidence.

Very true.
Graduate entry teachers also tend to be a bit older, more experienced, and haven't spent their whole college lives in what is essentially an extension of school - Pats/Mary I

ian87

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

Very true.
Graduate entry teachers also tend to be a bit older, more experienced, and haven't spent their whole college lives in what is essentially an extension of school - Pats/Mary I

One thing I do think that's overlooked, often due the general publics ignorance of what teacher training involves, is the fact that we as teachers are subject to inspection of our teaching ability from the very beginning. Micro teaching, then several teaching practices, followed by the dreaded dip. Our teaching skills are subject to scrutiny from day 1 and if you can't cut the mustard you will be told as much. I know of a few people who were told as early as micro teaching (the initial lesson you are graded and assessed on in semester 1 of first year) that maybe they should consider cutting their losses and investigate a new course. An entrance exam or equivalent would be hugely beneficial.

Inspector Coptoor

Very true, however, the fact a primary school teacher can train for 3 years, leave Pats or Mary I at 20/21 & earn a full wage while doing their dip year is/was very wrong.
It should be a MINIMUM of 4 years full time study.

I did a 4 year science degree, had a year out, then did my PGCEducation & began teaching at 24.