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
Comments
-
The grade inflation at university might be an argument against continuous assessment or teacher assessment.0
-
I graduated with 14 people.
I knew my lecturers by their first names, got absolutely hammered with them and I even had dinner with my project supervisor and his wife in his house.
I never once felt like he wasn't able to be objective and in the end I came just short of first class honours which I needed for a PhD I was targeting.
It's just laziness to suggest it can't be done in schools.
I'm sorry but I find it impossible to take you seriously. You got "hammered" by a lecturer who graded you! Seriously? And you find that normal? Now I got hammered myself plenty of times back in the day but I could more easily picture myself in a hot tub with the pope than getting hammered with one of my lecturers. The poster who suggested that that's why you under performed for this lecturer may well have a point.
Also the idea of having dinner with another of your lecturers in his house makes me uncomfortable. And it's all because I'm convinced that a suitable, professional distance has to be maintained between teacher and student of any age for there to be any hope of objectivity in assessment. A teacher /lecturer is not a buddy.
In fact your story exemplifies why anonymous,impersonal assessment is by far the best policy.0 -
I graduated with 14 people.
I knew my lecturers by their first names, got absolutely hammered with them and I even had dinner with my project supervisor and his wife in his house.
I never once felt like he wasn't able to be objective and in the end I came just short of first class honours which I needed for a PhD I was targeting.
It's just laziness to suggest it can't be done in schools.
I'm sorry but I find it impossible to take you seriously. You got "hammered" by a lecturer who graded you! Seriously? And you find that normal? Now I got hammered myself plenty of times back in the day but I could more easily picture myself in a hot tub with the pope than getting hammered with one of my lecturers. The poster who suggested that that's why you under performed for this lecturer may well have a point.
Also the idea of having dinner with another of your lecturers in his house makes me uncomfortable. And it's all because I'm convinced that a suitable, professional distance has to be maintained between teacher and student of any age for there to be any hope of objectivity in assessment. A teacher /lecturer is not a buddy.
In fact your story exemplifies why anonymous,impersonal assessment is by far the best policy.
Which is a fair opinion but ultimately I felt like my grade was appropriate. I was disappointed not to get a first but as I said already, an external examiner agreed with the grading on my final project. The fact that I knew my supervisor made no difference in the end.
My degree is in a field well known for its heavy drinking and socialising. In that context, it wasn't unusual at all to be on the piss with lecturers.
There was a large overseas field trip component.0 -
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »The grade inflation at university might be an argument against continuous assessment or teacher assessment.
I very much believe it is.0 -
My degree is in a field well known for its heavy drinking and socialising. In that context, it wasn't unusual at all to be on the piss with lecturers.
I would say that a lot of college students go on the piss for 3-4 years regardless of course. Can't say any particular 'field' was known for heavy drinking when I was in college. College students are known in general for heavy drinking. Don't know anyone that used to do it with college lecturers though.0 -
Advertisement
-
rainbowtrout wrote: »My degree is in a field well known for its heavy drinking and socialising. In that context, it wasn't unusual at all to be on the piss with lecturers.
I would say that a lot of college students go on the piss for 3-4 years regardless of course. Can't say any particular 'field' was known for heavy drinking when I was in college. College students are known in general for heavy drinking. Don't know anyone that used to do it with college lecturers though.
It's quite a niché field not taught in many universities which is particularly known for its heavy drinking.
I'm not talking about just college drinking in general. Working professionals in this field drink quite heavily because of the amount of field work.
Anyway, it's beside the point. Just take my word for it, it's not strange to have gone drinking with my lecturers.
Although in general I agree it would be weird.0 -
everyone is now bursting with curiosity over what this heavy drinking niche field is..
please don't tell in case it would be identifying and anyway speculation is so much more fun
Internataional baccalaureate in microbrewery set up and funding combined with ecommerce and marketing.0 -
0
-
-
rainbowtrout wrote: »
Probably.
Anyway, I'm open to suggestions on how to improve the leaving cert outside of introducing continuous assessment.
But it does need to be changed in some way.0 -
Advertisement
-
rainbowtrout wrote: »It's probably something like archaeology....
I briefly considered archaeology ......... perhaps I made the wrong decision not considering it further, I thought it was all dusty old ruins and consulting on preservations orders, I had no idea they were such bon viveurs!0 -
Anyway, I'm open to suggestions on how to improve the leaving cert outside of introducing continuous assessment.
But it does need to be changed in some way.
This is not really about introducing continuous assessment itself....I'm not sure many would object to that idea at all ...its the standard of qualification and how and who is doing the assessment that I believe people have the issue with. Personally I think the way its been done is a shambles. My only hope is that they will realise what utter bolox the new Jc has been in some areas to this point and maybe tinker with it so its not a complete farce down the line (let the powers that be save face even though it is their mess up as this sort of mess up will affect students lives negatively down the line)
But to answer your question beyond just introducing continuous assessment ....and as that type of assessment doesn't take place in a vacuum with no connection to anything else...
Perhaps a start could be made on reducing pupil teacher ratios...I have to laugh when the powers that be suggest high pupil teacher ratios have no bearing on educational outcomes
Then maybe we could move on to thinking about reducing contact hours.
After that providing proper resources for these "new" methodologies might be thought about...as one poster here quite humorously observed teaching was the one job where they stole stationery from home to bring into their place of work rather than the other way around
We might leave out proper support/disciplinary back up for the small cohort of students (not always, not always the ones with diagnosed EBDs or almost never the ones with mild or sever learning difficulties) that are disruptive and continue to be but most classes and schools find themselves with very little to do but put up with them due to the legislative framework surrounding peoples right to education but complete lack of responsibility when accessing (some parents very much included here) ---- that seems to be an awful can of worms altogether.
Then we could talk about really properly assessing the effectiveness of many of these "new" methodologies and management systems in a school setting with the above problems with an eye on the uk system with its staff turnover/teacher burnout problems and just how good for a students education treating their teachers this way really is. Increasing levels of box ticking admin and paperwork and "planning for planning for planning" could be looked at....most teachers signed up to teach not spend a larger portion of their time administrating - and if it is the case that all this to my mind mostly superfluous activity is necessary for each individual teacher then massive reductions in other teaching work should be considered - the system needs to prioritise does it want teachers teaching or box ticking - while they are not entirely mutually exclusive the latter is definitely detrimental to the former.
We could also have a conversation about the inspections process and just how much of this "reform" is simply a cohort of people justifying their own existence while pushing through "cost saving" measures which could in some peoples opinion more justifiably be called yellow packing measures.
Assessing the fairness and transparency of the new promotions system (how fair and transparent is it really?)
I could add more
If its reform we are embarking upon then theres a hell of a lot of reform to do yet beyond the fluffy sparkly new JC.0 -
I also think part of our problem is keeping pupils in a academic style learning environment when it clearly does not suit everyone.
There should also be well resourced and relevant education/training programs available for post 16 students. This should have equal status to academic pathways and equally valued.
Unfortunately this does not come cheap. Much cheaper to put a teacher and a whiteboard in front of 30 seventeen year olds, rather than a well resourced and valued training program which will require much smaller tutor pupil ratio and more equipment.
A 16 year old boy or girl considering trades or other practical careers get no opportunity to explore this until after 18. That is too long. Every secondary teacher out there has experience pupils that are getting nothing from school after a certain stage. They may or may not be disruptive but they are getting nothing from school.0 -
Completely agree Joe. We're forever hearing about 'international models' of education to push through continuous assessment but the model of vocational training is completely ignored. But it confirms what we've always said, the 'reform' in the Irish ed system equates to saving money.I also think part of our problem is keeping pupils in a academic style learning environment when it clearly does not suit everyone.
There should also be well resourced and relevant education/training programs available for post 16 students. This should have equal status to academic pathways and equally valued.
Unfortunately this does not come cheap. Much cheaper to put a teacher and a whiteboard in front of 30 seventeen year olds, rather than a well resourced and valued training program which will require much smaller tutor pupil ratio and more equipment.
A 16 year old boy or girl considering trades or other practical careers get no opportunity to explore this until after 18. That is too long. Every secondary teacher out there has experience pupils that are getting nothing from school after a certain stage. They may or may not be disruptive but they are getting nothing from school.0 -
Completely agree Joe. We're forever hearing about 'international models' of education to push through continuous assessment but the model of vocational training is completely ignored. But it confirms what we've always said, the 'reform' in the Irish ed system equates to saving money.
I know exactly what you meant but I would add to that statement
It amounts to short term savings which will probably be long term costs imo. And I believe what savings were are will be offset by much greater costs.0 -
Completely agree Joe. We're forever hearing about 'international models' of education to push through continuous assessment but the model of vocational training is completely ignored. But it confirms what we've always said, the 'reform' in the Irish ed system equates to saving money.
I know exactly what you meant but I would add to that statement
It amounts to short term savings which will probably be long term costs imo. And I believe what savings were are will be offset by much greater costs.
But your version of reform coincidentally involves massive investment and improved working conditions for teachers before even looking at anything else.
I'm not saying you're wrong about the government cynically using "reform" as a catch phrase to save money. But again, nearly everything you said involves a lot of spending and better conditions for teachers.
You couldn't identify one low hanging fruit of inefficiencies on the part of teachers which costs nothing to fix?0 -
Currently in England if you have degree in chemistry, physics maths etc you will receive a bursary of 15 to 20 000 pounds to train as a teacher, with no conditions attached. That is what happens when a profession is slowly eroded and undermined. Teaching is still a good job here and attracts quality people. My own kids are in secondary school in Donegal and I cannot fault the work they are doing in school and the attitude of their teachers ( much better than years ago)Completely agree Joe. We're forever hearing about 'international models' of education to push through continuous assessment but the model of vocational training is completely ignored. But it confirms what we've always said, the 'reform' in the Irish ed system equates to saving money.
I know exactly what you meant but I would add to that statement
It amounts to short term savings which will probably be long term costs imo. And I believe what savings were are will be offset by much greater costs.
But your version of reform coincidentally involves massive investment and improved working conditions for teachers before even looking at anything else.
I'm not saying you're wrong about the government cynically using "reform" as a catch phrase to save money. But again, nearly everything you said involves a lot of spending and better conditions for teachers.
You couldn't identify one low hanging fruit of inefficiencies on the part of teachers which costs nothing to fix?
This discussion is about assessment which has to be standardised and impartial across 1000s of kids. Difficult to achieve with teacher assessment at a formal stage0 -
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/leaving-cert-deemed-by-just-4-of-pupils-as-fair-test-of-knowledge-1.3749258.
Nothing about additional workload for teachers amazingly though:).
Always good to see The Irish Times being that critical voice impartially reporting every story the Department and its various fonctionnaires in state-funded quangos feed it.
I suppose our intrepid journalists wouldn't wish to alienate their "government sources" and "exclusives" by highlighting the consequences of this egregious misnomer which they brazenly call "reform". When this blatant dumbing down of educational standards is faced up to down the road, watch The Irish Times try to take the high ground then while being spineless, sycophantic and obsequious as ever to newspaper-filling government spin now, when it matters.0 -
But your version of reform coincidentally involves massive investment and improved working conditions for teachers before even looking at anything else.
Well thats not entirely true - the reform that has been currently embarked upon does not look at any of the issues I have highlighted - I was just providing balance
All of the reform so far has coincidentally involved reduction in investment and much reduced working conditions for teachers and most likely disimproved standards of education for students in the long run due to thisI'm not saying you're wrong about the government cynically using "reform" as a catch phrase to save money. But again, nearly everything you said involves a lot of spending and better conditions for teachers.
Which I would argue means improved educational conditions for students...some people don't seem to get the link...
The average time a person spends in teaching in the UK is about 5 years.....how good is that for the students.You couldn't identify one low hanging fruit of inefficiencies on the part of teachers which costs nothing to fix?
But why ignore the potential future inefficiencies Ive outlined (and they have the potential to be massive inefficiencies) , these could be low hanging fruit if the powers that be had an iota of imagination and weren't simply trying to either cover their own arses, ring fence their own plots or curry favour with the powers that be. Its hugely inefficient to change a system to try ape a dysfunctional one a ferry trip across the water......the simple fact is, education costs money....you don't resource it properly, respect your workers then it won't work efficiently in the long run and that will probably end up costing the state more down the line....Teachers are the easy target in a much bigger game driven by an ideology which won't ultimately work in an educational setting.
One other low hanging fruit Id suggest would be find out what core group within NCCA is responsible for the new JC syllabus document (and not the poor low level plebs that spell checked it) and ask them if they'd like to have another go or actually do something useful with their lives...go on just read it if you think the new JC which will soon become the new LC is a good idea ...as I understand it a civil war of sorts took place due to the new "specifications"
.....anyway my opinion is reform is a two way street, There is evidence aplenty that whats currently happening ultimately results in massive staff turnover and isn't good for educational outcomes so why persist. Afaic teachers are more sinned against than sinning in this scenario...this "reform" doesn't deserve the name and it shouldn't be up to turkeys to vote for christmas ...0 -
Well thats not entirely true - the reform that has been currently embarked upon does not look at any of the issues I have highlighted - I was just providing balance
All of the reform so far has coincidentally involved reduction in investment and much reduced working conditions for teachers and most likely disimproved standards of education for students in the long run due to this
Which I would argue means improved educational conditions for students...some people don't seem to get the link...
The average time a person spends in teaching in the UK is about 5 years.....how good is that for the students.
But why ignore the potential future inefficiencies Ive outlined (and they have the potential to be massive inefficiencies) , these could be low hanging fruit if the powers that be had an iota of imagination and weren't simply trying to either cover their own arses, ring fence their own plots or curry favour with the powers that be. Its hugely inefficient to change a system to try ape a dysfunctional one a ferry trip across the water......the simple fact is, education costs money....you don't resource it properly, respect your workers then it won't work efficiently in the long run and that will probably end up costing the state more down the line....Teachers are the easy target in a much bigger game driven by an ideology which won't ultimately work in an educational setting.
One other low hanging fruit Id suggest would be find out what core group within NCCA is responsible for the new JC syllabus document (and not the poor low level plebs that spell checked it) and ask them if they'd like to have another go or actually do something useful with their lives...go on just read it if you think the new JC which will soon become the new LC is a good idea ...as I understand it a civil war of sorts took place due to the new "specifications"
.....anyway my opinion is reform is a two way street, There is evidence aplenty that whats currently happening ultimately results in massive staff turnover and isn't good for educational outcomes so why persist. Afaic teachers are more sinned against than sinning in this scenario...this "reform" doesn't deserve the name and it shouldn't be up to turkeys to vote for christmas ...
Brilliant post amacca,thank you. You constantly and consistently post about the need for sufficient resourcing and humane working conditions and the link between these and good educational outcomes and as you rightly point out many people just don't or won't get this. Probably because of the media propaganda and the relentless casting of the teacher in the role of fall guy /bad guy. And this resonates with many among the adult population, because well, they all went to school and there were a hell of lot more inefficient teachers around back then. Just as there were a hell of a lot more inefficient everything. And unfortunately many see the neo liberal agenda as the way to go, reduce state funding to a minimum in the name of the euphemistically termed "reforms" and work those public servants, especially teachers with their long holidays, till they drop.
Such a shame that you rarely to never see articles in the papers explaining it all from another, more balanced perspective, as you so eloquently do. But that perspective doesn't suit the agenda,so doesn't get published and the public are largely unaware of how potentially disastrous this whole "reform" agenda really is.0 -
Advertisement
-
It should sit nicely with grade inflation in third level institutions and "meeting targets"
Was the survey "what do you want" distributed widely amongst teachers....I haven't heard any of my former colleagues mention it......hundreds of response doesn't exactly represent a fair sample to my mind...defintely not something decisions like this should be based upon.
I wonder if the questions were leading or chosen specifically to favour an outcome and what body independently assessed this
Was there any mention of high contact hours, high pupil teacher ratios, poor resourcing, promotion system as open to abuse as it always was (perhaps moreso favouring the bull**** merchants) and how reforms might take this into account if they truly are reforms and how failure to even acknowledge never mind do something about these issues might impact on delivery
Was feedback given that shows nuanced comments/any other section responses were taken into account etc
You'd get fairly tired of surveys saying what the creators want them to.
From what I can discern it was distributed to Principals and Deputies at a conference. It then popped up on a facebook page for teachers involved with SEN who recommended other teachers should give their 2 cent ...
I'm sorry I didn't record all of the questions but it was discussed in this thread here a few months ago https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=108192994
Tl;Dr .... they'll get the response they want.
I'll post another link to a recent govt. consultation survey on Irish Language exemptions in a new thread.... you can see yet again the dice are loaded from the start no matter what way your position falls.0 -
But your version of reform coincidentally involves massive investment and improved working conditions for teachers before even looking at anything else.
Pay peanuts, get monkeys. Most systems and resources of quality involve a huge financial investment.
I've posted this before in other threads but here we go again: the Irish government wants Finnish results with Irish resources.
Here is one way of investing (ignoring curriculum reform for the moment). Have a 10 year plan (yes long term planning instead of short term planning).
Current pupil teacher ratios are 26:1 in primary and 19:1 in secondary.
So reduce them to 25 and 18 this year.
The following year reduce them to 24 and 17.
And so on.
Benefits:
Teachers are still teaching their full timetable but with reduced numbers in their classes, so there will probably be less disciplinary issues with smaller numbers, which makes for a less stressful environment both for the teacher and the students.
Collecting copies/ projects/ homework for correction means with smaller numbers that corrections take less time. Which leaves more time for prep if needed or free time which can only be good from a mental health point of view.
Students in smaller classes get more attention as they are not vying with 29 others to have a small slice of the teachers time. Improved outcomes for students.
Increased numbers of staff in schools would lessen the voluntary workload in areas such as extra curricular as there would be more people to share the burden, and more teachers might be willing to take on these activities as they would have more free time. This would also benefit the students.
Increased numbers of staff and the ability to provide small classes could provide an outlet to expand the curriculum available in schools where some minority subjects just aren't offered as there aren't enough numbers for the school to justify it. Classes of four for physics probably aren't a runner in most schools. Diversity of subject offerings means students have the opportunity to be exposed to subjects they might not get a chance to study otherwise and they may choose to study these subjects at third level. STEM promotion anyone?
Increased staff numbers could allow for introduction of programmes like LCA where staffing allocation and provision of fifth year subjects doesn't allow a school to provide for it currently.
All of those things could be possible just by reducing the pupil teacher ratio year on year over 5-10 years.
I'm no expert in the primary school arena but I would imagine that similar effects would be felt in that students with learning difficulties in basic numeracy and literacy could be given more time to help them achieve so they are not way behind when they reach secondary school.
Just reducing pupil teacher ratio can enhance the quality of education for students, but also enhance working conditions for teachers. I don't want to see this country's education system go the way of the UK where most teachers leave after five years, where staff rooms have revolving doors and students don't have the same teacher two years in a row. If most teachers leave after five years then there is no opportunity to build up experience.
I doubt there are many private sector industries in the UK relying on a degree level (and higher) educated workforce where most leave after five years.0 -
I'm not disputing that education needs more resources but can you not see this from a neutral perspective?
Government announces plans to reform Leaving Cert (which I think we can all agree needs improvement), teachers shoot it down for being a cynical cost savings exercise.
Teachers say that in order to get real reform, they need to get paid more and work less.
Can you not see the obvious incredulity on BOTH sides from someone not involved in the debate?0 -
By the way, I'm not saying I agree with continuous assessment in schools.
I think there's a lot of merit to the blunt but largely fair leaving cert. Although grinds and the performance of private schools show that you can still pay your way to success.
And I also don't care that teenagers want continuous assessment, of course they do.
But I also think that I studied German in school for six years and can't speak the language. Irish for 13. My French is better than my Irish and I only started a few months ago.
There is something broken in the current system. It is not educating young people, it's preparing then for an exam.
This by 1000%
The LC is not about education it is about an entry point to the CAO/University for the top professions. That is it.
Teachers in Ireland are not really interested in education either, they are self interested and want to protect their own patch, to the detriment of anyone else.0 -
rainbowtrout wrote: »Not true. All teachers in this country have the same qualification. Rich kids, as you put it have the resources to access fee paying schools. They come from families where parents are interested in their education and progression to third level. There is a drive there to succeed. Kids going to grind schools are not subjected to any magical teacher, they are expected to learn off bundles of notes on a 12-13 hour working day for the year. Kids accessing fee paying education are in classes with other kids from a similar background, so the overall vibe is to be competitive and do well.
Your average kid going to a community school in a town where there is only one secondary school encounters a very different situation, and a wider range of ability and support from home for the attending students. A more variable set of results - but it doesn't mean the teachers are crap.
Plenty of poorly performing teachers in fee paying schools too, only it is masked by the ability of the parents to pay for grinds.
Does this not in a way prove the point, that the LC is more about rote learning for the CAO points rather than education? So needs reform.
Do the teachers on here honestly think that this is the best type of education we should be offering 18-year-old kids? If you do, then I don't think you an educator.*
There is a hint in the actual name, grind schools. These schools are not about education, it's about doing the easier subjects to get that A1 like Home Economics or Classical Studies or whatever its called.
Not sure if there are bad teachers in these grind schools, most of them are head hunted and marketed as such come results time and plastered on glossy brochures for parents.
* From the same survey, 72% of teachers think the LC is NOT a fair test of knowledge, so if you think the LC is grand, you are in a minority among your own peers.0 -
rainbowtrout wrote: »Pay peanuts, get monkeys. Most systems and resources of quality involve a huge financial investment.
I've posted this before in other threads but here we go again: the Irish government wants Finnish results with Irish resources.
Here is one way of investing (ignoring curriculum reform for the moment). Have a 10 year plan (yes long term planning instead of short term planning).
Current pupil teacher ratios are 26:1 in primary and 19:1 in secondary.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.0 -
Does it though?Probably.
Anyway, I'm open to suggestions on how to improve the leaving cert outside of introducing continuous assessment.
But it does need to be changed in some way.
I mean, to some extent, I agree, the system is not perfect, but you (and many, many others) say that as though the system is badly broken. I don’t agree.
Yes, certain subjects are poorly served. Irish is particularly badly served, but that’s almost nothing to do with the leaving cert.
Yes, there is some pressure on students, but what kind of system wouldn’t put pressure on students? You’ve referred to the university system - I assure you that I felt under far more pressure at university than I ever felt in school.
Yes, there are underperforming teachers, but people underperform in every walk of life. I’d be far more concerned by underperforming doctors, but you don’t hear much about them. We live in a world where a lot of people get stuck doing something, not because they want to, but because by the time they figure out what they want to do, they have to take a big pay cut in order to switch fields, and can’t afford to, so they’re stuck. That’s not exclusive to teachers. If someone’s in a job they’d rather not be in, they’re probably not doing a great job. That doesn’t mean that they’re doing a bad job though.
What the system needs is genuine support. Instead of changing the course every few years, put money into providing more teachers and more options. Put systems in place that allow teachers to upskill, within their area of expertise and outside it, without penalising them either financially or professionally.
It does not get brought up often enough but here’s the truth about continuous assessment - the government didn’t try to bring it in because it’s better. They tried because it’s cheaper to make teachers do it than pay external examiners, but when that didn’t pan out, obviously they can’t admit that so they were forced to pretend that that wasn’t the reason.0 -
Does it though?
I mean, to some extent, I agree, the system is not perfect, but you (and many, many others) say that as though the system is badly broken. I don’t agree.
Yes, certain subjects are poorly served. Irish is particularly badly served, but that’s almost nothing to do with the leaving cert.
Yes, there is some pressure on students, but what kind of system wouldn’t put pressure on students? You’ve referred to the university system - I assure you that I felt under far more pressure at university than I ever felt in school.
Yes, there are underperforming teachers, but people underperform in every walk of life. I’d be far more concerned by underperforming doctors, but you don’t hear much about them. We live in a world where a lot of people get stuck doing something, not because they want to, but because by the time they figure out what they want to do, they have to take a big pay cut in order to switch fields, and can’t afford to, so they’re stuck. That’s not exclusive to teachers. If someone’s in a job they’d rather not be in, they’re probably not doing a great job. That doesn’t mean that they’re doing a bad job though.
What the system needs is genuine support. Instead of changing the course every few years, put money into providing more teachers and more options. Put systems in place that allow teachers to upskill, within their area of expertise and outside it, without penalising them either financially or professionally.
It does not get brought up often enough but here’s the truth about continuous assessment - the government didn’t try to bring it in because it’s better. They tried because it’s cheaper to make teachers do it than pay external examiners, but when that didn’t pan out, obviously they can’t admit that so they were forced to pretend that that wasn’t the reason.
I don't think the system is fundamentally broken, I think there is a problem with too many awful teachers and poorly designed curricula.
There already is some continuous assessment at leaving cert anyway, it should be pointed out. Things like the lab books and history project.
I never felt pressure in university unless I was being lazy. As long as I worked hard I was fine. If I didn't get the grade I wanted, it was because I was either too lazy or wasn't good enough. Thankfully the latter didn't happen too often because the points for my course was so high that a lot of the people who would struggle just on an academic basis never got in. If I wasn't good enough as in the case of my final grade, so be it. I accept that.
The leaving cert is different, I often felt under pressure because of how arbitrary the system was. For example, my Irish was terrible because I had five teachers in my leaving cert cycle. The main teacher had three kids in that space of time and there were two substitutes in between who were just awful. My main teacher was good when she was there but when we started fifth year, she was already heavily pregnant. She was gone before christmas. Then she didn't come back until the start of sixth year at which point she was pregnant again and she was gone by the mid term. She came back for the last few weeks in April/May and was shocked at how little we knew.
This isn't her fault. It's the 21st century, women should be allowed to take parental leave but it almost torpedoed my chances at getting into universities which required a pass in Irish.
I had a similar issue with music as well which I only took up in the leaving cert. My first teacher was absolutely great but after the first term in fifth year, he was promoted to vice principal and stopped teaching. We then had a recently qualified music teacher who the scrots in my class walked all over. She was gone by Easter and we had some absolute bellend take over (weirdly is now a county councillor) who seemed quite happy to just let the class randomly practice their own performances and liked to get the class to join him in doing a one hour glee session most Fridays (!!!). We finally got a decent teacher at the start of sixth year at which point we had barely covered any of the set materials.
I can list more examples of my awful leaving cert teachers if you want and how I feel they impacted on my "education". Which as I've discussed before, isn't really an education.
Again, your recommendations talk a lot about teachers getting more money and support without offering up anything tangible the teachers can do to change.0 -
I don't think the system is fundamentally broken, I think there is a problem with too many awful teachers and poorly designed curricula.
There already is some continuous assessment at leaving cert anyway, it should be pointed out. Things like the lab books and history project.
I never felt pressure in university unless I was being lazy. As long as I worked hard I was fine. If I didn't get the grade I wanted, it was because I was either too lazy or wasn't good enough. Thankfully the latter didn't happen too often because the points for my course was so high that a lot of the people who would struggle just on an academic basis never got in. If I wasn't good enough as in the case of my final grade, so be it. I accept that.
The leaving cert is different, I often felt under pressure because of how arbitrary the system was. For example, my Irish was terrible because I had five teachers in my leaving cert cycle. The main teacher had three kids in that space of time and there were two substitutes in between who were just awful. My main teacher was good when she was there but when we started fifth year, she was already heavily pregnant. She was gone before christmas. Then she didn't come back until the start of sixth year at which point she was pregnant again and she was gone by the mid term. She came back for the last few weeks in April/May and was shocked at how little we knew.
This isn't her fault. It's the 21st century, women should be allowed to take parental leave but it almost torpedoed my chances at getting into universities which required a pass in Irish.
I had a similar issue with music as well which I only took up in the leaving cert. My first teacher was absolutely great but after the first term in fifth year, he was promoted to vice principal and stopped teaching. We then had a recently qualified music teacher who the scrots in my class walked all over. She was gone by Easter and we had some absolute bellend take over (weirdly is now a county councillor) who seemed quite happy to just let the class randomly practice their own performances and liked to get the class to join him in doing a one hour glee session most Fridays (!!!). We finally got a decent teacher at the start of sixth year at which point we had barely covered any of the set materials.
I can list more examples of my awful leaving cert teachers if you want and how I feel they impacted on my "education". Which as I've discussed before, isn't really an education.
Again, your recommendations talk a lot about teachers getting more money and support without offering up anything tangible the teachers can do to change.
The issue of leaving cert reform and teacher performance are two different things though. Poorly performing teachers do exist and I agree in the worst cases there seems to be insufficient sanctions. However this issue also relates to senior management in schools and how effective the leadership is.
In terms of LC reform I'm approaching this from my own perspective. I work in Northern Ireland for over 20 years now which basically follows the same systems as England and Wales. (Scotland is different) I live in Donegal so my own kids are in sec school in the south and my wife also teaches in the south so I'm seeing both systems fairly closely.
I don't think the LC is fundamentally broken there may be some things that could be improved but in terms of challenging syllabi and also very importantly a rigorous assessment system not open to abuse, the LC does quite well.
Undoubtedly kids that can access grinds and fee paying schools have some advantage but ultimately these kids will also have to work hard to achieve the good result. Regardless of available help nobody gets good LC results without hard work and ability.
Teachers assess their students all the time, we encourage independent working, we encourage research. All these things are just good teaching.
The problem I have is the idea that teachers assess their own pupils work and this mark/grade whatever forms form part of the students final LC result.
That does not ensure rigorous standardised assessment. Believe me we have been doing this for years in the North and it doesn't work. What happens is the marks in this aspect of the pupils work is inflated so traditional exams are then needed to discriminate.
Imagine you have a class of pupils that you get on well with and you genuinely have their best interests at heart. If you think teachers in other schools are giving unfair advantage what will you do.
Ultimately the LC is a competition, not between pupils and the test but between pupils and each other. I would like to think I have never carried out malpractice but I have push the help I'm allowed to give to the very limit and that limit can be a grey area.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
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.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.
Perhaps lower the age for starting primary?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.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.0
Advertisement