Small vs large schools

Acey10

Hi,

Just wondering people's opinion of smaller vs large schools in urban areas?

From both the perspective of the teacher and the children?

Thank you!

spurious

I suppose 'small' is subjective. I taught in a school that had less than 150 students and another of about 400 plus.

Small school - teacher's perspective - big positive is everyone is known by name.

Limited spread of subjects, sometimes issues offering subjects at all levels.

Enormous spread of ability in 'mixed ability' classes (e.g. non readers in the same class as children independently reading classics). No timetabling option or funding to withdraw children or create a second group.

Limited budgets for equipment etc..

Limited promotional opportunities for staff, can affect morale.

Staff not yet on full contracts scrabbling around for hours every year.

Loss of one or two students can 'lose' a teaching position.

Constant worry as to whether school will be seen as 'not viable' and possibly closed or amalgamated.

Treppen

Larger schools get the money and resources. Simple as that. Everything else follows.

Random sample

As above, it’s all relative. We have gone over 1000 and I don’t like it at all. There’s no sense of community, I don’t know kids any more, and they don’t know me on the corridors either. Mixed ability is very mixed, and mixing them in junior cycle means I never keep kids the whole way through like I used to, so continuity is gone. There’s no looking out for a vulnerable kid any more, because unless you teach them, you don’t know them.

I don’t know teachers outside of my subject either any more. We have set seating in the staff rooms, so I know the people either side of me, and my departments. No chance to form bonds at all.

gaiscioch

I taught in a very small DEIS school, and two outstanding things. First, it became a dumping ground for kids who were "discouraged" from attending the larger schools. This led to our school becoming less popular with other students and thus more attractive as a dumping ground - and the principal needed those kids as better behaved kids were going. But in being a dumping ground, it really opened my eyes to the existence of real poverty, of kids coming in for the breakfast club as they were actually hungry (anybody remember Ruairí Quinn trying to close all the breakfast clubs down? I've never witnessed so much anger at a staff meeting) and that, when you asked why they were in so early each morning, you find out the kids are in a homeless shelter. That school was an experience every teacher should have.

A surprising plus, though, was in the staff room. As the school was so poorly managed, there was very much a them versus us mentality and teachers looked out for each other and for the younger teachers, in particular, as behavioural issues became more pronounced. We had some fantastic craic in that dilapidated shed, acutely aware of the poverty of our workplace and everybody in it. Of course, the fact that there were, well, no (one?) paid teaching posts at that time meant there was nothing to compete for so there was no rivalry in the staffroom. It was like therapy in there when we'd recount the latest craziness. Also, I was one of a number of younger teachers who gave our afterschool time to give grinds as the kids couldn't afford them, and it was hugely rewarding being able to help kids become the first people in their families to go to college.

In contrast, I've also taught in a large school on the polar opposite of the socio-economic scale. Loaded with money, and every teacher had at least one extra paid post (some with four or five school-paid B/AP2 posts). And the nastiness and cliquishness and bitchiness was toxic. Fortunately, as the school was so big there were staggered breaks, the staff room and a restaurant/dining hall so you could easily enough avoid meeting other staff. None of the teachers, as far as I recall, did any voluntary teaching (in fairness, there was money!). There is absolutely enormous inequality in our school system, and a teacher in a deprived school is, if my experience anything to go on, also earning significantly less than an equally qualified teacher in a fee-charging school where you're paid for doing all sorts of things. In terms of entitlement and expectation, there was a world of cultural difference between the teachers in each staff room. Yes, I appreciate I've just conflated two distinct issues of school size and school socio-economic status, but there you have it.

amacca

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119343446#Comment_119343446

I didn't know you could hold more than one A or B post at a time

Wre the posts paid privately/out of school funds? Was it a rugby school or something of that ilk?

gaiscioch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119349090#Comment_119349090

Yes, as said these were all school-paid posts and, yes, it was one of those schools. It was €3.750 or something for each one, with tutors getting paid (I had done that for free in my DEIS school) as well as a whole slew of posts connected with a certain sport that only had about 6 games per year but was some sort of status symbol for the school. There were also, for want of a better description, a whole slew of "They're actually paying for that nonsense post" stuff.

In fairness, it had money and it was better than it was going to teachers than not, but it definitely created more rivalries and resentments with people watching who was getting what far too much. I did find it unfair that a decent number of teachers would have four or so of those posts per year on top of their salary, while newer teachers might "only" have one. And the ones who had four or so posts, were frequently still looking for more paid posts. The staffroom craic was much better in the school where there was no such paid posts/rivalry, even if the bank balance was significantly less.