Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

ReOPENed>>>Leaving Cert Reform. The propaganda begins >>>See Warning>>>

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    r93kaey5p2izun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,962 ✭✭✭r93kaey5p2izun


    markodaly wrote:
    By the way I agree with getting teaching numbers up and one of the quickest way to do that is to forgo pay rises, unfortunately. If the Unions can come to an agreement about putting full-time permanent positions ahead of pay rises, that is something many people can get behind, but for the last few decades Unions have always put take-home pay above everything else, which is where we are now and the mess it all is.

    They can't fill the positions they have as it is - how will they get all these extra teachers?? There are lots of full time permanent jobs unfilled in Dublin this year. And even more full time year long contracts unfilled.


  • Options
    #63
    troyzer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,199 ✭✭✭troyzer


    Monotype wrote: »
    markodaly wrote: »
    Irish pupil-teacher ratios are now the lowest ever.
    https://www.independent.ie/business/budget/pupilteacher-ratio-in-primary-schools-to-reach-lowestever-level-36215495.html

    Yet, are we getting a return on this investment? PISA studies say no, not really.

    "Lowest ever", yes, but still worse than nearly all of our neighbours. You're not going to notice a change overnight with such a small difference in ratio.
    We are spending a record €10.8 Billion on education this year, the largest ever sum of money to be spent on education, yet this is not enough.
    At some stage, it comes clear (like the health service) that spending more money trying to get better results just does not work. You need to actively reform it and target certain areas.

    Population has increased. Of course there's going to be more spending. An actual measure would be the percentage of GDP.
    https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/Education_spending/
    Ireland is 50 out of the 101 countries in 2014. Have a look at the countries around 50th place and where the European countries rank. Actually decreased considerably from 2010-2014. There's more data around for 2014, but here's something more recent:

    https://www.tui.ie/welcome-to-our-website/prebudget-2019.13246.html
    Look behind Government spin, and the latest figures show that Ireland is bottom of the pile in terms of total education expenditure in international terms (joint last of 33 OECD countries), with just 3.3% of GDP invested here compared to the OECD and EU averages of 4.5% and 4.2% respectively. At second level, our spend is just 1.1% of GDP compared to the OECD average of 2%.
    The second level investment is nearly half of the average!
    Irish teachers want Finnish style resources. OK, are they also going to totally change the way they teach? This whole conversation started about LC reform, yet the Finnish system has and is moving away from such a clumsy exam-based system.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39889523

    Change for the sake of change is not good and the LC reform echos the junior cycle, which is a shambles. While it had some good elements and even sounded good initially, it is a house of straw stuck together with pritt stick and buzzwords. A bit of photoshop on it fool the casual onlookers.
    Of course, the big thing no one even mentions is early childhood education, which again Finland excels at. Formal education in Finland does not start till 7 apparently. You think these kids are at home till then? Hell no, they are in early learning centers from the age of 2 or 3.

    Irish ELC does not even fall under the remit of the Dept. of Education, which shows you how much disdain official Ireland has toward Early Learning.
    Absolutely, I think spending was 0.1% of GDP, if I recall correctly. The first article you linked, said that infant classes would be targeted with the ratio, which is a poor compromise.
    Irish primary teachers are no better, to be honest, and will actively thumb their noises at Early learning educators who they see as beneath them. 0-5 and 5-12 should be seen to complement each other. Not as we currently see it as one a glorified creche and the other, a paragon of world-class education and teaching.
    Perhaps lower the age for starting primary?
    In summary, Irish teachers want the nice things about Finnish style education but are they really going to reform their own ways and teaching methods and encourage more funding towards the 0-5 sector, which gets next to nothing? Or will they just act like sheep and go for that pay rise because the Unions told them so?

    The unions aren't much good at getting pay restoration, never mind rises.
    You're underestimating the gap in resources in Irish school vs Finnish schools. I don't think people are wanting exercise balls and skate parks. I think the basics of working computers and printers for the students and staff, projectors, or heck, even markers, scissors and Sellotape. Much of these resources end up being funded by the teachers themselves.

    EDIT: By the way I agree with getting teaching numbers up and one of the quickest way to do that is to forgo pay rises, unfortunately. If the Unions can come to an agreement about putting full-time permanent positions ahead of pay rises, that is something many people can get behind, but for the last few decades Unions have always put take-home pay above everything else, which is where we are now and the mess it all is.

    If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. I think that working conditions is more important than pay. Regardless of more full-time positions available now, teachers seem to be exiting the profession.

    Again though, you do nothing but talk about getting more money and better working conditions without offering anything in return.

    Can you identify anything that teachers can do better or sacrifice? Anything at all?


  • Options
    #64
    amacca
    Registered Users Posts: 6,805 ✭✭✭amacca


    Well this might stretch your credulity Troyzer but....

    The point is ..too much has already been sacrificed and these sacrifices will be to the detriment of the system if they have not done long term damage already.

    That was the point of the statistics in the post you quoted. They are clearly refuting the points you made previously.

    Could you suggest what concessions should be made on Govt side given that they clearly seem to be in the middle of destroying the education system with the help of the spin fairy.

    Any suggestions at all?


  • Options
    #65
    troyzer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,199 ✭✭✭troyzer


    amacca wrote: »
    Well this might stretch your credulity Troyzer but....

    The point is ..too much has already been sacrificed and these sacrifices will be to the detriment of the system if they have not done long term damage already.

    That was the point of the statistics in the post you quoted. They are clearly refuting the points you made previously.

    Could you suggest what concessions should be made on Govt side given that they clearly seem to be in the middle of destroying the education system with the help of the spin fairy.

    Any suggestions at all?

    I didn't make those points, someone else did.

    I don't dispute that resources should be put into certain areas.

    I don't necessarily think it should go into teachers pockets, certainly not without justification.

    I'm genuinely neutral in this debate. I have no idea what needs to be done.

    But all I'm hearing so far from what I presume are teachers is we want more money.


  • Options
    #66
    amacca
    Registered Users Posts: 6,805 ✭✭✭amacca


    troyzer wrote: »
    I didn't make those points, someone else did.

    I don't dispute that resources should be put into certain areas.

    I don't necessarily think it should go into teachers pockets, certainly not without justification.

    I'm genuinely neutral in this debate. I have no idea what needs to be done.

    But all I'm hearing so far from what I presume are teachers is we want more money.

    Well then you are not listening properly imo ..... quite a number of posts have made suggestions much more about working conditions than money and the quality of education that will ultimately end up being delivered due to these reforms.

    Or at least its not about money that would go directly into teachers pockets.

    Most are about improving the experience for the teacher and student together.......and thats as it should be, if you have overburdened stressed out teachers dealing with too many students too many times in a day with no resources or back up (and probably the opposite of back up - taking more time out of their personal lives for facilities to deliver nonsensical course/cpd and costing them money and time aint back up) then its not going to be good for anyone except the bean counters.

    I do hasten to add a caveat to the above....improving the educational experience for the students and teachers.......not about providing free childcare for parents who don't wish to take on any responsibility for their children.

    I believe there could be creative and if not cost neutral then perhaps fairly low impact budgetary solutions to some problems if the apparatchiks of the regime weren't so hell bent on sprinkling the magical fairy dust of "reform our style" on the system....thats what most posters here are saying if Im not greatly mistaken.......none have come out and said gives us more money, most have said what you are asking for is unreasonable and frankly laughable given the reality of the role and smacks of reform for the sake of reform in some cases ........ it really does smell quite fishy, my only hope is that they will adjust what they are at (even if the PR machine y will then probably claim that as a victory)

    If you read this thread back from the start you will see plenty of evidence that teachers while they may not be 100% correct are definitely more sinned against than sinning....there is also plenty of evidence that they are not looking for money into their own pockets....they are saying however that there needs to be investment in the system if the Govt wants a Finnish style system......that type of system and increased investment go hand in hand.....you can't have one without the other.

    The reforms as they stand are not worthy of the name and the surveys etc cited as justification by Govt side are a cynical PR exercise.

    But you seem to be of the opinion that its solely about a wage bump despite whats in black and white previously.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    troyzer wrote: »
    I didn't make those points, someone else did.

    I don't dispute that resources should be put into certain areas.

    I don't necessarily think it should go into teachers pockets, certainly not without justification.

    I'm genuinely neutral in this debate. I have no idea what needs to be done.

    But all I'm hearing so far from what I presume are teachers is we want more money.

    Where have teachers said they want me money as a trade off for Leaving Cert reform? Where are you reading this.


  • Options
    #68
    troyzer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,199 ✭✭✭troyzer


    amacca wrote: »
    troyzer wrote: »
    I didn't make those points, someone else did.

    I don't dispute that resources should be put into certain areas.

    I don't necessarily think it should go into teachers pockets, certainly not without justification.

    I'm genuinely neutral in this debate. I have no idea what needs to be done.

    But all I'm hearing so far from what I presume are teachers is we want more money.

    Well then you are not listening properly imo ..... quite a number of posts have made suggestions much more about working conditions than money and the quality of education that will ultimately end up being delivered due to these reforms.

    Or at least its not about money that would go directly into teachers pockets.

    Most are about improving the experience for the teacher and student together.......and thats as it should be, if you have overburdened stressed out teachers dealing with too many students too many times in a day with no resources or back up (and probably the opposite of back up - taking more time out of their personal lives for facilities to deliver nonsensical course/cpd and costing them money and time aint back up) then its not going to be good for anyone except the bean counters.

    I do hasten to add a caveat to the above....improving the educational experience for the students and teachers.......not about providing free childcare for parents who don't wish to take on any responsibility for their children.

    I believe there could be creative and if not cost neutral then perhaps fairly low impact budgetary solutions to some problems if the apparatchiks of the regime weren't so hell bent on sprinkling the magical fairy dust of "reform our style" on the system....thats what most posters here are saying if Im not greatly mistaken.......none have come out and said gives us more money, most have said what you are asking for is unreasonable and frankly laughable given the reality of the role and smacks of reform for the sake of reform in some cases ........ it really does smell quite fishy, my only hope is that they will adjust what they are at (even if the PR machine y will then probably claim that as a victory)

    If you read this thread back from the start you will see plenty of evidence that teachers while they may not be 100% correct are definitely more sinned against than sinning....there is also plenty of evidence that they are not looking for money into their own pockets....they are saying however that there needs to be investment in the system if the Govt wants a Finnish style system......that type of system and increased investment go hand in hand.....you can't have one without the other.

    The reforms as they stand are not worthy of the name and the surveys etc cited as justification by Govt side are a cynical PR exercise.

    But you seem to be of the opinion that its solely about a wage bump despite whats in black and white previously.

    I never said it was just about wage bump, I said it was about more money. Which includes a wage bump.

    Frankly I'm astonished that nobody has taken the opportunity to give me a single example of an improvement that doesn't cost a fortune.

    Everything you have listed is effectively just going along with the current system but throwing more money at it. This is what we've done at the HSE for years now.

    I'm not even saying you're wrong. I agree with you that new resources need to be made available and some of that should come in the form of incentives. I don't necessarily think pay increases are the way to go. Teachers are already quite well paid given how much down time they have compared to other professions. I'm not having a go at teachers here. Lessons need to be planned, assignments corrected etc. and teaching is stressful. But overall, teachers have far less work hours per year than other professions.

    Entry level teachers make almost €10k more than entry level nurses. This is just immoral. It's indefensible.

    I'm not suggesting that teachers should get a pay cut to compensate and I reckon the current pay scale is fairly equitable once FEMPI is reversed. I'm just saying that claiming teachers deserve a pay raise when nurses are so far behind is just a non starter for me. They have jobs at least as stressful, they don't get nearly as much time off and the nursing profession has an even deeper recruitment crisis. Let's not even go near the Gardaí and the armed forces.

    In an ideal world you could pay both but you just can't.

    I'd be more in favour of cash bonuses for high performing teachers and making it possible to sack teachers who are consistently awful.

    Let's put all of that aside for a moment.

    Let's say the money is made available.

    Teacher ratios can be brought down to 20/1, schools are given proper grants allowing for proper facilities and supplies and the abolition of contributions and teachers are given a modest scale adjustment.

    What are you, again I'm assuming you're a teacher, willing to sacrifice/give up/change in exchange? What do you think teachers can do better? Do you recognise any failure in the system which is not somebody else either doing their job badly or not giving you enough money. Is there anything YOU as a profession can identify as an area to improve?


  • Options
    #69
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    troyzer wrote: »

    Entry level teachers make almost €10k more than entry level nurses. This is just immoral. It's indefensible.

    Oh Here we go :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #70
    troyzer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,199 ✭✭✭troyzer


    evolving_doors wrote: »

    Entry level teachers make almost €10k more than entry level nurses. This is just immoral. It's indefensible.

    Oh Here we go :rolleyes:

    I didn't say it as an argument that teachers get paid too much. I think teachers are paid about right.

    I think nurses are disgracefully underpaid.


  • Options
    #71
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    troyzer wrote: »
    I didn't say it as an argument that teachers get paid too much. I think teachers are paid about right.

    I think nurses are disgracefully underpaid.

    Oh sorry, thanks. You really know lots about my payslip. Ill defer to your wisdom.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    troyzer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,199 ✭✭✭troyzer


    evolving_doors wrote: »
    troyzer wrote: »
    I didn't say it as an argument that teachers get paid too much. I think teachers are paid about right.

    I think nurses are disgracefully underpaid.

    Oh sorry, thanks. You really know lots about my payslip. Ill defer to your wisdom.

    I can read the pay scales like anyone else.

    It looks like a relatively decent paying, middle class job. Entry level teachers make roughly the national industrial wage and by their mid fifties, even with no promotion, the scale has them pushing €70k.

    A very decent salary.


  • Options
    #73
    amacca
    Registered Users Posts: 6,805 ✭✭✭amacca


    troyzer wrote: »
    I never said it was just about wage bump, I said it was about more money. Which includes a wage bump.

    Please see below from your post
    troyzer wrote: »

    I don't necessarily think it should go into teachers pockets, certainly not without justification.

    But all I'm hearing so far from what I presume are teachers is we want more money.


    In this post you are saying that the points teachers have made in your opinion are about putting money into their pockets...this has been refuted and shown to be incorrect........you typed "I don't necessarily think it should go into teachers pockets" ...as if somehow teachers had said they wanted increased wages...that is the meaning of what you previously typed or its certainly a very reasonable interpretation of what you typed...if you didn't mean that then you need to consider what you are writing more carefully

    So no I'm not really prepared to move on and put this aside when someone says something and then claims they didn't its a very shaky foundation for any sort of rational debate.

    so once again....most of the posts here are not arguing for more money "which includes a wage bump" as far as i can see, you seem to be adding that in on your own.......

    I certainly at no point was advocating a wage bump of any form!

    troyzer wrote: »
    Frankly I'm astonished that nobody has taken the opportunity to give me a single example of an improvement that doesn't cost a fortune.

    Not embarking upon a program of reform that isn't reform would have saved a fortune, not printing out no doubt thousands of copies of the new Junior cert specification would have saved a fortune. Not setting up another quango in the form of a teaching council would have saved a fortune...there are other examples
    troyzer wrote: »
    Everything you have listed is effectively just going along with the current system but throwing more money at it. This is what we've done at the HSE for years now.

    Actually...whats happening now to my mind is the education system morphing into a version of the HSE in my mind...if you don't want the education system to become like a HSE then this reform is something you should look closely at.
    troyzer wrote: »
    I'm not even saying you're wrong. I agree with you that new resources need to be made available and some of that should come in the form of incentives. I don't necessarily think pay increases are the way to go.

    but I thought you said "I never said it was about a wage bump"

    why are you again conflating pay increases with resources ......I didn't mention pay increases....

    This is not about pay increases....I'm not sure how clearly or how many more times I can state that

    just in case though...I never mentioned the need for pay increases.


  • Options
    #74
    troyzer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,199 ✭✭✭troyzer


    amacca wrote: »
    troyzer wrote: »
    I never said it was just about wage bump, I said it was about more money. Which includes a wage bump.

    Please see below from your post
    troyzer wrote: »

    I don't necessarily think it should go into teachers pockets, certainly not without justification.

    But all I'm hearing so far from what I presume are teachers is we want more money.


    In this post you are saying that the points teachers have made in your opinion are about putting money into their pockets...this has been refuted and shown to be incorrect........you typed "I don't necessarily think it should go into teachers pockets" ...as if somehow teachers had said they wanted increased wages...that is the meaning of what you previously typed or its certainly a very reasonable interpretation of what you typed...if you didn't mean that then you need to consider what you are writing more carefully

    So no I'm not really prepared to move on when someone says something and then claims they didn't

    so once again....most of the posts here are not arguing for more money "which includes a wage bump" as far as i can see, you seem to be adding that in on your own.......

    I certainly at no point was advocating a wage bump of any form!

    troyzer wrote: »
    Frankly I'm astonished that nobody has taken the opportunity to give me a single example of an improvement that doesn't cost a fortune.

    Not embarking upon a program of reform that isn't reform would have saved a fortune, not printing out no doubt thousands of copies of the new Junior cert specification would have saved a fortune. Not setting up another quango in the form of a teaching council would have saved a fortune...there are other examples
    troyzer wrote: »
    Everything you have listed is effectively just going along with the current system but throwing more money at it. This is what we've done at the HSE for years now.

    Actually...whats happening now to my mind is the education system morphing into a version of the HSE in my mind...if you don't want the education system to become like a HSE then this reform is something you should look closely at.
    troyzer wrote: »
    I'm not even saying you're wrong. I agree with you that new resources need to be made available and some of that should come in the form of incentives. I don't necessarily think pay increases are the way to go.

    but I thought you said "I never said it was about a wage bump"

    why are you again conflating pay increases with resources ......I didn't mention pay increases....

    This is not about pay increases....I'm not sure how clearly or how many more times I can state that

    just in case though...I never mentioned the need for pay increases.

    Hmm, fair point.

    Maybe I've been on the wrong page as everyone else. When I saw comments about poor working conditions and a revolving door I just inferred the underlying message of wanting more money.

    If that's the case then I really do apologise for my mistake.

    That being said, there is a clear and consistent theme of wanting more money plowed (not for wages but certainly to improve working conditions) into the system without any suggestions on how things can be improved structurally.


  • Options
    #75
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,472 ✭✭✭political analyst


    It's blindingly obvious that externally-marked continuous assessment could be brought in for a new Leaving Cert so that getting enough points for third-level education wouldn't be all about final exams.

    Didn't Gemma Hussey try to introduce reform when she was education minister back in the 1980s. If the ASTI hadn't shot it down then maybe we'd have a better State exam system.

    Change is underway in the Junior Cert and so it stands to reason that the Leaving Cert is changed too.


  • Options
    #76
    amacca
    Registered Users Posts: 6,805 ✭✭✭amacca


    political analyst wrote: »
    It's blindingly obvious that externally-marked continuous assessment could be brought in for a new Leaving Cert so that getting enough points for third-level education wouldn't be all about final exams.


    The ultimate object of the exercise is that the assessment will not be externally marked and the first main objection teachers have to that is that the assessment will therefore not be objective...its changing into a system that will repeat the mistakes of the UK system
    political analyst wrote: »
    Didn't Gemma Hussey try to introduce reform when she was education minister back in the 1980s. If the ASTI hadn't shot it down then maybe we'd have a better State exam system.

    I don't know...I do believe whats happening now however has very little to do with improving the education whether by design or incompetence....have a read of the new JC specification or obfuscation as i like to call it.
    political analyst wrote: »
    Change is underway in the Junior Cert and so it stands to reason that the Leaving Cert is changed too.

    Yes the LC in its current format would be way too demanding for the kinds of student that will be produced by the new JC..........the two simply couldn't co-exist.....no way imo


  • Options
    #77
    rainbowtrout
    Registered Users Posts: 15,381 ✭✭✭✭rainbowtrout


    troyzer wrote: »
    Hmm, fair point.

    Maybe I've been on the wrong page as everyone else. When I saw comments about poor working conditions and a revolving door I just inferred the underlying message of wanting more money.

    If that's the case then I really do apologise for my mistake.

    That being said, there is a clear and consistent theme of wanting more money plowed (not for wages but certainly to improve working conditions) into the system without any suggestions on how things can be improved structurally.

    You cannot infer poor working conditions = we want more money and then keep banging on about it in every subsequent post, when every teacher has posted that they didn't ask for more money in any post on this thread.

    No teacher has posted on this thread asking for more money.

    If my class of second year maths had 15 in it instead of 30, it would be of massive benefit to them as I would be able to give each student more time. I also wouldn't be falling over bags as I try and make my way around a room to try and check all of their homework copies in a classroom that was built for 24 students with 30 desks squashed in. I also wouldn't earn a cent more but my working conditions would be vastly improved as would the students learning environment.


    If you have a read of any threads on this forum about why teachers have left the profession I don't honestly think you'll find one that is because of low wages.


    What you will find is lack of job security, people hopping from maternity leave to maternity leave, random subbing days here and there, being offered contracts for 6-8 hours which leaves them with an income of about 10K per year. It's not about the money per hour before you start banging on with ' oh so it is about money'. Living on a teaching wage of 10k for part time hours spread across the week so you can't sign on to supplement your wage like in another job is not sustainable. Plenty of teachers have posted on here over the last 10 years about not being able to secure stable long term work so they left the profession. Never because of the annual salary on offer. In many cases for those on low part time hours, it is easier to go stack shelves in the local supermarket where they could get more hours and stable work.


    Positions are now starting to go unfilled in schools for a number of reasons. People left the profession because they couldn't secure work. So they got a job elsewhere. The dip went from 1 year to 2. With that came a huge hike in costs. It's about 12k to do the dip, and that's before you take living costs into account for the two years. So that is a barrier to entry for many. I would guess the high cost of living and shortage of housing which is well documented for Dublin does act as a deterrent for those looking for teaching jobs. Can they afford to work in Dublin? And I know you can argue that about any job, but if there are jobs elsewhere in the country as it is a job that is needed nationally, then it makes more sense to teach in a more affordable part of the country.

    The vacancies in my school were advertised again today. They have been vacant since September. I doubt we will have any applicants to be honest.


  • Options
    #78
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    political analyst wrote: »
    It's blindingly obvious that externally-marked continuous assessment could be brought in for a new Leaving Cert so that getting enough points for third-level education wouldn't be all about final exams.

    Didn't Gemma Hussey try to introduce reform when she was education minister back in the 1980s. If the ASTI hadn't shot it down then maybe we'd have a better State exam system.

    Change is underway in the Junior Cert and so it stands to reason that the Leaving Cert is changed too.

    There is already lots of continuous assessment in the LC. Students do practical exams, investigations, oral assessments, field trip projects, day jobs, portfolios. Anyone who says CA is not being implemented in the current system is an idiot.


  • Options
    #79
    amacca
    Registered Users Posts: 6,805 ✭✭✭amacca


    troyzer wrote: »
    Hmm, fair point.

    Maybe I've been on the wrong page as everyone else. When I saw comments about poor working conditions and a revolving door I just inferred the underlying message of wanting more money.

    If that's the case then I really do apologise for my mistake.

    That being said, there is a clear and consistent theme of wanting more money plowed (not for wages but certainly to improve working conditions) into the system without any suggestions on how things can be improved structurally.

    OK, fair enough......thats where I'm coming from anyway and its how I assessed the majority of the posts - particularly posts that quoted stats to back up their points.

    You'll have to forgive me for the repitition.......You occasionally get the kind of poster in here that wilfully ignores/misquotes/conflates etc........

    In my case I think we could put a hold on spending much more money and have some rational thinkers look at what has been done to date in the context of the UK education system and really assess the efficacy of the new specification and the general push for more box ticking administration etc and its likely impacts in the real world on the system

    There must be a more intelligent way of doing things for all the stakeholders...and i shudder to use that word but when in rome

    And if thats a group that looks at the "best" education system in the world then it needs to look at the entire system ........It is my strongly held opinion that our Govt are choosing bits that suit their ideology without including the other facets that go hand in hand to make those bits work....or a cohort within the system are justifying their existence with reform that suits the ideology but lacks the support mechanism.

    Now as for structural improvements ...and I'm not being wilfully difficult here but would you mind telling me what you mean by structural improvements so we are on the same page.

    To me that would mean major changes to the system but could include things like making religious education and irish optional...setting up a new preschool system...requiring team teaching in classes..making a specific science mandatory or all...legislating for all mixed schools, no single gender schools....but could also include aspects of the new cover your ass tick a box planning for planning time suck management systems....to my mind there has already been a huge amount of structural change in the past decade alone...some good, some bad

    it would be nice to know if its a narrow definition of structural change you are interested in or you have a broad brushstroke definition in mind?


  • Options
    #80
    r93kaey5p2izun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,962 ✭✭✭r93kaey5p2izun


    I have left teaching because of the wages. And it was full time permanent on the old scale.


  • Options
    #81
    amacca
    Registered Users Posts: 6,805 ✭✭✭amacca


    June Fresh Amputee wrote: »
    I have left teaching because of the wages. And it was full time permanent on the old scale.

    And I know a number that have moved on like that too...some to earn a lot more money some to earn less but they all seem to be a hell of a lot happier.

    I could be wrong but I imagine anyone living in Dublin or trying to get a house mortgage would have to think twice about embarking on a teaching career (especially if they had a chat with a bank manager/mortgage advisor) and would be looking to get out of it if they had embarked and were not to far into it.

    but genuinely what I'm hearing from colleagues on the old scale (some established in fairness so not under pressure at the start of a career and kids nearly out of the nest while still costing money:D) is not gripes about money so much as continual eroding of working conditions.....many seem to accept it as inevitable but do think it will end up destroying the education system....

    They feel it wont affect them much but it will probably have knock on effects like poorer quality candidates in future/high staff turnover rates etc ..... mentions of NQTs not considering it a long term career already


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    troyzer wrote: »
    I can read the pay scales like anyone else.

    It looks like a relatively decent paying, middle class job. Entry level teachers make roughly the national industrial wage and by their mid fifties, even with no promotion, the scale has them pushing €70k.

    A very decent salary.

    OK So Payscales : are you saying that when a teacher finishes their 4-6 years in college they immediately get the full time job and 35K salary, because that's what the payscale says?

    4th year student nurses get paid btw, I know it's only 70% the qualified starting salary but it's more than teachers get. In my 4th year of 'training' I was still in my undergrad and paying for it... also for teachers now they have to self-fund the PME masters following graduation at 12k +rent etc (with few chances of subwork).
    Then when they graduate a teacher typically starts out on short term contracts with ZERO security. I was only made permanent and on full hours after 9 years after graduation. Compare that to nurses who commence on point 2 of the scale straight away and are pretty much guaranteed permanency from then on. I would admit that their growth rate towards the higher scale isn't as good as teachers but they have better opportunities to increase salary through promotion to management and further upskilling to specialised areas.
    So for Nurses and mortgages they are in a significantly better position of securing one earlier, in comparison with the typical teacher looking around for occasional work for a significant number of years... that's certainly worth a few quid over the life of a mortgage.

    Should Nurses be paid more.... hell yes. But to conflate this pitting against teacher wages is false... especially when you don't know what you're talking about.

    After 27 years to be getting 68k for a profession isn't exactly rich now is it?

    I have to laugh at this government line being put out that if you want something you must sacrifice more. I heard it peddled out on Marrion finucan 2 weeks ago with the nurses.... "oh they're very resistant to changing practices... they need to offer something up if they want more money etc." Much the same line you're taking here troyzer. I had to laugh that in that same program the same neo-liberal was saying that we simply needed to restore the Doctors their 80K for the good of the country (no quid-pro-quo asked for).

    And we've Ivan Yates on tonight saying that benchmarking broke the country. The spin goes on.


  • Options
    #83
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    So ya about that reform thing

    https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/education/not-enough-teachers-or-money-to-roll-out-key-exam-reforms-new-report-37610055.html?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR3HjoS9mWgMfzTcBoGuybR3kv37yGGLUSJBS3r2NpPDo6bbiHIrqEzJDIk

    Now can we get back to the important work of arguing about school uniforms again.
    School books cost a fortune don't they....
    Hey look there's a drone in Shannon Airport...


  • Options
    #84
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,472 ✭✭✭political analyst


    amacca wrote: »
    The ultimate object of the exercise is that the assessment will not be externally marked and the first main objection teachers have to that is that the assessment will therefore not be objective...its changing into a system that will repeat the mistakes of the UK system


    The ASTI will never change its stance on that issue. Therefore, State-certified assessment will still be externally-marked because the ASTI won't have it any other way!



    By the way, there are so many differences between England and Ireland in education policy that such a fiasco won't happen. Sure, privatising the State Exams Commission would be unworkable because the number of students sitting exams would be too small for it to be profitable. Therefore, there'll be no Edexcel in this country!

    Privatising any element of the Irish exam system - not gonna happen. The idea is just an Irish teachers' equivalent of "Project Fear".


  • Options
    #85
    amacca
    Registered Users Posts: 6,805 ✭✭✭amacca


    political analyst wrote: »
    The ASTI will never change its stance on that issue. Therefore, State-certified assessment will still be externally-marked because the ASTI won't have it any other way!



    By the way, there are so many differences between England and Ireland in education policy that such a fiasco won't happen. Sure, privatising the State Exams Commission would be unworkable because the number of students sitting exams would be too small for it to be profitable. Therefore, there'll be no Edexcel in this country!

    Privatising any element of the Irish exam system - not gonna happen. The idea is just an Irish teachers' equivalent of "Project Fear".

    I think we've misunderstood each other somehow

    the worry isn't that exam marking will be privatised

    the worry is it won't be external (i.e: a students own teacher will be responsible in large part for and therefore open to pressure/abuse/grade inflation/not being fair and objective......

    what seems to have happened in other jurisdictions when teachers had to grade their own students for the purposes of state certification.(not grading or assessment in general - just the high stakes bit that determines career paths to an extent - its probably better if that isn't open to abuse or undue pressure - hence the eminently sensible anonymous marking).....this is not project fear but likely to be the outcome if that ultimate goal is realised...perhaps exacerbated by the small size of the country but probably more due to human nature itself.

    See the kind of grade inflation going on over the past decade in irish universities because of the financial penalties incurred if students not trained and pressure from students themselves being bowed to......this was/is the big fear and I don't think its imaginary.

    Joe40 also alluded to a similar problem in the UK system

    I don't think the ASTI are out of kilter with their membership on that point tbh...so one could say a lot of teachers are reluctant to have it that way and tbh I see their point.


  • Options
    #86
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 14,049 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Monotype wrote: »
    "Lowest ever", yes, but still worse than nearly all of our neighbours. You're not going to notice a change overnight with such a small difference in ratio.

    Not overnight, but the trend is certainly down and getting lower.
    https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Ireland/Student_teacher_ratio_primary_school/

    (this link says the PTR is more like 16)
    Ironically, the Haddington Road agreement has very much facilitated this downward trend as more teachers can be hired. But the Unions sure as hell wont tell ya that! :)


    Population has increased.

    Yes, but Pupil Teacher ratios going down even the if population is going up, thus the point is null.
    An actual measure would be the percentage of GDP.

    No, an actual measure would be GNP, as using GDP for any of Ireland's economic benchmarks is notoriously skewed given the way we have structured our economy and the leprechaun economic statistics that can come from it.

    https://www.tui.ie/welcome-to-our-website/prebudget-2019.13246.html


    Ah here, copying and pasting stats from a Union website will convince no one but the converted. As mentioned GDP figures are totally skewed in the Irish context.

    Maybe a better measurement would be per $ spend per pupil?
    https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/education-spending.htm

    Interestingly, Finland and Denmark et all, spend as much on Early Childhood education per pupil as Ireland does normally.

    By the way, I do not dismiss the idea that we should be spending more on education, we should. But I think for the next 5-10 years any large increases should be going to facilities, permanency, pupil-teacher ratio's than teacher wages, as that is what the ASTI and others mean when spending more on education. Take home pay for teachers, who are already one of the best paid in the OECD.


    Change for the sake of change is not good and the LC reform echos the junior cycle, which is a shambles. While it had some good elements and even sounded good initially, it is a house of straw stuck together with pritt stick and buzzwords. A bit of photoshop on it fool the casual onlookers.

    Possibly, yet 78% of those teachers in the survey referenced by the OP stated that the LC is not up to scratch, so it clearly needs to be reformed. The status quo is certainly a non runner.
    Absolutely, I think spending was 0.1% of GDP, if I recall correctly. The first article you linked, said that infant classes would be targeted with the ratio, which is a poor compromise.

    Education spending should be going to this group first and foremost in my opinion. Even if the PTR stayed the same, and teachers got no pay increase for 5 years, but if the government promised to pour extra hundreds of millions to the early learning sector each year then that is something many people and parents could get behind.

    Every child in Ireland should be able to avail full-time 2-5 full time top quality education led by University trained and qualifed educators like the do in Finland.
    I am sure you agree, to a point but when push comes to shove and new funds are being hunted are you and your fellow teachers going to let it go to the early learning sector? I doubt it.

    Any educational increase in funding goes to the loudest voices, that is the Unions that are already established and they certainly do not want to share the pie, even though it could dramaticly benefit the future of Irish educational attainment.

    Perhaps lower the age for starting primary?

    Maybe or perhaps just fund Early Learning Centres like they do in other countries. Finish formal education does not start till they are 7 so I am not sure asking an Irish 2 or 3 year old to go to a primary school is the answer. It suits some of course, to subsume EL education to their own sphere of influence, but other countries don't do this way and for a reason.

    The unions aren't much good at getting pay restoration, never mind rises.
    You're underestimating the gap in resources in Irish school vs Finnish schools. I don't think people are wanting exercise balls and skate parks. I think the basics of working computers and printers for the students and staff, projectors, or heck, even markers, scissors and Sellotape. Much of these resources end up being funded by the teachers themselves.

    Yes and no. I certainly do not underestimate the 'me fein' culture in Ireland. We are gas in a way. Compassionate and caring yet, we are totally out for ourselves.
    Unions are 100% endemic in this but this is just an Irish trait imo.

    Just look at child allowance for example. This should be taken away from everyone and put into Early Learning. There is hundreds of millions there to be used, and not be spent down the bookies. Yet, if one did that there would be an uproar.

    Tell me, do Finish parents get child allowance? I think not. Do the unemployed get a Christmas bonus? Do OAP's get min €5 euro a year extra no questions asked?

    We have the money in Ireland, its just we spend it in a very individualistic inefficient way for votes.
    Everyone out for themselves and the teaching profession is just another example of this.


    If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

    I am sorry but are Irish teachers not some of the best paid in the OECD?
    Do they not get more on average than say those in Finland?
    https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/teachers-salaries.htm

    Its a cute saying but devoid of reality and actually cements my entire point of this post, that Irish teachers when all said and done are more interested in take-home pay than anything else.
    I think that working conditions is more important than pay. Regardless of more full-time positions available now, teachers seem to be exiting the profession.

    I would agree 100%, same the Unions dont hold the same view. Put simply, lower PTR certainly makes working conditions better, do they not?


  • Options
    #87
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 14,049 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    June Fresh Amputee wrote: »
    They can't fill the positions they have as it is - how will they get all these extra teachers?? There are lots of full time permanent jobs unfilled in Dublin this year. And even more full time year long contracts unfilled.

    That's odd as there is another thread in this forum giving out about-about the amount of teachers training in Hibernia, which will lead to a belief to lower quality teachers and lower working conditions.

    So, which is it?


  • Options
    #88
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 14,049 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    amacca wrote: »

    I do hasten to add a caveat to the above....improving the educational experience for the students and teachers.......not about providing free childcare for parents who don't wish to take on any responsibility for their children.

    Eh, WTF? So, you are against providing free early learning education for the 2-5 age bracket, like they do in venerated Finland?

    As an educator, I find that attitude shocking.


  • Options
    #89
    RealJohn
    Registered Users Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭RealJohn


    troyzer wrote: »
    There already is some continuous assessment at leaving cert anyway, it should be pointed out. Things like the lab books and history project.
    Not really. There are no marks going for lab books, and things like the history and geography projects are completely externally assessed (if I'm not mistaken). Furthermore, there's huge scope for outside influence in those projects, so if we were to call that continuous assessment (which it isn't really anyway), it's in a form that has a lot of potential to undermine the integrity of the system, and not something that should be encouraged as a widespread practice.
    As has also been pointed out, it's marking our own students' exams for certification is the problem most teachers have, not marking the work. We mark the work anyway. During the old junior cert science projects, I spent far more time going through my own students' projects, checking, guiding, making them rewrite things that I knew wouldn't get marks, than I spent marking other students' projects during the summer, and marking the projects in the summer was roughly one third of a full time job. I'm sure leaving cert history teachers can say the same.
    troyzer wrote: »
    For example, my Irish was terrible because I had five teachers in my leaving cert cycle.
    No, your Irish was terrible because you spent eight years in primary school with a teacher or teachers who were not up to the standard. If your Irish is terrible when you get to secondary school, that's because the primary system let you down, as it does the majority of the country (and that's not a dig at primary teachers, just the system that allows kids to spend eight years learning Irish, and for the majority of them not to be able to hold even a basic conversation by the time a "terrible" secondary Irish teacher gets a hold of them).

    Your point on the music is a better one, but I would argue that something like music shouldn't have much of a bearing on whether or not you get into college, unless the course you're applying for is music related.
    That's not a leaving cert issue though, it's a college entry/CAO issue.
    troyzer wrote: »
    Again, your recommendations talk a lot about teachers getting more money and support without offering up anything tangible the teachers can do to change.
    As has already been pointed out, multiple times, teachers are already changing but there's very little practical change we can make without supports in place first, and yes, those supports are going to cost money. I'm not necessarily talking about the rate of teachers' pay, but more will need to be spent on teachers' pay if the government actually want things like team teaching to happen, because more teachers will be needed. More time being given to planning would also be needed, and that means dedicated time for planning during the school day, not just "sure we'll take 40 minutes off of the timetable for every teacher and let them figure it out for themselves" like is currently the case. 40 minutes a week is nothing anyway, if you want things to be properly planned. Again, giving teachers time to properly plan things like team teaching costs money, because you will have to give us time outside of the classroom to plan, and that means that that time will need to be filled by other teachers, who will also need to be paid.
    It's not about the rate of teachers' pay, but the government will have to spend far more paying teachers if they genuinely want to improve outcomes.

    If you want teachers to be better, you have to support them, and that means opportunities for career professional development, which costs money. It doesn't mean we should be making more sacrifices. In fact, I'm quite curious to know why you think we should, when we have no indication we'd be getting anything back at all. The notion that teaching is a vocation is still strong in this country and a lot of teachers consider it one, to some extent. That's why we already do so much that's not officially part of our job. The fact that we choose to do things outside of our job description to improve outcomes does not mean we're saps who should be expected to do things outside of our job description.


  • Options
    #90
    RealJohn
    Registered Users Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭RealJohn


    markodaly wrote: »
    Eh, WTF? So, you are against providing free early learning education for the 2-5 age bracket, like they do in venerated Finland?

    As an educator, I find that attitude shocking.
    I'm not sure if this is meant to be sarcastic or not, but if not, I'm quite sure that you've missed amacca's point completely. The point was not that we shouldn't be paying for early learning education etc, but that we shouldn't have to deal with teenagers who are only in the school because their parents don't want to deal with them, and have no interest in supporting their children's education in any way, or dealing with their children when those children negatively affect the educational outcomes of children who are actually trying to learn.
    Correct me if I'm wrong amacca.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 14,049 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    RealJohn wrote: »
    I'm not sure if this is meant to be sarcastic or not, but if not, I'm quite sure that you've missed amacca's point completely. The point was not that we shouldn't be paying for early learning education etc, but that we shouldn't have to deal with teenagers who are only in the school because their parents don't want to deal with them, and have no interest in supporting their children's education in any way, or dealing with their children when those children negatively affect the educational outcomes of children who are actually trying to learn.
    Correct me if I'm wrong amacca.

    This is an odd point as everyone is entitled legally to 6 years of second level education. So whether the parents care or not, is not really relevant.


Advertisement