Irish Education: 'Cosy and privileged'
Solus
1,300 contracted hours a year – over 500 more than the Irish contract,
according to OECD figures, writes KEVIN O’BRIEN"
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/education/2009/1020/1224257048787.html
"Remuneration of Irish teachers has increased at such a rate that it
is now among the highest in the world and, as a result, almost all of
the €6 billion school budget finds its way into teachers’ bank
accounts, leaving only €0.5 billion to run the schools."
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/education/2009/1020/1224257048765.html
Solus
Timothy Murphy
> "Remuneration of Irish teachers has increased at such a rate that it
> is now among the highest in the world and, as a result, almost all of
> the €6 billion school budget finds its way into teachers’ bank
> accounts, leaving only €0.5 billion to run the schools."
This doesn't strike me as very bad.
I imagine teachers do most of the "running" of schools.
Assuming the 10% covers janitors, etc, this does not seem improper to me.
Do you want more money to be spent on them?
The schools I know best seem to be pretty well run.
What bad effect does this supposed lack of funding cause?
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
Andrius
> "I’M AN Irish teacher who has been in Kent since 2001 I work almost
> 1,300 contracted hours a year – over 500 more than the Irish contract,
> according to OECD figures, writes KEVIN O’BRIEN"
>
>
> "Remuneration of Irish teachers has increased at such a rate that it
> is now among the highest in the world and, as a result, almost all of
> the €6 billion school budget finds its way into teachers’ bank
> accounts, leaving only €0.5 billion to run the schools."
>
>
> Solus
LOL! How many pupils were not able to pass Maths at last year? About
30 %, is'nt? Know Irish, teach Irish, learn Irish. You will not
achieve IQ more than 55 in any case.
Regards,
Andrius
Howard
> "I’M AN Irish teacher who has been in Kent since 2001 I work almost
> 1,300 contracted hours a year – over 500 more than the Irish contract,
> according to OECD figures, writes KEVIN O’BRIEN"
>
It is an outrage. Irish people have a complete mental block over the
incompetence and self indulgence of the Irish teaching profession.
They work pitiful hours compared with everyone else, they get paid all
summer without working and they protect thousands of totally
incompetent and indifferent teachers.
We need to turn our focus to the indulgence we have given to this
profession and the failure they have given us back.
Howard
Timothy Murphy
> Irish people have a complete mental block over the
> incompetence and self indulgence of the Irish teaching profession.
> They work pitiful hours compared with everyone else, they get paid all
> summer without working and they protect thousands of totally
> incompetent and indifferent teachers.
I wonder how many teachers you know?
I only know the 12 teachers at one particular NS well,
but all these teachers are hard-working and devoted to their jobs.
Also the only times I have known teachers in this school
to be off work is when they are genuinely ill,
maybe 2 or 3 days each during the year.
I don't know how typical this school -
one of the Educate Together NS's -
is, but I'm pretty sure most teachers are devoted to their work.
Having said that, I do believe the pay of teachers -
and other public servants, including government ministers -
needs to be brought down to eurozone levels.
I don't think the current government is capable of doing this,
because it is widely seen as favouring the very well off.
I am not in general in favour of national governments,
but I think in this case it would be the best choice
for the next 4 or 5 years in Ireland.
Augustus O'Muircheartaigh
> Howard wrote:
> > Irish people have a complete mental block over the
> > incompetence and self indulgence of the Irish teaching profession.
> > They work pitiful hours compared with everyone else, they get paid all
> > summer without working and they protect thousands of totally
> > incompetent and indifferent teachers.
>
> I wonder how many teachers you know?
> I only know the 12 teachers at one particular NS well,
> but all these teachers are hard-working and devoted to their jobs.
> Also the only times I have known teachers in this school
> to be off work is when they are genuinely ill,
> maybe 2 or 3 days each during the year.
>
> I don't know how typical this school -
> one of the Educate Together NS's -
> is, but I'm pretty sure most teachers are devoted to their work.
I do think teachers are being singled out a bit unfairly and I agree
that most teachers I have ever met or come across were pretty amazing
and dedicated and hard working. The arguments that are being used to
defend the pay and conditions are interesting though. There was a
bloke on Pat Kenny on Friday from one of the teachers unions debating
with the Irish guy who is teaching in England and who wrote that
article. The union bloke used the old "quality" trick. This trick
has been used by every protected/monopoly cartel in Ireland for
decades to defend protectionism.
It has been used recently to defend high dental costs in the RoI vs.
NI which is a sick joke. It was used by taxi drivers, Team Aer Lingus/
SRI technic, Eircom, Aer LIngus, Barristers to defend high costs. In
this case, the union leader claimed that OECD ratings said that Irish
pupils were very well educated and that this was only due to high
teacher salaries. This is in marked contrast to demands from just a
few years ago that claimed standards were falling due to large class
sizes and that teachers salaries were too low.
You are right to say the public service salaries as a whole are too
high by eurozone standards. I am not sure though, that many people
realise just how high. I too work in a university and I recenty was
involved on an interview panel in a UK university for a full professor
position. The salary was of the order of 70-80k sterling max. One
bloke they tried to hire was from a Eurozone country with a stable
economy. In his country Professors were being paid around 80keuro per
year. In the RoI the rate is almost double that. Something has to
give. If FF back down now, then they are spineless and will deserve
to be kicked out afap.
Fergus O'Rourke
news:hc0ina$ksp$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
[snip]
> They work pitiful hours compared with everyone else,
1. Hours in front of a class are not the only hours worked by teachers, any
more than Pat Kenny's working day begins at 10 and ends at 12;
2. The idea that the same length of working day is appropriate for all
occupations is nonsense
(I am not suggesting that all of the issues raised regarding teachers are
invalid)
--
FERGUS O'ROURKE
www.twitter.com/ubfid
www.irish-lawyer.com
(Not just law stuff)
Howard
> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:hc0ina$ksp$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> [snip]
>> They work pitiful hours compared with everyone else,
> [snip]
>
> 1. Hours in front of a class are not the only hours worked by teachers, any
> more than Pat Kenny's working day begins at 10 and ends at 12;
I wasn't referring to hours in front of a class .... :-) I was
referring to total hours.
While I know for a fact that MANY teachers work many more hours - I
also know for a FACT that a heck of a lot don't.
>
> 2. The idea that the same length of working day is appropriate for all
> occupations is nonsense
>
> (I am not suggesting that all of the issues raised regarding teachers are
> invalid)
I think that your knee jerk reaction is incorrect. I wasn't suggesting
that everyone would work the same hours, I was making my comment in a
general way and in a general comparison.
In my extended family for example there are two primary school teachers
both of whcih are paid on HeadMaster rates. One is Head of a large
primary school with hundreds of pupils. He comes home at 4pm every day
and does not work whatsoever afterward. He then has months of holidays
fully paid in the summer. The other Head is Head of a school with a few
dozen pupils and one other teacher and is home at 3pm every day with no
extra work whatsoever. While your pont about every job not necessarily
being of similar hours, I suggest that the hours worked by teachers in
a year is totally undeserving of their salaries. I also find it bizarre
that just because the students are not in class in the summer, they
cannot be working on preparations etc for th forthcoming school terms.
H
Timothy Murphy
> 1. Hours in front of a class are not the only hours worked by teachers,
> any more than Pat Kenny's working day begins at 10 and ends at 12;
>
> 2. The idea that the same length of working day is appropriate for all
> occupations is nonsense
I agree very strongly with point 2.
A teacher is actively interacting with his/her pupils
for almost all the time.
There are very few other jobs that compare with this.
Howard
> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
>
>> 1. Hours in front of a class are not the only hours worked by teachers,
>> any more than Pat Kenny's working day begins at 10 and ends at 12;
>>
>> 2. The idea that the same length of working day is appropriate for all
>> occupations is nonsense
>
> I agree very strongly with point 2.
> A teacher is actively interacting with his/her pupils
> for almost all the time.
> There are very few other jobs that compare with this.
What on earth does that mean ? the girls on the check out in tesco are
interacting with their customers ALL the time..... Managers are
interacting all hours, often skipping lunch. What are you saying ?
H
Fergus O'Rourke
news:0b04ca45-00f9-40bd...@e34g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
>I do think teachers are being singled out a bit unfairly and I agree
>that most teachers I have ever met or come across were pretty amazing
>and dedicated and hard working. The arguments that are being used to
>defend the pay and conditions are interesting though. There was a
>bloke on Pat Kenny on Friday from one of the teachers unions debating
>with the Irish guy who is teaching in England and who wrote that
>article. The union bloke used the old "quality" trick. This trick
>has been used by every protected/monopoly cartel in Ireland for
>decades to defend protectionism.
It can be "a trick" as you say, but is relative quality irrelevant ?
>It has been used recently to defend high dental costs in the RoI vs.
>NI which is a sick joke. It was used by taxi drivers, Team Aer Lingus/
>SRI technic, Eircom, Aer LIngus, Barristers to defend high costs.
Just because it's wrong for dentists or others does not mean that it is
wrong for teachers.
Is the quality of Irish teaching higher or lower than English ?
Quality is never irrelevant, even if it is sometimes misused.
>In this case, the union leader claimed that OECD ratings said that Irish
>pupils were very well educated and that this was only due to high
>teacher salaries. This is in marked contrast to demands from just a
>few years ago that claimed standards were falling due to large class
>sizes and that teachers salaries were too low.
[snip]
Sorry, don't follow.
Augustus O'Muircheartaigh
> "Augustus O'Muircheartaigh" <victorburgu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0b04ca45-00f9-40bd...@e34g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> [snip]
>
> >I do think teachers are being singled out a bit unfairly and I agree
> >that most teachers I have ever met or come across were pretty amazing
> >and dedicated and hard working. The arguments that are being used to
> >defend the pay and conditions are interesting though. There was a
> >bloke on Pat Kenny on Friday from one of the teachers unions debating
> >with the Irish guy who is teaching in England and who wrote that
> >article. The union bloke used the old "quality" trick. This trick
> >has been used by every protected/monopoly cartel in Ireland for
> >decades to defend protectionism.
>
> It can be "a trick" as you say, but is relative quality irrelevant ?
Quality is very important but I have only ever seen it used as a
smokescreen
e.g. air fares were so high in the late 80s because Aer Lingus
provided such a quality service.
Quality of teching is very important but I am suspicious as to whether
or not the teaching that Irish kids get is really better than that in
other countries.
>
> >It has been used recently to defend high dental costs in the RoI vs.
> >NI which is a sick joke. It was used by taxi drivers, Team Aer Lingus/
> >SRI technic, Eircom, Aer LIngus, Barristers to defend high costs.
>
> Just because it's wrong for dentists or others does not mean that it is
> wrong for teachers.
> Is the quality of Irish teaching higher or lower than English ?
I am open to information/data on the subject. Do you know?
e>
> Quality is never irrelevant, even if it is sometimes misused.
>
> >In this case, the union leader claimed that OECD ratings said that Irish
> >pupils were very well educated and that this was only due to high
> >teacher salaries. This is in marked contrast to demands from just a
> >few years ago that claimed standards were falling due to large class
> >sizes and that teachers salaries were too low.
>
> [snip]
>
> Sorry, don't follow.
Over the past few years, the teachers unions pointed at large class
sizes and how this would damage teaching quality. Now they say the
quality is actually very high (because of the high wages). I see a
contradiction there. The standards are either high or they are not.
>
> --
> FERGUS O'ROURKEwww.twitter.com/ubfidwww.irish-lawyer.com
> (Not just law stuff)
Howard
>
> Quality is very important but I have only ever seen it used as a
> smokescreen
> e.g. air fares were so high in the late 80s because Aer Lingus
> provided such a quality service.
> Quality of teching is very important but I am suspicious as to whether
> or not the teaching that Irish kids get is really better than that in
> other countries.
My experience is of very mixed quality indeed. Between the two primary
schools and three secondary schools I have direct experience of through
my son and a similar number through my three nephews I believe that
approximately 40% of the teachers are basically incompetent. 20% are
totally indifferent and have resigned themselves to doing the bare
minimum to get bye and about 30% are "competent". That leaves 10% who
are actually what I would descibe as good teachers.
>
> Over the past few years, the teachers unions pointed at large class
> sizes and how this would damage teaching quality. Now they say the
> quality is actually very high (because of the high wages). I see a
> contradiction there. The standards are either high or they are not.
The Teachers Unions are the LAST people we should listen when it comes
to quality and standards. They have a vested interest in this whole
subject. The Union's sole interest is the welfare of their members and
not the pupils or standards.
H
David Malone
>The Teachers Unions are the LAST people we should listen when it comes
>to quality and standards. They have a vested interest in this whole
>subject. The Union's sole interest is the welfare of their members and
>not the pupils or standards.
I do remember someone from one of the teachers' unions on the radio
a couple of years ago talking about how "teachers were literally
turning themselves inside out" with the effort they were putting
in. I was hoping that he wasn't an English teacher (though, if he
was right, I'm sure the teachers he was speaking about had students'
undivided attention).
David.
Fergus O'Rourke
> On 2009-10-25 20:38:39 +0000, "Fergus O'Rourke" <us...@irish-lawyer.com>
> said:
>
>> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:hc0ina$ksp$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> [snip]
>>> They work pitiful hours compared with everyone else,
>> [snip]
>>
>> 1. Hours in front of a class are not the only hours worked by teachers,
>> any
>> more than Pat Kenny's working day begins at 10 and ends at 12;
>
> I wasn't referring to hours in front of a class .... :-) I was referring
> to total hours.
Where are those statistics ?
> While I know for a fact that MANY teachers work many more hours - I also
> know for a FACT that a heck of a lot don't.
Do you have a source for that ?
>> 2. The idea that the same length of working day is appropriate for all
>> occupations is nonsense
>>
>> (I am not suggesting that all of the issues raised regarding teachers are
>> invalid)
>
> I think that your knee jerk reaction is incorrect. I wasn't suggesting
> that everyone would work the same hours, I was making my comment in a
> general way and in a general comparison.
>
> In my extended family for example there are two primary school teachers
> both of whcih are paid on HeadMaster rates. One is Head of a large primary
> school with hundreds of pupils. He comes home at 4pm every day and does
> not work whatsoever afterward. He then has months of holidays fully paid
> in the summer. The other Head is Head of a school with a few dozen pupils
> and one other teacher and is home at 3pm every day with no extra work
> whatsoever.
That is totally in conflict with my observations on a similar basis.
> While your pont about every job not necessarily being of similar hours, I
> suggest that the hours worked by teachers in a year is totally undeserving
> of their salaries. I also find it bizarre that just because the students
> are not in class in the summer, they cannot be working on preparations etc
> for th forthcoming school terms.
And in my observation, they are.
However, there is a problem with some, perhaps many, teachers: that I do
agree.
Unfortunately, the inspectorate is unable to do a proper job because it is
allegedly "bloated" and therefore subject to continuous cuts.
Howard
>>
>> I wasn't referring to hours in front of a class .... :-) I was referring
>> to total hours.
>
> Where are those statistics ?
Life's experience.
>
>> While I know for a fact that MANY teachers work many more hours - I also
>> know for a FACT that a heck of a lot don't.
>
> Do you have a source for that ?
Several teachers in my extended family, many more among friends over
decades of experience and asking questions of them.
>
>>> 2. The idea that the same length of working day is appropriate for all
>>> occupations is nonsense
>>>
>>> (I am not suggesting that all of the issues raised regarding teachers are
>>> invalid)
>>
>> I think that your knee jerk reaction is incorrect. I wasn't suggesting
>> that everyone would work the same hours, I was making my comment in a
>> general way and in a general comparison.
>>
>> In my extended family for example there are two primary school teachers
>> both of whcih are paid on HeadMaster rates. One is Head of a large primary
>> school with hundreds of pupils. He comes home at 4pm every day and does
>> not work whatsoever afterward. He then has months of holidays fully paid
>> in the summer. The other Head is Head of a school with a few dozen pupils
>> and one other teacher and is home at 3pm every day with no extra work
>> whatsoever.
>
> That is totally in conflict with my observations on a similar basis.
My only explanation of this is the inconsistency of the teaching
profession. This is a big problem.
>
>> While your pont about every job not necessarily being of similar hours, I
>> suggest that the hours worked by teachers in a year is totally undeserving
>> of their salaries. I also find it bizarre that just because the students
>> are not in class in the summer, they cannot be working on preparations etc
>> for th forthcoming school terms.
>
> And in my observation, they are.
Wow... I have never in all my years encountered a single teacher who
stays in school during the summer to work. I have known three lady
teachers who lost time in the summer because they were pregnant and
then claimed the time back during term... how appalling is that !!!
One I still know went on a week computer course last July. She then
went back to school in september and got a week off school in term time
to compensate ...!!
>
> However, there is a problem with some, perhaps many, teachers: that I do
> agree.
>
> Unfortunately, the inspectorate is unable to do a proper job because it is
> allegedly "bloated" and therefore subject to continuous cuts.
The problem is not with the inspectorate...
The problem is the teachers union who will not allow any incompetent
teachers to be sanctioned or let go.
Howard
Fergus O'Rourke
On Oct 26, 11:56 am, "Fergus O'Rourke" <u...@irish-lawyer.com> wrote:
> "Augustus O'Muircheartaigh" <victorburgu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0b04ca45-00f9-40bd...@e34g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> [snip]
>
>Quality is very important but I have only ever seen it used as a
>smokescreen e.g. air fares were so high in the late 80s because Aer Lingus
>provided such a quality service.
>
>Quality of teching is very important but I am suspicious as to whether
>or not the teaching that Irish kids get is really better than that in
>other countries.
>
>>>It has been used recently to defend high dental costs in the RoI vs.
>>>NI which is a sick joke. It was used by taxi drivers, Team Aer Lingus/
>>>SRI technic, Eircom, Aer LIngus, Barristers to defend high costs.
>
>> Just because it's wrong for dentists or others does not mean that it is
>> wrong for teachers.
>> Is the quality of Irish teaching higher or lower than English ?
>
>I am open to information/data on the subject. Do you know ?
Not off hand, but comparisons *are* available.
>> Quality is never irrelevant, even if it is sometimes misused.
>
>> >In this case, the union leader claimed that OECD ratings said that Irish
>> >pupils were very well educated and that this was only due to high
> >>teacher salaries. This is in marked contrast to demands from just a
>> >few years ago that claimed standards were falling due to large class
>> >sizes and that teachers salaries were too low.
>
> [snip]
>
>> Sorry, don't follow.
>
>Over the past few years, the teachers unions pointed at large class
>sizes and how this would damage teaching quality. Now they say the
>quality is actually very high (because of the high wages). I see a
>contradiction there. The standards are either high or they are not.
There is no contradiction between the theories espoused by the union leaders
Large class sizes do tend to reduce quality, just as paying teachers more
will tend to increase it.
However, in neither case is the tendency inevitably successful.
Quality of teaching is not guaranteed by high salaries or low class sizes.
Fergus O'Rourke
> On 2009-10-26 17:19:27 +0000, "Fergus O'Rourke" <us...@irish-lawyer.com>
> said:
>>>
>>> I wasn't referring to hours in front of a class .... :-) I was
>>> referring
>>> to total hours.
>>
>> Where are those statistics ?
>
> Life's experience.
>>
>>> While I know for a fact that MANY teachers work many more hours - I also
>>> know for a FACT that a heck of a lot don't.
>>
>> Do you have a source for that ?
>
> Several teachers in my extended family, many more among friends over
> decades of experience and asking questions of them.
Anecdotes are not reliable.
>>> While your pont about every job not necessarily being of similar hours,
>>> I
>>> suggest that the hours worked by teachers in a year is totally
>>> undeserving
>>> of their salaries. I also find it bizarre that just because the students
>>> are not in class in the summer, they cannot be working on preparations
>>> etc
>>> for th forthcoming school terms.
>>
>> And in my observation, they are.
>
> Wow... I have never in all my years encountered a single teacher who stays
> in school during the summer to work.
There you go ... the limitations of individual experience.
However, I am not saying that I know of any teacher who "stays in school" to
work as if nothing else was different. Why should they ? Their presence is
unnecessary: the preparation can normally be done at home or at any other
location. (But in my local school, it's relatively rare to find the place
totally devoid of teaching staff for more a few days at a time during July
and August).
> I have known three lady teachers who lost time in the summer because they
> were pregnant and then claimed the time back during term... how appalling
> is that !!!
Appallingly incorrect: just look up the maternity leave regulations, long
established.
> One I still know went on a week computer course last July. She then went
> back to school in september and got a week off school in term time to
> compensate ...!!
*Two days* is what she would have got. (I am not defending or criticising
it).
>> However, there is a problem with some, perhaps many, teachers: that I do
>> agree.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the inspectorate is unable to do a proper job because it
>> is
>> allegedly "bloated" and therefore subject to continuous cuts.
>
> The problem is not with the inspectorate...
>
> The problem is the teachers union who will not allow any incompetent
> teachers to be sanctioned or let go.
Why can't it be both ?
Are you in a position to verify your claim that there is no problem with the
inspectorate ?
As for the unions, you exaggerate again.
No union would survive long if it took an indulgent view of a regime which
made dismissal easy.
However, union members in my experience FWIW are uncomfortable with how
difficult it is to get rid of the "bad apples" and it just needs some
backbone from the government.
Unfortunately, the inspectorate has to be considered again in this context.
There is also a BIG problem with agreeing what a good teacher and a bad
teacher is. I would encourage teachers to fight adoption of many criteria on
which you might be keen, for example. In every school, there is tension
between teachers doing a good job as they see it and parents who have a
different view. I am not saying that teachers are entitled (as they think)
to lay down the law on this, but I would not necessarily be happy to see
ignorant parents dictate to them on their professional standards.
Augustus O'Muircheartaigh
> "Augustus O'Muircheartaigh" <victorburgu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d3cf6bc2-34b3-4172...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 26, 11:56 am, "Fergus O'Rourke" <u...@irish-lawyer.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Augustus O'Muircheartaigh" <victorburgu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:0b04ca45-00f9-40bd...@e34g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> > [snip]
>
> >> It can be "a trick" as you say, but is relative quality irrelevant ?
> >Quality is very important but I have only ever seen it used as a
> >smokescreen e.g. air fares were so high in the late 80s because Aer Lingus
> >provided such a quality service.
>
> >Quality of teching is very important but I am suspicious as to whether
> >or not the teaching that Irish kids get is really better than that in
> >other countries.
>
> >>>It has been used recently to defend high dental costs in the RoI vs.
> >>>NI which is a sick joke. It was used by taxi drivers, Team Aer Lingus/
> >>>SRI technic, Eircom, Aer LIngus, Barristers to defend high costs.
>
> >> Just because it's wrong for dentists or others does not mean that it is
> >> wrong for teachers.
> >> Is the quality of Irish teaching higher or lower than English ?
>
> >I am open to information/data on the subject. Do you know ?
>
> Not off hand, but comparisons *are* available.
I could not find anything easy to digest. I am suspicious.
Can you find the comparisons then?
This all arose from an Irish guy who is teaching in England who
described his pay and conditions.
The Irish pay and conditions seemed luxurious compared to his. If
this really does deliver high quality, then that is an interesting and
important piece of information. I remain suspicious though.
>
>
>
> >> Quality is never irrelevant, even if it is sometimes misused.
>
> >> >In this case, the union leader claimed that OECD ratings said that Irish
> >> >pupils were very well educated and that this was only due to high
> > >>teacher salaries. This is in marked contrast to demands from just a
> >> >few years ago that claimed standards were falling due to large class
> >> >sizes and that teachers salaries were too low.
>
> > [snip]
>
> >> Sorry, don't follow.
>
> >Over the past few years, the teachers unions pointed at large class
> >sizes and how this would damage teaching quality. Now they say the
> >quality is actually very high (because of the high wages). I see a
> >contradiction there. The standards are either high or they are not.
>
> There is no contradiction between the theories espoused by the union leaders
>
> Large class sizes do tend to reduce quality, just as paying teachers more
> will tend to increase it.
>
> However, in neither case is the tendency inevitably successful.
The union leader said that teaching standards were high; higher than
in the UK and high by European standards.
He said this high quality was due to salaries. It is high or it is
not.
>
> Quality of teaching is not guaranteed by high salaries or low class sizes.
>
> --
Augustus O'Muircheartaigh
> "Howard" <Howard....@home.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hc54rr$eus$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>
> > On 2009-10-26 17:19:27 +0000, "Fergus O'Rourke" <u...@irish-lawyer.com>
I know this is a tangent but, in one well known Irish University that
I am familiar with, it is almost impossible to dismiss anyone.
Any approach of any kind that even hints at disciplinary action is met
by a solicitors letter and a letter from the Union. It really is very
very hard to get sacked. You do not even have to turn up very often.
In fact, just not being around, gets you noticed less and people just
get on with it. I do not know many people doing that but I have seen
a few.
With teachers it is less easy to dodge discipline seeing as their
position is so visible. They do get inspected and parents are often
very vocal. I also repeat a comment I made earlier where I stated
that almost all of the teachers that have been and that are involved
with my kids, have been exceptional. Nonetheless, the impression most
people have is that it is very difficult to sack a teacher. I do not
know if it is true or not.
Fergus O'Rourke
news:hc6akq$l84$1...@aioe.org...[snip]
>> I have known three lady teachers who lost time in the summer because they
>> were pregnant and then claimed the time back during term... how appalling
>> is that !!!
>
> Appallingly incorrect: just look up the maternity leave regulations, long
> established.
Oops ! This time I am wrong and you are right.
(Things got really mad when I wasn't looking)
>
>> One I still know went on a week computer course last July. She then went
>> back to school in september and got a week off school in term time to
>> compensate ...!!
>
> *Two days* is what she would have got. (I am not defending or criticising
> it).
Wrong again ! It is three !
I'll get me coat ...
Howard
> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:hc54rr$eus$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> On 2009-10-26 17:19:27 +0000, "Fergus O'Rourke" <us...@irish-lawyer.com>
>> said:
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't referring to hours in front of a class .... :-) I was
>>>> referring
>>>> to total hours.
>>>
>>> Where are those statistics ?
>>
>> Life's experience.
>>>
>>>> While I know for a fact that MANY teachers work many more hours - I also
>>>> know for a FACT that a heck of a lot don't.
>>>
>>> Do you have a source for that ?
>>
>> Several teachers in my extended family, many more among friends over
>> decades of experience and asking questions of them.
> [snip]
>
> Anecdotes are not reliable.
Wrong. They are 100% reliable because They are learnt from the horses
mouth. Your concept of reliability is more suited to being applied to a
major policy decision which would require more than anecdotal evidence.
However for discussion purposes and for the purpose of evidence that
there is something deeply wrong with the teaching profession in this
country - it is ample evidence when put together with others who have
similar experience - many of which
>
>
>>>> While your pont about every job not necessarily being of similar hours,
>>>> I
>>>> suggest that the hours worked by teachers in a year is totally
>>>> undeserving
>>>> of their salaries. I also find it bizarre that just because the students
>>>> are not in class in the summer, they cannot be working on preparations
>>>> etc
>>>> for th forthcoming school terms.
>>>
>>> And in my observation, they are.
>>
>> Wow... I have never in all my years encountered a single teacher who stays
>> in school during the summer to work.
>
> There you go ... the limitations of individual experience.
Oh please..... !
The limitation of personal experience is self evident and it aplies to
you as well as anyone else. But because it is limited does not mean it
is worthless and important. That is an important point.
>
> However, I am not saying that I know of any teacher who "stays in school" to
> work as if nothing else was different.
duh .......
> Why should they ? Their presence is
> unnecessary: the preparation can normally be done at home or at any other
> location. (But in my local school, it's relatively rare to find the place
> totally devoid of teaching staff for more a few days at a time during July
> and August).
One reason is --- they are being PAID. Also can you please tell me
another job where employees do not have to turn up to work based on
their own decision as to whether it is needed ?
It is an outrageous waste of public money that has been accepted for
far too long.
>
>> I have known three lady teachers who lost time in the summer because they
>> were pregnant and then claimed the time back during term... how appalling
>> is that !!!
>
> Appallingly incorrect: just look up the maternity leave regulations, long
> established.
One was this summer. She is off work now. I met her last week. We
discussed it. She finds is astonishing but, naturally takes advantage
of it.
>
>> One I still know went on a week computer course last July. She then went
>> back to school in september and got a week off school in term time to
>> compensate ...!!
>
> *Two days* is what she would have got. (I am not defending or criticising
> it).
She got the full week and I recall her specifically doing this at least
five times over the last, roughly, ten years. This time she went to
Vienna with her husband.
>
>
>>> However, there is a problem with some, perhaps many, teachers: that I do
>>> agree.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, the inspectorate is unable to do a proper job because it
>>> is
>>> allegedly "bloated" and therefore subject to continuous cuts.
>>
>> The problem is not with the inspectorate...
>>
>> The problem is the teachers union who will not allow any incompetent
>> teachers to be sanctioned or let go.
>
> Why can't it be both ?
There could be aspects of both. I was simply commenting on my opinion
as to where the principle fault lies. There is no motivation on the
inspectorate when they are continually blocked by the unions. And the
inspectorate only find the worst of the worst. In addition they do not
inspect for teaching ability in classrooms... otherwise they would be
drowned in it.
>
> Are you in a position to verify your claim that there is no problem with the
> inspectorate ?
duh... I never actually made that statement. Please point out where I
made it... :-)
>
> As for the unions, you exaggerate again.
How many incompetent teachers were dismissed or sanctioned in 2006 and 2007 ?
>
> No union would survive long if it took an indulgent view of a regime which
> made dismissal easy.
That is why they should have no involvement in this process. It is a travesty.
>
> However, union members in my experience FWIW are uncomfortable with how
> difficult it is to get rid of the "bad apples" and it just needs some
> backbone from the government.
Totally wrong. They are in utter denial and only admit to a few bad
apples, but they know it could be them if they allow it. You are right
however that it is the Gov that needs to get it's finger out and face
teachers down. However the Teachers unions have been allowed to
accumulate excessive amounts of power over the decades and they only
have to threaten strike and they win. It's pathetic.
>
> Unfortunately, the inspectorate has to be considered again in this context.
>
> There is also a BIG problem with agreeing what a good teacher and a bad
> teacher is. I would encourage teachers to fight adoption of many criteria on
> which you might be keen, for example. In every school, there is tension
> between teachers doing a good job as they see it and parents who have a
> different view. I am not saying that teachers are entitled (as they think)
> to lay down the law on this, but I would not necessarily be happy to see
> ignorant parents dictate to them on their professional standards.
No one ever requested such a criteria, so your point is worthless straw
doggery.
I base my experience on teachers who read the newspaper throughout
class for four or five months as a time. Teachers who cannot control
the classroom and allow students to shout and swear continually
throughout the class period etc etc etc... the list is long.
The truth is students are almost always the best judges of good teachers.
Howard
Howard
> "Fergus O'Rourke" <us...@irish-lawyer.com> wrote in message
> news:hc6akq$l84$1...@aioe.org...
>> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:hc54rr$eus$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> [snip]
>>> I have known three lady teachers who lost time in the summer because they
>>> were pregnant and then claimed the time back during term... how appalling
>>> is that !!!
>>
>> Appallingly incorrect: just look up the maternity leave regulations, long
>> established.
>
> Oops ! This time I am wrong and you are right.
>
> (Things got really mad when I wasn't looking)
I respect your correction - I would guess that the craziness of the
regulations acted subconsciously :-)
>
>>
>>> One I still know went on a week computer course last July. She then went
>>> back to school in september and got a week off school in term time to
>>> compensate ...!!
>>
>> *Two days* is what she would have got. (I am not defending or criticising
>> it).
>
> Wrong again ! It is three !
>
> I'll get me coat ...
I only know what is being done in practice. And it is appalling nonsense.
Howard
Fergus O'Rourke
> On 2009-10-27 08:22:31 +0000, "Fergus O'Rourke" <us...@irish-lawyer.com>
> said:
>
>> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:hc54rr$eus$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>>>> And in my observation, they are.
>>>
>>> Wow... I have never in all my years encountered a single teacher who
>>> stays
>>> in school during the summer to work.
>>
>> There you go ... the limitations of individual experience.
>
> Oh please..... !
> The limitation of personal experience is self evident and it aplies to you
> as well as anyone else. But because it is limited does not mean it is
> worthless and important. That is an important point.
>>
>> However, I am not saying that I know of any teacher who "stays in school"
>> to
>> work as if nothing else was different.
>
> duh .......
>
>> Why should they ? Their presence is
>> unnecessary: the preparation can normally be done at home or at any other
>> location. (But in my local school, it's relatively rare to find the place
>> totally devoid of teaching staff for more a few days at a time during
>> July
>> and August).
>
> One reason is --- they are being PAID.
What possible interest is served by obliging people to travel to a location
to do work that can be done wherever they happen to be ?
> Also can you please tell me another job where employees do not have to
> turn up to work based on their own decision as to whether it is needed ?
[snip]
Is "turning up to work" an accurate description of someone sitting in an
empty room making plans ?
Who should decide on whether a teacher has prepared his or her programme for
the year ahead ?
>>> One I still know went on a week computer course last July. She then
>>> went
>>> back to school in september and got a week off school in term time to
>>> compensate ...!!
>>
>> *Two days* is what she would have got. (I am not defending or
>> criticising
>> it).
>
> She got the full week and I recall her specifically doing this at least
> five times over the last, roughly, ten years. This time she went to Vienna
> with her husband.
She must have got the other two days for something else.
>>>> However, there is a problem with some, perhaps many, teachers: that I
>>>> do
>>>> agree.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, the inspectorate is unable to do a proper job because it
>>>> is
>>>> allegedly "bloated" and therefore subject to continuous cuts.
>>>
>>> The problem is not with the inspectorate...
>>>
>>> The problem is the teachers union who will not allow any incompetent
>>> teachers to be sanctioned or let go.
>
>>
>> Why can't it be both ?
>
> There could be aspects of both. I was simply commenting on my opinion as
> to where the principle fault lies. There is no motivation on the
> inspectorate when they are continually blocked by the unions. And the
> inspectorate only find the worst of the worst. In addition they do not
> inspect for teaching ability in classrooms
Yes they do
>
>>
>> Are you in a position to verify your claim that there is no problem with
>> the
>> inspectorate ?
>
> duh... I never actually made that statement. Please point out where I made
> it... :-)
You said that the problem is not with the inspectorate
>> As for the unions, you exaggerate again.
>
> How many incompetent teachers were dismissed or sanctioned in 2006 and
> 2007 ?
Dunno
>> No union would survive long if it took an indulgent view of a regime
>> which
>> made dismissal easy.
>
> That is why they should have no involvement in this process. It is a
> travesty.
What are unions for, in your opinion ?
>> However, union members in my experience FWIW are uncomfortable with how
>> difficult it is to get rid of the "bad apples" and it just needs some
>> backbone from the government.
>
> Totally wrong. They are in utter denial and only admit to a few bad
> apples, but they know it could be them if they allow it. You are right
> however that it is the Gov that needs to get it's finger out and face
> teachers down. However the Teachers unions have been allowed to accumulate
> excessive amounts of power over the decades and they only have to threaten
> strike and they win. It's pathetic.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the inspectorate has to be considered again in this
>> context.
>>
>> There is also a BIG problem with agreeing what a good teacher and a bad
>> teacher is. I would encourage teachers to fight adoption of many criteria
>> on
>> which you might be keen, for example. In every school, there is tension
>> between teachers doing a good job as they see it and parents who have a
>> different view. I am not saying that teachers are entitled (as they
>> think)
>> to lay down the law on this, but I would not necessarily be happy to see
>> ignorant parents dictate to them on their professional standards.
>
> No one ever requested such a criteria, so your point is worthless straw
> doggery. [snip]
As soon as competence gets to be discussed, those criteria will become
relevant.
Howard
>
> What possible interest is served by obliging people to travel to a location
> to do work that can be done wherever they happen to be ?
Q: What possible interest is servied to pay people who have no work to do ?
Q: It is very possible that if they spent more time preparing - then
their wuality of teaching would be higher.
>
>> Also can you please tell me another job where employees do not have to
>> turn up to work based on their own decision as to whether it is needed ?
> [snip]
>
> Is "turning up to work" an accurate description of someone sitting in an
> empty room making plans ?
> Who should decide on whether a teacher has prepared his or her programme for
> the year ahead ?
His Headmaster and Inspector.
>
>>>> One I still know went on a week computer course last July. She then
>>>> went
>>>> back to school in september and got a week off school in term time to
>>>> compensate ...!!
>>>
>>> *Two days* is what she would have got. (I am not defending or
>>> criticising
>>> it).
>>
>> She got the full week and I recall her specifically doing this at least
>> five times over the last, roughly, ten years. This time she went to Vienna
>> with her husband.
>
> She must have got the other two days for something else.
That's not what she told me. You are only going by what you read.
>
>>>>> However, there is a problem with some, perhaps many, teachers: that I
>>>>> do
>>>>> agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, the inspectorate is unable to do a proper job because it
>>>>> is
>>>>> allegedly "bloated" and therefore subject to continuous cuts.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is not with the inspectorate...
>>>>
>>>> The problem is the teachers union who will not allow any incompetent
>>>> teachers to be sanctioned or let go.
>>
>>>
>>> Why can't it be both ?
>>
>> There could be aspects of both. I was simply commenting on my opinion as
>> to where the principle fault lies. There is no motivation on the
>> inspectorate when they are continually blocked by the unions. And the
>> inspectorate only find the worst of the worst. In addition they do not
>> inspect for teaching ability in classrooms
>
> Yes they do
Well then they are as incompetent as the teachers they are inspecting.
There was a long inspection of a school my son was at two years ago and
the teacher who reads the newspaper all class every class through the
terms. He is still there and nothing has been done. His Head is aware
of the problem but says he can do nothing.
> You said that the problem is not with the inspectorate
Exactly. Please don't play word games. I did not say there was no
problem with the inspectorate and the meaning of my sentence was clear.
>
>>> As for the unions, you exaggerate again.
>>
>> How many incompetent teachers were dismissed or sanctioned in 2006 and
>> 2007 ?
>
> Dunno
Then you have no basis on which to say I exagerate. I may be wrong or
right as I don't have the definitive figures either. But I do gather
from talking with a teacher briefly who is a union guy that it is very
very low.
>
>>> No union would survive long if it took an indulgent view of a regime
>>> which
>>> made dismissal easy.
>>
>> That is why they should have no involvement in this process. It is a
>> travesty.
>
> What are unions for, in your opinion ?
To look after the interests of their own members. End of story. They
should not be involved in the employer's assessment of the competency
of the employees. They should reflect their self appointed status as a
"profession" and while supporting their members, they should set higher
standards for themselves and support sanctions agains incompetent
teachers.
>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, the inspectorate has to be considered again in this
>>> context.
>>>
>>> There is also a BIG problem with agreeing what a good teacher and a bad
>>> teacher is. I would encourage teachers to fight adoption of many criteria
>>> on
>>> which you might be keen, for example. In every school, there is tension
>>> between teachers doing a good job as they see it and parents who have a
>>> different view. I am not saying that teachers are entitled (as they
>>> think)
>>> to lay down the law on this, but I would not necessarily be happy to see
>>> ignorant parents dictate to them on their professional standards.
>>
>> No one ever requested such a criteria, so your point is worthless straw
>> doggery. [snip]
>
> As soon as competence gets to be discussed, those criteria will become
> relevant.
They may be reaised, but I question whether they become relevant.
H
Ulick Magee
>
> One reason is --- they are being PAID. Also can you please tell me
> another job where employees do not have to turn up to work based on
> their own decision as to whether it is needed ?
> It is an outrageous waste of public money that has been accepted for
> far too long.
Stop paying teachers for the summer. They'd be in like a flash looking
for the school year to be extended. They easily get the statutory number
of paid days off with all the other breaks they get.
> I base my experience on teachers who read the newspaper throughout
> class for four or five months as a time. Teachers who cannot control
> the classroom and allow students to shout and swear continually
> throughout the class period etc etc etc... the list is long.
> The truth is students are almost always the best judges of good teachers.
For 4th and 5th class in primary I had the same teacher - every single
morning he read the Indo cover to cover in class. When he could be
bothered teaching, it was 50% Irish, 25% English, a bit of maths, and
the odd token effort for everything else. PE and art each occurred only
a handful of times over those two dreary long years - too much like work.
Every class in the school dreaded ending up with this guy, but he seemed
to be well regarded by the powers that be.
Oh just remembered, he once sent me out to the shops during class time
to buy him a packet of Carrolls! This was 1981 or 82...
--
Ulick Magee
Free software and free formats for free information for free people.
Open Office for Windows/OSX/Linux: http://www.openoffice.org
openSUSE Linux: http://en.opensuse.org
Howard
<ulickatm...@feckoff.invalid> said:
> Howard wrote:
>>
>> One reason is --- they are being PAID. Also can you please tell me
>> another job where employees do not have to turn up to work based on
>> their own decision as to whether it is needed ?
>> It is an outrageous waste of public money that has been accepted for
>> far too long.
>
> Stop paying teachers for the summer. They'd be in like a flash looking
> for the school year to be extended. They easily get the statutory number
> of paid days off with all the other breaks they get.
Someone will have to stand up to them some day. They are taking the
piss out of the rest of working people, EVEN in the PS. It will only
get worse.
>
>
>> I base my experience on teachers who read the newspaper throughout
>> class for four or five months as a time. Teachers who cannot control
>> the classroom and allow students to shout and swear continually
>> throughout the class period etc etc etc... the list is long.
>> The truth is students are almost always the best judges of good teachers.
>
> For 4th and 5th class in primary I had the same teacher - every single
> morning he read the Indo cover to cover in class. When he could be
> bothered teaching, it was 50% Irish, 25% English, a bit of maths, and
> the odd token effort for everything else. PE and art each occurred only
> a handful of times over those two dreary long years - too much like work.
>
> Every class in the school dreaded ending up with this guy, but he seemed
> to be well regarded by the powers that be.
>
> Oh just remembered, he once sent me out to the shops during class time
> to buy him a packet of Carrolls! This was 1981 or 82...
His protoges still abound.
H
Timothy Murphy
> Well then they are as incompetent as the teachers they are inspecting.
> There was a long inspection of a school my son was at two years ago and
> the teacher who reads the newspaper all class every class through the
> terms. He is still there and nothing has been done. His Head is aware
> of the problem but says he can do nothing.
If you feel the school your son was at was at fault
it was your job - your duty - to do something about it.
Did you join the PTA?
Did you speak to other parents?
Ulick Magee
>
> Someone will have to stand up to them some day. They are taking the
> piss out of the rest of working people, EVEN in the PS. It will only
> get worse.
Remember when in the boom years they were whinging about how some of
their pupils were going on to earn more than them..? They really do have
the most amazing sense of entitlement. Some of the details you have
mentioned are truly gob-smacking.
Problem is they have every Leaving Cert student and every dual-income
family in this country by the balls and they know it and the government
knows it too.
Howard
> Howard wrote:
>
>
>> Well then they are as incompetent as the teachers they are inspecting.
>> There was a long inspection of a school my son was at two years ago and
>> the teacher who reads the newspaper all class every class through the
>> terms. He is still there and nothing has been done. His Head is aware
>> of the problem but says he can do nothing.
>
> If you feel the school your son was at was at fault
> it was your job - your duty - to do something about it.
> Did you join the PTA?
> Did you speak to other parents?
I spoke and protested to the Head twice. The PTA is powerless. I still
know the chairman of the PTA and his son was in the same class. He
protested as well.
Howard
Fergus O'Rourke
> On 2009-10-27 17:43:53 +0000, "Fergus O'Rourke" <us...@irish-lawyer.com>
> said:
>
>>
>> What possible interest is served by obliging people to travel to a
>> location
>> to do work that can be done wherever they happen to be ?
>
> Q: What possible interest is servied to pay people who have no work to do
> ?
That is not the position, but even if it were it is irrelevant to the issue
under discussion.
> Q: It is very possible that if they spent more time preparing - then their
> wuality of teaching would be higher.
>>
>>> Also can you please tell me another job where employees do not have to
>>> turn up to work based on their own decision as to whether it is needed ?
>> [snip]
>>
>> Is "turning up to work" an accurate description of someone sitting in an
>> empty room making plans ?
>> Who should decide on whether a teacher has prepared his or her programme
>> for
>> the year ahead ?
>
> His Headmaster and Inspector.
It's not in the current job description of either of those, AFAIK
>>>>> One I still know went on a week computer course last July. She then
>>>>> went
>>>>> back to school in september and got a week off school in term time to
>>>>> compensate ...!!
>>>>
>>>> *Two days* is what she would have got. (I am not defending or
>>>> criticising
>>>> it).
>>>
>>> She got the full week and I recall her specifically doing this at least
>>> five times over the last, roughly, ten years. This time she went to
>>> Vienna
>>> with her husband.
>>
>> She must have got the other two days for something else.
>
> That's not what she told me. You are only going by what you read.
[snip]
I am married to a teacher, remember.
> There was a long inspection of a school my son was at two years ago and
> the teacher who reads the newspaper all class every class through the
> terms. He is still there and nothing has been done. His Head is aware of
> the problem but says he can do nothing.
Why do you believe him ?
>> You said that the problem is not with the inspectorate
>
> Exactly. Please don't play word games. I did not say there was no problem
> with the inspectorate and the meaning of my sentence was clear.
Dream on.
>>>> As for the unions, you exaggerate again.
>>>
>>> How many incompetent teachers were dismissed or sanctioned in 2006 and
>>> 2007 ?
>>
>> Dunno
>
> Then you have no basis on which to say I exagerate.
The reference to the unions was not limited to the isuue of how many
teachers were dismissed.
> I may be wrong or right as I don't have the definitive figures either. But
> I do gather from talking with a teacher briefly who is a union guy that it
> is very very low.
We are not in disagreement on that. No-one claims that the figure is high,
and in my experience no-one denies that it is too low, either.
>>>> No union would survive long if it took an indulgent view of a regime
>>>> which
>>>> made dismissal easy.
>>>
>>> That is why they should have no involvement in this process. It is a
>>> travesty.
>>
>> What are unions for, in your opinion ?
>
> To look after the interests of their own members. End of story.
You defeat yourself. The members' interests are not served by a regime of
easy dismissal.
I agree that the pendulum is too far in the other direction, so far indeed
that it is in the best interests of the union membership as a whole that the
process of dismissal be made easier. But it will never be possible or
desirable to exclude the unions from such processes.
>They should not be involved in the employer's assessment of the competency
>of the employees.
Why should the employer be granted divine status in this matter ? Do you
think the State would never attempt to dismiss an employee by a spurious
accusation of incompetence ?
>They should reflect their self appointed status as a "profession" and while
>supporting their members, they should set higher standards for themselves
>and support sanctions agains incompetent teachers.
[snip]
I agree with the latter part, and I know that many teachers do too.
Westprog
> Howard wrote:
>>
>> Someone will have to stand up to them some day. They are taking the
>> piss out of the rest of working people, EVEN in the PS. It will only
>> get worse.
>
> Remember when in the boom years they were whinging about how some of
> their pupils were going on to earn more than them..? They really do
> have the most amazing sense of entitlement. Some of the details you
> have mentioned are truly gob-smacking.
>
> Problem is they have every Leaving Cert student and every dual-income
> family in this country by the balls and they know it and the
> government knows it too.
I've noticed that there are endless training days and meeting which
constantly seem to shut schools down early, or for a long weekend. I can't
see why at least some of these should not be during the summer months,
though I suppose on occasion they need to cover what's going on at the
actual time.
--
J/
Fergus O'Rourke
news:7kovkdF...@mid.individual.net...
> Howard wrote:
>>
>> One reason is --- they are being PAID. Also can you please tell me
>> another job where employees do not have to turn up to work based on
>> their own decision as to whether it is needed ?
>> It is an outrageous waste of public money that has been accepted for
>> far too long.
>
> Stop paying teachers for the summer. They'd be in like a flash looking
> for the school year to be extended. They easily get the statutory number
> of paid days off with all the other breaks they get.
Here we go again.
We have the teachers that we have because they find the terms and conditions
acceptable.
Those who want to adversely change those terms and conditions, who
themselves did NOT find them sufficiently attractive, would have us believe
that there will be only good effects of this, and no bad ones, or at least
that the benefits will be worth the trouble.
They might be correct, I suppose, but if they are, it would be
extraordinary, and the onus is on them to show us why this result can be
expected.
Fergus O'Rourke
news:7kovkdF...@mid.individual.net...
> Howard wrote:
>> I base my experience on teachers who read the newspaper throughout
>> class for four or five months as a time. Teachers who cannot control
>> the classroom and allow students to shout and swear continually
>> throughout the class period etc etc etc... the list is long.
>> The truth is students are almost always the best judges of good teachers.
>
> For 4th and 5th class in primary I had the same teacher - every single
> morning he read the Indo cover to cover in class. When he could be
> bothered teaching, it was 50% Irish, 25% English, a bit of maths, and
> the odd token effort for everything else. PE and art each occurred only
> a handful of times over those two dreary long years - too much like work.
>
> Every class in the school dreaded ending up with this guy, but he seemed
> to be well regarded by the powers that be.
>
> Oh just remembered, he once sent me out to the shops during class time
> to buy him a packet of Carrolls! This was 1981 or 82...
I accept that these things happened.
However, none of the teachers that I had, or that my spouse had, or that my
children had, ever behaved like that. I have 7 siblings: one of them did
have such a teacher briefly, and over the years I have met many people who
had similar experiences - but many more who did not.
So, such teachers do exist, but they are unrepresentative as far as I can
tell. How much so, I cannot say: who can ?
It is right that we should make life more difficult for them, but please do
not tar every teacher with the same brush.
Westprog
> It is right that we should make life more difficult for them, but
> please do not tar every teacher with the same brush.
All teachers are clearly not like this. However, if it's possible to behave
in such a way, then it's possible for /any/ teacher to behave in such a way.
The question then is - is tolerating a very tiny minority of very, very bad
teachers who should obviously be dismissed having a good or a bad effect on
the performance of the average 90%?
--
J/
Westprog
> Scr�obh "Westprog" <west...@hottmail.com>:
> The problem is, the INTO makes it next to impossible to remove a
> teacher who is incompetent - or indeed abusive.
> I once saw a teacher removed from his job for beating the shit out of
> kids. It took 18 months, two TDs, half a county council and two
> bishops...
And while a teacher like that can do a lot of harm to a lot of people, the
worst effect would be on the efforts of his colleagues. Why bother going the
extra mile to, say, give a couple of children some extra coaching, when you
know that you'll be in the job for the next thirty years almost regardless?
--
J/
Howard
> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:hc7ci4$btq$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> On 2009-10-27 17:43:53 +0000, "Fergus O'Rourke" <us...@irish-lawyer.com>
>> said:
>>
>>>
>>> What possible interest is served by obliging people to travel to a
>>> location
>>> to do work that can be done wherever they happen to be ?
>>
>> Q: What possible interest is servied to pay people who have no work to do
>> ?
>
> That is not the position, but even if it were it is irrelevant to the issue
> under discussion.
I do realise that this discussion is not going very far but I have to
say I do not follow what this response means. Teachers are being paid
for two to three months while the vast majority of them do nothing, and
many if not a majority of them have historically double jobbed to boot.
It is VERY relevant to all discussions of teachers and their work.
>
>> Q: It is very possible that if they spent more time preparing - then their
>> wuality of teaching would be higher.
>>>
>>>> Also can you please tell me another job where employees do not have to
>>>> turn up to work based on their own decision as to whether it is needed ?
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Is "turning up to work" an accurate description of someone sitting in an
>>> empty room making plans ?
>>> Who should decide on whether a teacher has prepared his or her programme
>>> for
>>> the year ahead ?
>>
>> His Headmaster and Inspector.
>
> It's not in the current job description of either of those, AFAIK
eh... and that means what ? I am responding to a questions. They should imho.
>
>>>>>> One I still know went on a week computer course last July. She then
>>>>>> went
>>>>>> back to school in september and got a week off school in term time to
>>>>>> compensate ...!!
>>>>>
>>>>> *Two days* is what she would have got. (I am not defending or
>>>>> criticising
>>>>> it).
>>>>
>>>> She got the full week and I recall her specifically doing this at least
>>>> five times over the last, roughly, ten years. This time she went to
>>>> Vienna
>>>> with her husband.
>>>
>>> She must have got the other two days for something else.
>>
>> That's not what she told me. You are only going by what you read.
> [snip]
>
> I am married to a teacher, remember.
Ah - I had no idea. But as I say I can only go by what she told me.
And it is more or less the same in each of the last several years by
the way.
>
>> There was a long inspection of a school my son was at two years ago and
>> the teacher who reads the newspaper all class every class through the
>> terms. He is still there and nothing has been done. His Head is aware of
>> the problem but says he can do nothing.
>
> Why do you believe him ?
That's a hornet's nest that you're opening up there -) We can apply
that to a lot of things that would end all discussion on this topic.
>
>>> You said that the problem is not with the inspectorate
>>
>> Exactly. Please don't play word games. I did not say there was no problem
>> with the inspectorate and the meaning of my sentence was clear.
>
> Dream on.
I won't bite that one....
>
>>>>> As for the unions, you exaggerate again.
>>>>
>>>> How many incompetent teachers were dismissed or sanctioned in 2006 and
>>>> 2007 ?
>>>
>>> Dunno
>>
>> Then you have no basis on which to say I exagerate.
>
> The reference to the unions was not limited to the isuue of how many
> teachers were dismissed.
>
>> I may be wrong or right as I don't have the definitive figures either. But
>> I do gather from talking with a teacher briefly who is a union guy that it
>> is very very low.
>
> We are not in disagreement on that. No-one claims that the figure is high,
> and in my experience no-one denies that it is too low, either.
>
>>>>> No union would survive long if it took an indulgent view of a regime
>>>>> which
>>>>> made dismissal easy.
>>>>
>>>> That is why they should have no involvement in this process. It is a
>>>> travesty.
>>>
>>> What are unions for, in your opinion ?
>>
>> To look after the interests of their own members. End of story.
>
> You defeat yourself. The members' interests are not served by a regime of
> easy dismissal.
You must be referring to someone else. I have not made any argument
challenged by your point. I oppose the Union's involvement in
assessments. I believe Unions should only be involved in looking after
the interests of their own members and not wider educational or
policial issues. They are free to oppose efficient dismissals but first
the Gov should resist them and secondsly they should be exposed for
their policy and for supporting low standards.
>
> I agree that the pendulum is too far in the other direction, so far indeed
> that it is in the best interests of the union membership as a whole that the
> process of dismissal be made easier. But it will never be possible or
> desirable to exclude the unions from such processes.
Again word play. See me above comments. They are entitled to oppose
dismissals but should not be involved in the assessment and decision
making process. The final action depends on the deterination of the Gov
and the people.
>
>> They should not be involved in the employer's assessment of the competency
>> of the employees.
>
> Why should the employer be granted divine status in this matter ? Do you
> think the State would never attempt to dismiss an employee by a spurious
> accusation of incompetence ?
Firstly an employer should always be entitled to dismiss incompetent
staff. The employer pays the salary and delivers a service the
customer, the students and their parents. Does that means they don't
get a fair assessment ? no. I have always used the word 'assessment'
and have never supported 'spurious accusations'.
>
>> They should reflect their self appointed status as a "profession" and while
>> supporting their members, they should set higher standards for themselves
>> and support sanctions agains incompetent teachers.
> [snip]
>
> I agree with the latter part, and I know that many teachers do too.
I know some that do to. But I know that some of those also vote
against it because they buy into the 'thin end of the wedge' nonsense.
Howard
PS: if anyone wants to start a new thread so as to tidy this one up
please do ... :-)
Howard
> "Ulick Magee" <ulickatm...@feckoff.invalid> wrote in message
> news:7kovkdF...@mid.individual.net...
>> Howard wrote:
>>>
>>> One reason is --- they are being PAID. Also can you please tell me
>>> another job where employees do not have to turn up to work based on
>>> their own decision as to whether it is needed ?
>>> It is an outrageous waste of public money that has been accepted for
>>> far too long.
>>
>> Stop paying teachers for the summer. They'd be in like a flash looking
>> for the school year to be extended. They easily get the statutory number
>> of paid days off with all the other breaks they get.
> [snip]
>
> Here we go again.
>
> We have the teachers that we have because they find the terms and conditions
> acceptable.
I agree with this. The politicians and the people are equally to blame
for allowing this travesty to happen over the last 50 years. I don't
actually blame teachers for exploiting the stupidity of the Gov and the
voters.
>
> Those who want to adversely change those terms and conditions, who
> themselves did NOT find them sufficiently attractive, would have us believe
> that there will be only good effects of this, and no bad ones, or at least
> that the benefits will be worth the trouble.
>
> They might be correct, I suppose, but if they are, it would be
> extraordinary, and the onus is on them to show us why this result can be
> expected.
I have no idea what you are saying above ...........
H
Howard
If you were correct I would be the first to agree. I have lived in
North East Dublin and South East Dublin. I descibed earlier the direct
experience I have had with my son and his friends and my own family
network. This is a topic I have disscussed many many times with
friends, colleagues, neighbours and parents of my son's friends. I havw
written to the Times on a number of accasions about it too. I have
consistently, over a period of more than 30 years, received back the
same experiences on a consistent basis. More or less the same
percentage of incomptent teachers. It is clear to me that absolutely
nothing has changed since I was in School in the 60s and 70s.
I respect your experience, I can only offer mine.
Howard
Howard
It is having a corrosive effect. I have listened to teachers I have met
have told me that they have become completely disillusioned because
they bust a gut with their students all year and after school and in
the summer - only to find that many fellow teachers in their school sit
on their ass for year after year after year, do nothing, don;t bother
their asses with the students and go to Spain for the summer .... and
they get paid the same and never get challenged or sanctioned.
H
Howard
> Scr�obh "Westprog" <west...@hottmail.com>:
> The problem is, the INTO makes it next to impossible to remove a
> teacher who is incompetent - or indeed abusive.
>
> I once saw a teacher removed from his job for beating the shit out of
> kids. It took 18 months, two TDs, half a county council and two
> bishops...
As I mentioned above - even through the unions anger me - I blame the
GOV and the PEOPLE for not standing up to the Unions and demanding
action for our kids !!
if the people tell the gov to act the gov will act. But when the unions
threaten action, we the people must tell them in public and in no
uncertain terms that we do NOT support them and we will NOT back down.
Howard
Timothy Murphy
> I once saw a teacher removed from his job for beating the shit out of
> kids. It took 18 months, two TDs, half a county council and two
> bishops...
When was this?
Corporal punishment has been illegal in Irish schools since 1982.
The teacher would have been guilty of assault if it was since then.
Timothy Murphy
> All teachers are clearly not like this. However, if it's possible to
> behave in such a way, then it's possible for /any/ teacher to behave in
> such a way. The question then is - is tolerating a very tiny minority of
> very, very bad teachers who should obviously be dismissed having a good or
> a bad effect on the performance of the average 90%?
I don't recognize this picture of Irish schools.
Obviously in any profession there are a small proportion of people
who are not good at their job,
perhaps because they are alcoholics or mentally ill.
I don't think the proportion is any higher among teachers
than among doctors, accountants, solicitors, etc.
Also I don't believe such teachers would have any effect
on competent teachers, any more than a careless surgeon
makes other surgeons less careful.
I do think some teachers, as also social workers,
have their jobs made impossible by unruly pupils/clients.
Paul Carr
"Timothy Murphy" <gayl...@eircom.net>
??????:hoGHm.30443$j7.4...@news.indigo.ie...
> Westprog wrote:
>
>> All teachers are clearly not like this. However, if it's possible to
>> behave in such a way, then it's possible for /any/ teacher to behave in
>> such a way. The question then is - is tolerating a very tiny minority of
>> very, very bad teachers who should obviously be dismissed having a good
>> or
>> a bad effect on the performance of the average 90%?
>
> I don't recognize this picture of Irish schools.
> Obviously in any profession there are a small proportion of people
> who are not good at their job,
> perhaps because they are alcoholics or mentally ill.
> I don't think the proportion is any higher among teachers
> than among doctors, accountants, solicitors, etc.
>
> Also I don't believe such teachers would have any effect
> on competent teachers, any more than a careless surgeon
> makes other surgeons less careful.
>
> I do think some teachers, as also social workers,
> have their jobs made impossible by unruly pupils/clients.
Good grief, Timothy, you must have gone to a top-notch school.
Congratulations.
I went to Saint Catherine's Vocational School in Killybegs, County Donegal
from 1986 to 1991 when I did my Leaving Cert. In my experience, about 20%
of the teachers were pretty good. About 60% were poor, though they probably
would have got a bare pass because, at least, they weren't outright bad.
And, then there were about 20% of teachers who were goddamn awful. Like my
Geography teacher (also the deputy head-master), Mr Magee (I think we had to
address him as Master McGee because he was the deputy Headmaster). He once
ear-wigged me (ear-wigging involves twisting the victim's earlobes until
pain registers on the victim's face) for no f**king reason at all. I was
about 14 and waiting outside my Geography class, like a good student. I saw
him ear-wigging another Unfortunate inside the classroom. He saw me through
the window of the door. I was waiting for the next class. He came out and
ear-wigged me. He ear-wigged people because he enjoyed it (&). His eyes
turned white like a shark's as he saw the pain register on the student's
face, as the student's face winched, as the student closed his eyes in pain
and moaned in pain. The guy was sick. And last I checked, he's still in
Killybegs Vocational School serving as the deputy head master, along with
the headmaster, "Master" <ahem> Ward - both of whom should have been kicked
out a long long time ago. In my school, the students were helpless victims
with no rights and no power. In my school, it would have been an absolutely
ridiculous concept for the teachers to be held to account by the students.
The students were like concentration camp inmates. We were the little shits
at the bottom of the prison-chain-of-command. HeHe.
My anger with "Master" <ahem> Magee is tempered by the fact that he did the
ear-wigging to EVERYONE. Well, Saint Catherine's Vocational School was a
mixed school. He didn't do the ear-wigging to girls I think. And he didn't
do it to the older boys in 4th and 5th (final year) class. They were taller
and bigger boys, as tall or taller than him, and therefore, he didn't pick
on them. No, "Master" <ahem> Magee picked on the little boys, the 13 to 15
year olds. They were ripe for torture.
Paul Carr
(&) "Master" <ahem> Magee ear-wigged people because he believed he had a
teacher's divine right to do so. The headmaster, "Master" <ahem> Ward must
have known but did nothing. He once gave a staid speech in the School
Library condemning bullying, oblivious to the fact that some of the teachers
in my school were bullying helpless students and enjoying it. That was the
most, "Master" <ahem> Ward ever did. "Master" <ahem> Magee clearly had
missed his vocation, whatever that was supposed to be (torturing Muslims in
Bagram airbase perhaps?). He had settled into a job as a teacher in a
school no-one had heard of and, well, he was pissed off with his lot. A
steady job at least but the pay was shit and the students were ungrateful.
Ulick Magee
>
> Here we go again.
>
> We have the teachers that we have because they find the terms and conditions
> acceptable.
Yes.
If short hours and long holidays were brought more into line with what
most people consider a full-time job, then those teachers with a poor
work ethic would not have entered the profession - those already there
would consider leaving - and good riddance to them.
> Those who want to adversely change those terms and conditions, who
> themselves did NOT find them sufficiently attractive, would have us believe
> that there will be only good effects of this, and no bad ones, or at least
> that the benefits will be worth the trouble.
>
> They might be correct, I suppose, but if they are, it would be
> extraordinary, and the onus is on them to show us why this result can be
> expected.
So you contend that more working hours/shorter holidays would deter more
good teachers than bad? How could you possibly even begin to prove this?
This is exactly the TUI/INTO/ASTI line, "top class rewards will produce
a top class education system" - it lines techers' pockets (good and bad
alike) but certainly has not produced benefits to the public in line
with the generous rewards we pay for.
If there are bad teachers in the system (and we all know there are) they
need to be dealt with - this is irrelevant to the T&Cs of teachers in
general.
Ulick Magee
>
> I accept that these things happened.
>
> However, none of the teachers that I had, or that my spouse had, or that my
> children had, ever behaved like that. I have 7 siblings: one of them did
> have such a teacher briefly, and over the years I have met many people who
> had similar experiences - but many more who did not.
So? You can't prove or disprove an argument with anecdotes no matter how
many siblings you had.
Where you grew up and which school you went to (and how selective on
social or religious grounds they were in admitting pupils ) would have
had a huge effect on your experiences however.
The school I went to took the pupils that the posher ones in adjoining
areas would not. Presumably they took the teachers the other schools
would not, also.
> So, such teachers do exist, but they are unrepresentative as far as I can
> tell. How much so, I cannot say: who can ?
The point is that serious underperformance exists and is tolerated. They
are not representative of teachers as a whole, which is even more reason
for the profession to demand their removal instead of obstructing it.
> It is right that we should make life more difficult for them, but please do
> not tar every teacher with the same brush.
Oh come on. Nobody is saying for a second that there are not excellent
teachers out there. However it is unacceptable that underperformance is
so tolerated - a child only gets one chance at an education.
Fergus O'Rourke
> On 2009-11-01 13:30:55 +0000, "Fergus O'Rourke" <us...@irish-lawyer.com>
> said:
>
>> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:hc7ci4$btq$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>>> On 2009-10-27 17:43:53 +0000, "Fergus O'Rourke" <us...@irish-lawyer.com>
>>> said:
to further pursue]
>>> There was a long inspection of a school my son was at two years ago and
>>> the teacher who reads the newspaper all class every class through the
>>> terms. He is still there and nothing has been done. His Head is aware of
>>> the problem but says he can do nothing.
>>
>> Why do you believe him ?
>
> That's a hornet's nest that you're opening up there -) We can apply that
> to a lot of things that would end all discussion on this topic.
[snip]
We already had a hornets' nest - don't we always ? :-)
My point is that this alleged helplessness on the part of principals is not
TPIM all that it seems.
Principals are not really managers; they are more like shop-stewards. In the
primary schools, they are all INTO members, for example, and very often
active members. In my locality, the principal has been a fixture on the
delegation to INTO Annual Congress for decades.
Fergus O'Rourke
>> Those who want to adversely change those terms and conditions, who
>> themselves did NOT find them sufficiently attractive, would have us
>> believe
>> that there will be only good effects of this, and no bad ones, or at
>> least
>> that the benefits will be worth the trouble.
>>
>> They might be correct, I suppose, but if they are, it would be
>> extraordinary, and the onus is on them to show us why this result can be
>> expected.
>
> I have no idea what you are saying above ...........
1. Many people - including you, Howard, I assume - believe that the pay and
conditions for teachers are unbelievably attractive;
2. Despite that, the same people, for some odd reason, did not find the same
pay & conditions attractive enough to become teachers themselves;
3. They nonetheless appear to believe that making the pay & conditions
*less* attractive will continue to bring people into teaching without
reducing the quality of such people.
4. I allow for the possibility that point 3 above is incorrect i.e. that you
and the others do not hold this apparently ridiculous belief, but on the
contrary *do* accept that there will be a fall in the quantity and quality
of recruits. If so, I assume that your view is that the benefits of the
change will outweigh the disadvantage of such a fall.
5. If the latter assumption is accurate, it is my view that you are unlikely
to be correct, and that you should be able to adduce strong arguments to
support your view before suggesting it as a viable way forward.
Westprog
> 1. Many people - including you, Howard, I assume - believe that the
> pay and conditions for teachers are unbelievably attractive;
> 2. Despite that, the same people, for some odd reason, did not find
> the same pay & conditions attractive enough to become teachers
> themselves; 3. They nonetheless appear to believe that making the pay &
> conditions
> *less* attractive will continue to bring people into teaching without
> reducing the quality of such people.
> 4. I allow for the possibility that point 3 above is incorrect i.e.
> that you and the others do not hold this apparently ridiculous
> belief, but on the contrary *do* accept that there will be a fall in
> the quantity and quality of recruits. If so, I assume that your view
> is that the benefits of the change will outweigh the disadvantage of
> such a fall. 5. If the latter assumption is accurate, it is my view that
> you are
> unlikely to be correct, and that you should be able to adduce strong
> arguments to support your view before suggesting it as a viable way
> forward.
Saying that, for example, it's impossible to fire bad teachers does /not/
make the profession sound unbelievably attractive. I can well imagine that
many excellent potential teachers would find the prospect of working with
colleagues who were rewarded equally for much less work as making the
profession completely unviable.
There's a lot to make teaching unattractive. Terrible facilities, unruly and
ungrateful pupils, belligerent and unsupportive parents, political
interference or apathy - I suspect many people wouldn't want to do it. And
the long holidays and short working hours might be attractive but the pay,
while good, doesn't compare with other occupations.
For any profession or trade, if you set the conditions to demand the best
from the employee, then the job will attract people who want to give their
best.
--
J/
Fergus O'Rourke
[snip]
> I have consistently, over a period of more than 30 years, received back
> the same experiences on a consistent basis. More or less the same
> percentage of incomptent teachers.
Remind me; what percentage do you say that is ?
Howard
> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:hcmvn7$i13$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> On 2009-11-01 13:30:55 +0000, "Fergus O'Rourke" <us...@irish-lawyer.com>
>> said:
>>
>>> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hc7ci4$btq$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>>>> On 2009-10-27 17:43:53 +0000, "Fergus O'Rourke" <us...@irish-lawyer.com>
>>>> said:
> [snipped points on which we still disagree but which I could not be bothered
> to further pursue]
Oye ... you clearly have a way with words.... :((
>
>>>> There was a long inspection of a school my son was at two years ago and
>>>> the teacher who reads the newspaper all class every class through the
>>>> terms. He is still there and nothing has been done. His Head is aware of
>>>> the problem but says he can do nothing.
>>>
>>> Why do you believe him ?
>>
>> That's a hornet's nest that you're opening up there -) We can apply that
>> to a lot of things that would end all discussion on this topic.
> [snip]
>
> We already had a hornets' nest - don't we always ? :-)
>
> My point is that this alleged helplessness on the part of principals is not
> TPIM all that it seems.
>
> Principals are not really managers; they are more like shop-stewards. In the
> primary schools, they are all INTO members, for example, and very often
> active members. In my locality, the principal has been a fixture on the
> delegation to INTO Annual Congress for decades.
A Fair point about which I do know a lot. If this is so, then they are
very much the wrong people to deal with it and we must find another
way. Maybe we need to replace Heads with CEOs.
H
Sophistry Made Simple
"Fergus O'Rourke" <us...@irish-lawyer.com> wrote in message
news:hcomgf$gcl$1...@aioe.org...
> Principals are not really managers; they are more like shop-stewards.
I can assure you that principals are very much managers - who do you think
runs the myriad of responsibilities in a school, the monthly get together of
the suitably pious nominees on the Board of Management?
Howard
> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:hcmvrn$i1g$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> On 2009-11-02 06:32:24 +0000, "Fergus O'Rourke" <us...@irish-lawyer.com>
>> said:
> [snip]
>>> Those who want to adversely change those terms and conditions, who
>>> themselves did NOT find them sufficiently attractive, would have us
>>> believe
>>> that there will be only good effects of this, and no bad ones, or at
>>> least
>>> that the benefits will be worth the trouble.
>>>
>>> They might be correct, I suppose, but if they are, it would be
>>> extraordinary, and the onus is on them to show us why this result can be
>>> expected.
>>
>> I have no idea what you are saying above ...........
>
> 1. Many people - including you, Howard, I assume - believe that the pay and
> conditions for teachers are unbelievably attractive;
Agreed. Not just unbelievably attractice, but also so unfair that it
promotes incompetence and apathy amongs teachers.
> 2. Despite that, the same people, for some odd reason, did not find the same
> pay & conditions attractive enough to become teachers themselves;
People do not chose careers based solely on money.
> 3. They nonetheless appear to believe that making the pay & conditions
> *less* attractive will continue to bring people into teaching without
> reducing the quality of such people.
Yes.
> 4. I allow for the possibility that point 3 above is incorrect i.e. that you
> and the others do not hold this apparently ridiculous belief, but on the
> contrary *do* accept that there will be a fall in the quantity and quality
> of recruits. If so, I assume that your view is that the benefits of the
> change will outweigh the disadvantage of such a fall.
So what about Politicians ? People want to slash politician's salaries
and Prime Minster's salaries but expect the standard to improve ...
Your suggestion is illogical. If a class of employee or person engaged
to do a task is paid far more than they deserve or earn and a decision
is taken to reduce their pay and conditions there are a number of
factors which will affect the result.
Your proposition is that the good people only go into teaching for the
money and if the money reduces then they will chose another career.
I will suggest the following. People who are passionate to teach and
who have a talent to teach will always go into teaching as long as the
pay and conditions are commensurate with their skills and the
competition for their skills. People who are no good at teaching but
who are seduced by the extraordinary pay and conditions, will most
likely still enter the profession because they will probably not be
very good at anything else either. Hopefully some of them will indeed
have other talents and will go elsewhere. Clearly there will still be a
need to weed out the remaining rubbish as there is now.
As long as the pay and conditions are fair and commensurate with their
skills and talents in the job marketplace, it is not convincing that a
reduction in salary will stop good teachers entering the profession -
just as it is not convincing in any way shape or form that raising pay
alone results in better teachers.
Howard
Sophistry Made Simple
Makes two of you then.
>If this is so,
Which it isn't.
then they are
> very much the wrong people to deal with it and we must find another way.
> Maybe we need to replace Heads with CEOs.
Oh good grief.
Howard
> Saying that, for example, it's impossible to fire bad teachers does /not/
> make the profession sound unbelievably attractive. I can well imagine that
> many excellent potential teachers would find the prospect of working with
> colleagues who were rewarded equally for much less work as making the
> profession completely unviable.
And to my knowledge they are indeed.
>
> There's a lot to make teaching unattractive. Terrible facilities, unruly and
> ungrateful pupils, belligerent and unsupportive parents, political
> interference or apathy - I suspect many people wouldn't want to do it. And
> the long holidays and short working hours might be attractive but the pay,
> while good, doesn't compare with other occupations.
All professions/job have negative elements to them. Few schools have
terrible facilities.
What about bus drivers dealing with passengers ? Tesco checkout people
dealing with customers ? Sales people dealing with rude potential
customers ? and on and on and on. Teaching is not burdened by any
more negative elements than any other.
>
> For any profession or trade, if you set the conditions to demand the best
> from the employee, then the job will attract people who want to give their
> best.
If you offer pay and conditions that exceed a fair one and one that is
commensurate with their talents/skills, and you also do not filter out
the incompetent during qualification, then you will inevitably attract
people of lower standards and the total chancers that we now have to
suffer.
Howard
Sophistry Made Simple
> On 2009-11-02 14:17:07 +0000, Féachadóir <F�ach@d.�ir> said:
>
>> Scr�obh "Westprog" <west...@hottmail.com>:
> if the people tell the gov to act the gov will act. But when the unions
> threaten action, we the people must tell them in public and in no
> uncertain terms that we do NOT support them and we will NOT back down.
Who exactly do you think are the members of these unions?
Howard
> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:hcn02j$ibh$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> [snip]
>> I have consistently, over a period of more than 30 years, received back
>> the same experiences on a consistent basis. More or less the same
>> percentage of incomptent teachers.
> [snip]
>
> Remind me; what percentage do you say that is ?
> My experience is of very mixed quality indeed. Between the two primary
> schools and three secondary schools I have direct experience of through
> my son and a similar number through my three nephews I believe that
> approximately 40% of the teachers are basically incompetent. 20% are
> totally indifferent and have resigned themselves to doing the bare
> minimum to get bye and about 30% are "competent". �That leaves 10% who
> are actually what I would descibe as good teachers.
Hoard
Howard
<spama...@yourrplace.com> said:
>
> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:hcpq97$jsl$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> On 2009-11-03 07:28:17 +0000, "Fergus O'Rourke" <us...@irish-lawyer.com> said:
>>
>>> Principals are not really managers; they are more like shop-stewards. In the
>>> primary schools, they are all INTO members, for example, and very often
>>> active members. In my locality, the principal has been a fixture on the
>>> delegation to INTO Annual Congress for decades.
>>
>> A Fair point about which I do know a lot.
>
> Makes two of you then.
>
>> If this is so,
>
> Which it isn't.
Interesting - though it would be slightly moreso if you offered some
knowledgable information instead of smartarsed remarks that make one
think you are equally challenged.
>
> then they are
>> very much the wrong people to deal with it and we must find another
>> way. Maybe we need to replace Heads with CEOs.
>
> Oh good grief.
Yes. I imagine many teachers will fear that option.
Howard
Howard
<spama...@yourrplace.com> said:
>
> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:hcn0b6$ipb$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> On 2009-11-02 14:17:07 +0000, Féachadóir <F�ach@d.�ir> said:
>>
>>> Scr�obh "Westprog" <west...@hottmail.com>:
>> if the people tell the gov to act the gov will act. But when the unions
>> threaten action, we the people must tell them in public and in no
>> uncertain terms that we do NOT support them and we will NOT back down.
>
> Who exactly do you think are the members of these unions?
Duh....... teachers ...
Please keep up.
Howard
Fergus O'Rourke
"Sophistry Made Simple" <spama...@yourrplace.com> wrote in message
news:Me_Hm.30447$j7.4...@news.indigo.ie...
>
> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:hcpq97$jsl$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> On 2009-11-03 07:28:17 +0000, "Fergus O'Rourke" <us...@irish-lawyer.com>
>> said:
>>
>>> Principals are not really managers; they are more like shop-stewards. In
>>> the
>>> primary schools, they are all INTO members, for example, and very often
>>> active members. In my locality, the principal has been a fixture on the
>>> delegation to INTO Annual Congress for decades.
>>
>> A Fair point about which I do know a lot.
>
> Makes two of you then.
>
>>If this is so,
>
> Which it isn't.
I will address the "manager" thing later, but are you suggesting that
principals do not remain members of the INTO ?
--
FERGUS O'ROURKE
-353-87-2583485
Sophistry Made Simple
> On 2009-11-03 18:03:36 +0000, "Sophistry Made Simple"
> <spama...@yourrplace.com> said:
>
>>
>> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:hcpq97$jsl$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>>> On 2009-11-03 07:28:17 +0000, "Fergus O'Rourke" <us...@irish-lawyer.com>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>> Principals are not really managers; they are more like shop-stewards.
>>>> In the
>>>> primary schools, they are all INTO members, for example, and very often
>>>> active members. In my locality, the principal has been a fixture on the
>>>> delegation to INTO Annual Congress for decades.
>>>
>>> A Fair point about which I do know a lot.
>>
>> Makes two of you then.
>>
>>> If this is so,
>>
>> Which it isn't.
>
> Interesting - though it would be slightly moreso if you offered some
> knowledgable information instead of smartarsed remarks that make one think
> you are equally challenged.
I just did.
>> then they are
>
>>> very much the wrong people to deal with it and we must find another way.
>>> Maybe we need to replace Heads with CEOs.
>>
>> Oh good grief.
>
> Yes. I imagine many teachers will fear that option.
Not for the reasons you think.
Sophistry Made Simple
> On 2009-11-03 18:05:45 +0000, "Sophistry Made Simple"
> <spama...@yourrplace.com> said:
>
>>
>> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:hcn0b6$ipb$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>>>
>>> if the people tell the gov to act the gov will act. But when the unions
>>> threaten action, we the people must tell them in public and in no
>>> uncertain terms that we do NOT support them and we will NOT back down.
>>
>> Who exactly do you think are the members of these unions?
>
> Duh....... teachers ...
>
> Please keep up.
Exactly - and teachers are members of what larger group?
Sophistry Made Simple
>
> "Sophistry Made Simple" <spama...@yourrplace.com> wrote in message
> news:Me_Hm.30447$j7.4...@news.indigo.ie...
>>
>> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:hcpq97$jsl$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>>> On 2009-11-03 07:28:17 +0000, "Fergus O'Rourke" <us...@irish-lawyer.com>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>> Principals are not really managers; they are more like shop-stewards.
>>>> In the
>>>> primary schools, they are all INTO members, for example, and very often
>>>> active members. In my locality, the principal has been a fixture on the
>>>> delegation to INTO Annual Congress for decades.
>>>
>>> A Fair point about which I do know a lot.
>>
>> Makes two of you then.
>>
>>>If this is so,
>>
>> Which it isn't.
> [snip]
>
> I will address the "manager" thing later, but are you suggesting that
> principals do not remain members of the INTO ?
Can you see anywhere I suggested that?
Howard
<spama...@yourrplace.com> said:
>
> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:hcpsol$nrm$2...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> On 2009-11-03 18:05:45 +0000, "Sophistry Made Simple"
>> <spama...@yourrplace.com> said:
>>
>>>
>>> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hcn0b6$ipb$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>>>> On 2009-11-02 14:17:07 +0000, Féachadóir <F�ach@d.�ir> said:
>>>>
>>>>> Scr�obh "Westprog" <west...@hottmail.com>:
>>>> if the people tell the gov to act the gov will act. But when the unions
>>>> threaten action, we the people must tell them in public and in no
>>>> uncertain terms that we do NOT support them and we will NOT back down.
>>>
>>> Who exactly do you think are the members of these unions?
>>
>> Duh....... teachers ...
>>
>> Please keep up.
>
> Exactly - and teachers are members of what larger group?
The overpaid and underworrked ?
Howard
Sophistry Made Simple
> On 2009-11-03 20:34:29 +0000, "Sophistry Made Simple"
> <spama...@yourrplace.com> said:
>
>>
>> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:hcpsol$nrm$2...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>>> On 2009-11-03 18:05:45 +0000, "Sophistry Made Simple"
>>> <spama...@yourrplace.com> said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:hcn0b6$ipb$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> if the people tell the gov to act the gov will act. But when the
>>>>> unions threaten action, we the people must tell them in public and in
>>>>> no uncertain terms that we do NOT support them and we will NOT back
>>>>> down.
>>>>
>>>> Who exactly do you think are the members of these unions?
>>>
>>> Duh....... teachers ...
>>>
>>> Please keep up.
>>
>> Exactly - and teachers are members of what larger group?
>
> The overpaid and underworrked ?
Anyone else? 'We the people' for instance?
Fergus O'Rourke
news:7l908rF...@mid.individual.net...
> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
>>
>> I accept that these things happened.
>>
>> However, none of the teachers that I had, or that my spouse had, or that
>> my
>> children had, ever behaved like that. I have 7 siblings: one of them did
>> have such a teacher briefly, and over the years I have met many people
>> who
>> had similar experiences - but many more who did not.
>
> So? You can't prove or disprove an argument with anecdotes no matter how
> many siblings you had.
I was countering others' anecdotes with my own.
> Where you grew up and which school you went to (and how selective on
> social or religious grounds they were in admitting pupils ) would have
> had a huge effect on your experiences however.
I attended primary school in Cobh. It was not selective on social grounds.
> The school I went to took the pupils that the posher ones in adjoining
> areas would not. Presumably they took the teachers the other schools
> would not, also.
>
>
>> So, such teachers do exist, but they are unrepresentative as far as I can
>> tell. How much so, I cannot say: who can ?
>
> The point is that serious underperformance exists and is tolerated. They
> are not representative of teachers as a whole, which is even more reason
> for the profession to demand their removal instead of obstructing it.
You have not been paying attention if you feel a need to make that point to
me.
>> It is right that we should make life more difficult for them, but please
>> do
>> not tar every teacher with the same brush.
>
> Oh come on. Nobody is saying for a second that there are not excellent
> teachers out there. However it is unacceptable that underperformance is
> so tolerated - a child only gets one chance at an education.
I agree.
--
FERGUS O'ROURKE
Fergus O'Rourke
> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
>>
>> Here we go again.
>>
>> We have the teachers that we have because they find the terms and
>> conditions
>> acceptable.
>
> Yes.
>
> If short hours and long holidays were brought more into line with what
> most people consider a full-time job,
What "most people consider a full-time job" is an interesting subject. I
will confine myself to observing that the notion that the daily hours and
working year of every occupation can be standardised is silly.
> then those teachers with a poor
> work ethic would not have entered the profession - those already there
> would consider leaving - and good riddance to them.
OK, but there's an unproven assumption there that the inadequate teachers
equal those who were mainly attracted by the number of contact hours and
schooldays, and that the good teachers would not be put-off by more onerous
working conditions.
I doubt if either leg of that assumption is true.
>> Those who want to adversely change those terms and conditions, who
>> themselves did NOT find them sufficiently attractive, would have us
>> believe
>> that there will be only good effects of this, and no bad ones, or at
>> least
>> that the benefits will be worth the trouble.
>>
>> They might be correct, I suppose, but if they are, it would be
>> extraordinary, and the onus is on them to show us why this result can be
>> expected.
>
>
> So you contend that more working hours/shorter holidays would deter more
> good teachers than bad? How could you possibly even begin to prove this?
I reject again the implication that hours and days in school equal working
time.
As to whether a change in contact hours and schooldays would put off more
good teachers than bad, I am not saying that it would and I agree that
establishing which was the case would be difficult to prove. However, such a
change would inevitably put off both, and if nothing else were changed, good
teachers would be lost. Those who allege that the loss of the good ones
would be more than balanced by the loss of the bad ones, and (presumably)
that other good things would be achieved as well, have the onus of
persuading us that they are more likely to be right than wrong. I do not
envy them that task.
> This is exactly the TUI/INTO/ASTI line, "top class rewards will produce
> a top class education system"
That is NOT my line.
>- it lines techers' pockets (good and bad
> alike)
> but certainly has not produced benefits to the public in line
> with the generous rewards we pay for.
Probably true at current rates of pay.
> If there are bad teachers in the system (and we all know there are) they
> need to be dealt with - this is irrelevant to the T&Cs of teachers in
> general.
On that we definitely agree.
Timothy Murphy
>> Exactly - and teachers are members of what larger group?
>
> The overpaid and underworrked ?
I completely disagree with your attacks on teachers.
Teachers are paid too much, in my view,
as are other public service workers.
All salaries need to be brought to eurozone levels.
Having said that, the future of the country depends on education,
and in particular on mathematics teaching.
Very few mathematics graduates are entering teaching,
despite what you claim are incredibly attractive conditions.
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
Fergus O'Rourke
I may have gone a little too far in saying that they are not really
managers, but only a little.
The activities that you describe are administrative IMHO rather than truly
managerial, but I do not deny that principals do perform some managerial
functions. My point, which I stand by, is that they see themselves almost
invariably as colleagues of the other teachers in the school, and do not
identify with the people who pay them. Their INTO membership symbolises this
well IMHO.
Fergus O'Rourke
>
>> 2. Despite that, the same people, for some odd reason, did not find the
>> same
>> pay & conditions attractive enough to become teachers themselves;
>
> People do not chose careers based solely on money.
And I referred to "conditions", which indeed was the main element that we
were discussing
>> 3. They nonetheless appear to believe that making the pay & conditions
>> *less* attractive will continue to bring people into teaching without
>> reducing the quality of such people.
>
> Yes.
>
>> 4. I allow for the possibility that point 3 above is incorrect i.e. that
>> you
>> and the others do not hold this apparently ridiculous belief, but on the
>> contrary *do* accept that there will be a fall in the quantity and
>> quality
>> of recruits. If so, I assume that your view is that the benefits of the
>> change will outweigh the disadvantage of such a fall.
>
> So what about Politicians ? People want to slash politician's salaries
> and Prime Minster's salaries but expect the standard to improve ...
That's a separate discussion. FWIW I agree you have a point.
> Your suggestion is illogical. If a class of employee or person engaged to
> do a task is paid far more than they deserve or earn and a decision is
> taken to reduce their pay and conditions there are a number of factors
> which will affect the result.
> Your proposition is that the good people only go into teaching for the
> money and if the money reduces then they will chose another career.
It's not my proposition at all !
> I will suggest the following. People who are passionate to teach and who
> have a talent to teach will always go into teaching as long as the pay and
> conditions are commensurate with their skills and the competition for
> their skills. People who are no good at teaching but who are seduced by
> the extraordinary pay and conditions, will most likely still enter the
> profession because they will probably not be very good at anything else
> either. Hopefully some of them will indeed have other talents and will go
> elsewhere. Clearly there will still be a need to weed out the remaining
> rubbish as there is now.
>
> As long as the pay and conditions are fair and commensurate with their
> skills and talents in the job marketplace, it is not convincing that a
> reduction in salary will stop good teachers entering the profession - just
> as it is not convincing in any way shape or form that raising pay alone
> results in better teachers.
Almost all of that is OK with me, but it is irrational to believe that there
is a distinct class of those who are passionate to teach and who will not
consider pay and conditions before choosing it as a career. Many people
would like to be, and would be good, teachers but prefer more money and/or
different conditions. And many current good teachers will leave if their pay
and conditions are too adversely affected. (How much is "too" much ? I don't
know, but it would be idiotic to deny that the more you reduce pay or make
the non-pay aspects less attractive the less people will join and the more
people will leave).
All of our discussion so far has ignored the flight of men from teaching and
what it means for your arguments BTW.
Don't tell SWMBO (or our bank manager) :-) but I regard "a further
adjustment" in teacher pay as inevitable.
Howard
> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
>>
>> People do not chose careers based solely on money.
>
> And I referred to "conditions", which indeed was the main element that we
> were discussing
When I say Pay ... I mean Pay and Conditions... so let's call them P&C
? I agree they go together.
People do rule out careers based on P&C but I don't believe most smart
people chose one because of them.
>>
>> So what about Politicians ? People want to slash politician's salaries
>> and Prime Minster's salaries but expect the standard to improve ...
>
> That's a separate discussion. FWIW I agree you have a point.
>
>> Your suggestion is illogical. If a class of employee or person engaged to
>> do a task is paid far more than they deserve or earn and a decision is
>> taken to reduce their pay and conditions there are a number of factors
>> which will affect the result.
>> Your proposition is that the good people only go into teaching for the
>> money and if the money reduces then they will chose another career.
>
> It's not my proposition at all !
Other than the above P&C thing ... I thought this was your point. If
not I would be interested to hear where I am wrong in my assumption.
>
>> I will suggest the following. People who are passionate to teach and who
>> have a talent to teach will always go into teaching as long as the pay and
>> conditions are commensurate with their skills and the competition for
>> their skills. People who are no good at teaching but who are seduced by
>> the extraordinary pay and conditions, will most likely still enter the
>> profession because they will probably not be very good at anything else
>> either. Hopefully some of them will indeed have other talents and will go
>> elsewhere. Clearly there will still be a need to weed out the remaining
>> rubbish as there is now.
>>
>> As long as the pay and conditions are fair and commensurate with their
>> skills and talents in the job marketplace, it is not convincing that a
>> reduction in salary will stop good teachers entering the profession - just
>> as it is not convincing in any way shape or form that raising pay alone
>> results in better teachers.
>
> Almost all of that is OK with me, but it is irrational to believe that there
> is a distinct class of those who are passionate to teach and who will not
> consider pay and conditions before choosing it as a career. Many people
> would like to be, and would be good, teachers but prefer more money and/or
> different conditions.
I said that that class "will always go into teaching as long as the pay
and conditions are commensurate with their skills and the competettion
for their skills". So I agree that they will always consider the P&C.
> And many current good teachers will leave if their pay
> and conditions are too adversely affected. (How much is "too" much ? I don't
> know, but it would be idiotic to deny that the more you reduce pay or make
> the non-pay aspects less attractive the less people will join and the more
> people will leave).
The key issue here is how much of a reduction. I am not saying that the
reduction is irrelevant. I am saying that if the reduction is to a
level that is fair and commensurate with their skills and the
competettion for their skills - then they will not leave. They will be
pissed off but they will not leave. I think that is logical, reasonable
and very rational.
While saying that I do not minimise the difficulty of rolling back such
insanely over generous P&C. It cannot be done in one go or even in
two. Imho it must be done, not in cuts (other than the current
emergency cuts) but in freezing pay for a period until it becomes fair,
and sorting out the working year througha proper program in the Summer
etc. or by extending Terms or some similar path.
>
> All of our discussion so far has ignored the flight of men from teaching and
> what it means for your arguments BTW.
There has always been a major shortage of men in teaching. One major
reason is the promotion structure and another, which affects all sexes,
is the appalling state of discipline left over from abolishing Corporal
Punishment and not replacing it with proper discipline.
I also believe that the dis-heartening effect of witnessing so many
lazy incompetent teachers earning the same money but doing nothing for
it is driving good men teachers away. Men are very sensetive to this
kind of situation and are more affected by it than women imho.
I also believe the management of schools is not professionalised
sufficiently. There is only one or two managerial positions at the
moment. The Head and Vice Head. I would like to explore more part-
management positions established with specialist roles such as in
quality, training, efficiency, discipline, financial perhaps, planning
etc. If standard Pay is reduced to the correct level, then there
should be an opportunity to establish these additional management
positions offering better P&C which will encourage ambition, promotion
and a more professional and better quality product.
> Don't tell SWMBO (or our bank manager) :-) but I regard "a further
> adjustment" in teacher pay as inevitable.
My SWMBO has already suffered a big cut - as an SRN. It's not easy I agree.
Howard
Howard
> Howard wrote:
>
>>> Exactly - and teachers are members of what larger group?
>>
>> The overpaid and underworrked ?
>
> I completely disagree with your attacks on teachers.
Why am I not surprised.
>
> Teachers are paid too much, in my view,
> as are other public service workers.
> All salaries need to be brought to eurozone levels.
I agree. But the thread is about teachers specifically and their pay
and conditions are particularly and transparently more generous than
any others.
>
> Having said that, the future of the country depends on education,
> and in particular on mathematics teaching.
> Very few mathematics graduates are entering teaching,
> despite what you claim are incredibly attractive conditions.
This is a critical truth. But it is irrelevant to the thread.
People do not chose careers based solely on P&C alone. As I said in
another reply today, many believe and have said in the past that the
lack of promotion is a major negative.
It is also about time that we considered paying teachers of some
subjects more than others if that is what it takes to attract them.
However I am sure there are other issues affecting the lack of maths
teachers. Especially the lack of GOOD maths teachers. And that goes
for Science too.
I have become very well acquainted with a couple of teachers in a
secondary school in Poland over the last four years. I have visited
the school and spent time with teachers and students during some
english language and science classes. They have a Science/Physics and
Maths teacher who is one of the top four in Poland. She is
inspirational and imaginative and I wish we could bring here here to
show Irish science and maths teachers how to inspire their students.
The rate at which her students go on to university sciences and
engineering etc is astonishing too. She is paid more than other
teachers based on assessments and results. I am not saying this is what
makes her good, but being good it then creates additional motivation.
Howard
Sophistry Made Simple
You are of course entitled to your opinion, humble or otherwise, but you are
obviously arguing in something of a vacuum. Principals are of course
administrators and managers, whatever your definition of those terms, but
membership of a union to which every worker is entitled, is not a signifier
of who a person 'identifies' with. A principal is employed by the Board of
Management, not the Department.
Paul Carr
"Westprog" <west...@hottmail.com> д����Ϣ����:hcp8o9$aq2$1...@news.datemas.de...
What about unruly teachers?
In modern Irish society, young males, aged 15 to 25 say, get an especially
bad rap. I think it is, in part, an outcome of our political climate. We
have two right-of-centre principle political parties, Fine Gael and Fianna
Fail. When one is in power, the other is out of. And, the one that is out
of, always beats the war-drums on being "tough on crime". That's code for
being tough on young males aged between 15 and 25.
I have a friend in Dublin, in his late-forties, who manages a small business
in the city centre. One night, about 4 or 5 years ago, we were walking back
to his car which was parked on one of the Dublin quays, a well-lit area,
hardly a cesspool of criminal activity. He spots some youths ahead, you
know, a group of 6 or 7 Irish young males walking towards us, not a very
uncommon sight on the Dublin streets, and he says to me with bated breath
and with some urgency, "Quick, get in the car. Let's go". I remember that
clearly. I don't know why I remember this. It just sticks in my brain.
Anyway, I have already written about my experiences going to St. Catherine's
Vocational School in Killybegs, County Donegal from 1986 to 1991 when I did
my Leaving Cert. I'll briefly go through this again. One day, our
Geography teacher who also served as the deputy Headmaster (a largely
ceremonial position in the school staff hierarchy), Mr. McGee, ear-wigged me
(twisted my earlobe in order to cause extreme pain) when I was around 14
years old. I had done nothing wrong. I just happened to be in the wrong
place at the wrong time. I was waiting, like a good student, for my next
class. I spotted Mr. McGee through the window of the door ear-wigging
another Unfortunate inside the room. Mr. McGee spotted me and came out and
ear-wigged me too. I remember that clearly. I don't know why I remember
this. It just sticks in my brain.
Now, I admit I wasn't a very good student in school. I was hardly a
top-notch student but I didn't deserve that. I didn't deserve to be
assaulted by Mr. McGee. And it was, technically speaking, an assault.
Let's talk about Mr. McGee for a moment. To the best of my knowledge, he is
still the deputy Headmaster and geography teacher at St. Catherine's
Vocational School. Mr. Joe Ward, who was the Headmaster when I was being
processed through St. Catherine's Vocational School, is, to the best of my
knowledge, still the Principal. During the time I was an inmate in St.
Catherine's Vocational School, Mr. Frank McGee systematically ear-wigged
many many students. He didn't ear-wig the girls (my school was a mixed
school) as far as I remember. And he didn't ear-wig the older boys, the 15
to 17/18 year olds. They were nearly as tall or as tall or taller than him.
No, he didn't ear-wig them. That might create a scene. No, he ear-wigged
the little boys, the helpless little 13 and 14 year old boys. Good on ye,
Mr. Frank McGee. Give yerself a medal for bravery.
I would take a wild guess that he's about 65 now. Some point early in Mr.
McGee's teaching career, he encountered a conundrum. He discovered he
wasn't a particularly good Geography teacher; in fact, he discovered he
wasn't a good teacher at all. So, he was faced with a number of choices, I
think. 1) Get out of the profession. 2) reform himself and make himself
into a better teacher and 3) assault little 13 and 14 year old boys and then
convince himself that these "acts of discipline" somehow would compensate
for his unsettling discovery that he taught ineffectively. He chose course
number 3. So Mr. McGee developed a fantasy as his "teaching" career
developed that being a "disciplinarian" more than compensated for being a
shite teacher. And, indeed, he was a shite teacher. I recall him once in
geography class declaring to the assembled class that "There are no blue
eyed people in Italy. Not one". Or words to that effect. And, he said
this with a straight face.
During the years I was being processed through St. Catherine's Vocational
School/Detention Centre, Mr. McGee had indeed grown quite cocky and
comfortable in his ways. He fancied himself a King or a General or a Lord
and he regarded the school as his personal fiefdom. He regarded his fellow
teachers as his Lieutenants, including the Headmaster, Joe Ward. He
regarded the students as his foot-soldiers. He didn't teach, he ruled. St.
Catherine's Vocational School was... Mr. Frank McGee. and, apparently, still
is.
Previously, I have given my take on how one can break down the quality of
teachers in my school. In my school, I estimate that about 20% were pretty
good. About 60% were poor and about 20% were downright awful, including Mr.
McGee. It's the 60%,the hidden majority, that are the important ones here.
These are the swing teachers. Every school, the length and breadth of the
country, has a teaching ethos. Some schools are good, some schools are bad,
some schools are so-so. My school was a pretty shite school, it has to be
said. HeHe. I mean, in my year, the classes that did their Leaving Cert in
1991, I think I was the only one, to the best of my knowledge, who went onto
university. I think there were about 8 students or so out of 60 to 70
students or so in my year who went onto a further education institute of
some sort. Hardly a successful school I should think. And, also, I humbly
submit, that my relative success underlined that I was hardly a bad student,
deserving to be ear-wigged by Mr. McGee when I was 14 years old.
Anyway, returning to the silent majority of teachers, the swing teachers,
these teachers are influenced by the "teaching ethos" of the school. If
it's a shite school, these swing teachers would be shite teachers too. If
it's a so-so school, these swing teachers will be so-so teachers. If it's a
great school, these swing teachers will be great teachers too.
Unfortunately, my school was a shite school, so the 60% swing teachers in my
school were also shite teachers. At least, they didn't assault little boys
like Mr. McGee did (I recall we, students, were obliged to address him as
Master McGee on account of his ceremonial position of Deputy Headmaster)..
Undoubtedly, these swing teachers in my school were demoralized and
demotivated and exhausted and, well, shite, and I lay responsbility for
that, firmly and resolutely, at the door of Mr. McGee as well as at the door
of the headmaster and Mr. McGee's titular boss, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward knew
what was going on. He knew that Mr. McGee was systematically ear-wigging
little boys in my school and did nothing. Therefore, he actively endorsed
and supported it.
Anyway, my point is this, and I'll just confine myself to one point for this
post. Bad students are a problem. Yes, there are students with discipline
problems in our secondary schools, no doubt about it. But, to suggest that
these students, these bad-eggs, could possibly undermine the "teaching
ethos" of a particular school borders on laughable. Now, on the other side
of the balance sheet, a teacher, a teacher like Mr. McGee for example, who
is well-ensconced within the school teacher apparatus, a shoddy teacher and
one who knows he is a shoddy teacher, whose shoddiness is tolerated and
endorsed by the headmaster, over a period of time, the teaching ethos of
that school is bound to collapse. And, before you know it, 80% of the
teachers in that school will be shite. HeHe.
Howard
<spama...@yourrplace.com> said:
> You are of course entitled to your opinion, humble or otherwise, but
> you are obviously arguing in something of a vacuum. Principals are of
> course administrators and managers, whatever your definition of those
> terms, but membership of a union to which every worker is entitled, is
> not a signifier of who a person 'identifies' with. A principal is
> employed by the Board of Management, not the Department.
His employer is irrelevant - his alleagiance is what matters in this
case. If he is a member of the same union as the ordinary teachers then
his alleagiance is questionable at the very least.
H
Sophistry Made Simple
No it isn't, it's not questionable in any way. You seem to have a very odd
idea of what it means to be a member of a trade union.
Fergus O'Rourke
> On 2009-11-03 12:46:40 +0000, "Westprog" <west...@hottmail.com> said:
>
>> Saying that, for example, it's impossible to fire bad teachers does /not/
>> make the profession sound unbelievably attractive. I can well imagine
>> that
>> many excellent potential teachers would find the prospect of working with
>> colleagues who were rewarded equally for much less work as making the
>> profession completely unviable.
>
> And to my knowledge they are indeed.
>>
>> There's a lot to make teaching unattractive. Terrible facilities, unruly
>> and
>> ungrateful pupils, belligerent and unsupportive parents, political
>> interference or apathy - I suspect many people wouldn't want to do it.
>> And
>> the long holidays and short working hours might be attractive but the
>> pay,
>> while good, doesn't compare with other occupations.
>
> All professions/job have negative elements to them. Few schools have
> terrible facilities.
>
> What about bus drivers dealing with passengers ? Tesco checkout people
> dealing with customers ? Sales people dealing with rude potential
> customers ? and on and on and on. Teaching is not burdened by any more
> negative elements than any other.
The other man's grass is indeed always greener.
The point about attacking radically (as opposed to "normal" economy
necessitated adjustments) the pay and conditions of teachers is that it is
stupid to think that it will not persuade good teachers to leave or not
enter the job. How many ? Who knows ? but it might be an unwise experiment
if carelessly conducted, especially given that it has traditionally been a
long-term career, unless check-out assistants.
>> For any profession or trade, if you set the conditions to demand the best
>> from the employee, then the job will attract people who want to give
>> their
>> best.
>
> If you offer pay and conditions that exceed a fair one and one that is
> commensurate with their talents/skills, and you also do not filter out the
> incompetent during qualification, then you will inevitably attract people
> of lower standards and the total chancers that we now have to suffer.
Maybe so.
Fergus O'Rourke
If that is truly your estimate, your self-restraint is phenomenal. Why are
you not occupying the offices of the INTO, ASTI etc ?
Fergus O'Rourke
Read the above again and you will see that it is one possible interpretation
of "which it isn't". Because I recognised that other meanings were possible,
I asked you to confirm.
--
FERGUS O'ROURKE
Sophistry Made Simple
You seriously thought that a possible meaning was a suggestion that
principals do not remain members of INTO?
Howard
<spama...@yourrplace.com> said:
>
> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:hcvf68$hp6$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> On 2009-11-04 19:38:26 +0000, "Sophistry Made Simple"
>> <spama...@yourrplace.com> said:
>>
>>> You are of course entitled to your opinion, humble or otherwise, but
>>> you are obviously arguing in something of a vacuum. Principals are of
>>> course administrators and managers, whatever your definition of those
>>> terms, but membership of a union to which every worker is entitled, is
>>> not a signifier of who a person 'identifies' with. A principal is
>>> employed by the Board of Management, not the Department.
>>
>> His employer is irrelevant - his alleagiance is what matters in this
>> case. If he is a member of the same union as the ordinary teachers then
>> his alleagiance is questionable at the very least.
>
> No it isn't, it's not questionable in any way. You seem to have a very
> odd idea of what it means to be a member of a trade union.
On the contrary I suggest I have a very accurate and realistic view of
what it means. When an employee joins a Union and the union takes a
strong position against a policy of school and the Gov. then it is easy
to see that the employee, whether a teacher or Principle, faces a
dilemma. A Principle who is then asked by the Dept of Ed to implement
a policy as Principle and Manager of the school that is directly and
loudly opposed by the Union cannot be relied on.
H
Ulick Magee
>
> On the contrary I suggest I have a very accurate and realistic view of
> what it means. When an employee joins a Union and the union takes a
> strong position against a policy of school and the Gov. then it is easy
> to see that the employee, whether a teacher or Principle, faces a
> dilemma. A Principle who is then asked by the Dept of Ed to implement
> a policy as Principle and Manager of the school that is directly and
> loudly opposed by the Union cannot be relied on.
Union members have to implement policies all the time that they and/or
the union oppose, but aren't prepared to go on strike over, so just have
to get on with it. E.g. salaries unit staff who had to implement the
pension levy and reduce their own pay and that of all their colleagues.
--
Ulick Magee
Free software and free formats for free information for free people.
Open Office for Windows/OSX/Linux: http://www.openoffice.org
openSUSE Linux: http://en.opensuse.org
Howard
> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:hcpsda$nhe$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> On 2009-11-03 15:36:40 +0000, "Fergus O'Rourke" <us...@irish-lawyer.com>
>> said:
>>
>>> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hcn02j$ibh$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>>> [snip]
>>>> I have consistently, over a period of more than 30 years, received back
>>>> the same experiences on a consistent basis. More or less the same
>>>> percentage of incomptent teachers.
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Remind me; what percentage do you say that is ?
>>
>>> My experience is of very mixed quality indeed. Between the two primary
>>> schools and three secondary schools I have direct experience of through
>>> my son and a similar number through my three nephews I believe that
>>> approximately 40% of the teachers are basically incompetent. 20% are
>>> totally indifferent and have resigned themselves to doing the bare
>>> minimum to get bye and about 30% are "competent". That leaves 10% who
>>> are actually what I would descibe as good teachers.
>
> If that is truly your estimate, your self-restraint is phenomenal. Why are
> you not occupying the offices of the INTO, ASTI etc ?
I know that some poeple think my numbers are high. But included in the
40% are teachers who:
- Have no classroom control skills and though may be potentially able
to teach, cannot reach a situation in their class where this teaching
ability can be delivered to the students.
- Have no communication skills and who become so frustrated that they
shout and scream and create such a huge negative and aggressive
atmosphere that students hate learning.
- Are knowledgable about their subject but who cannot communicate
properly with students other than to read through the course and the
course books
The trouble is that the population as a whole are generally resigned to
the situation and feel helpless to change it. During the boom times
people were apathetic. I hope that now when wages are being cut and
jobs wiped out, that poeple will start looking at this crazy situation.
Howard
Howard
<ulickatm...@feckoff.invalid> said:
> Howard wrote:
>>
>> On the contrary I suggest I have a very accurate and realistic view of
>> what it means. When an employee joins a Union and the union takes a
>> strong position against a policy of school and the Gov. then it is easy
>> to see that the employee, whether a teacher or Principle, faces a
>> dilemma. A Principle who is then asked by the Dept of Ed to implement
>> a policy as Principle and Manager of the school that is directly and
>> loudly opposed by the Union cannot be relied on.
>
> Union members have to implement policies all the time that they and/or
> the union oppose, but aren't prepared to go on strike over, so just have
> to get on with it. E.g. salaries unit staff who had to implement the
> pension levy and reduce their own pay and that of all their colleagues.
That is a mile away from implementing assessment measures and taking
action agains fellow union members who are clearly incompetent.
H
Sophistry Made Simple
A policy opposed by a union will be either successfully resisted and if not
then it will be implemented - all as a product of negotiation between the
union and the employer. There is nothing underhand or involving divided
loyalties. Can you give an example of what you are referring to?
Howard
<spama...@yourrplace.com> said:
Jeez you must really think we are al simpletons. If there were that
amount of rational professionalism we wouldn't be in the mess we are
in...
H
Sophistry Made Simple
Nevertheless, can you give an example of what you are referring to?
Fergus O'Rourke
[snip]
> You seriously thought that a possible meaning was a suggestion that
> principals do not remain members of INTO?
I seriously entertained the possibility, yes. I have seen much crazier
things said, even in serious contexts like this, albeit not by you AFAIR.
Fergus O'Rourke
>>> Your proposition is that the good people only go into teaching for the
>>> money and if the money reduces then they will chose another career.
>>
>> It's not my proposition at all !
>
> Other than the above P&C thing ... I thought this was your point. If not I
> would be interested to hear where I am wrong in my assumption.
I am saying that pay and conditions *influences* the decisions of people,
good and bad, who consider a career in teaching.
Even if it is only a negative influence of the kind that you concede (i.e.
it may put people off), that may be important and a significant factor in
the kind of teachers we actually get.
The actual quality of actual teachers, though, is, to a significant extent,
a function of quality control, or the lack of it.
(more later)
Timothy Murphy
> I know that some poeple think my numbers are high.
Some people think that you simply pluck figures from the air,
and don't have the slightest evidence for your statistics.
> The trouble is that the population as a whole are generally resigned to
> the situation and feel helpless to change it.
I don't believe "the population as a whole" shares your views.
Only 3.7% agree with you.
Fergus O'Rourke
[snip]
>>> Your proposition is that the good people only go into teaching for the
>>> money and if the money reduces then they will chose another career.
Not as baldly as that. Potentially good teachers will be put off by poor pay
& conditions. Not all will cease teaching or fail to take it up in the first
place, but there will be an effect.
>>> As long as the pay and conditions are fair and commensurate with their
>>> skills and talents in the job marketplace, it is not convincing that a
>>> reduction in salary will stop good teachers entering the profession
That's a crucial proviso. We could have a whole discussion about it.
>>> it is not convincing in any way shape or form that raising pay alone
>>> results in better teachers.
Of course it would - over time, by encouraging more people in and
discouraging those thinking of leaving - but not "alone" as you put it.
Quality controls would need to be improved. I do not recommend it, even with
the latter, at this time.
Paul Carr
I see where you're coming from and I agree with you entirely.
I fear that some teachers in low performing secondary schools are doing
worse than just shouting and screaming at the students in Ireland today.
I was assaulted by my Geography teacher, Mr. McGee, when I was around 14
years old back in 1988. I was a student at St. Catherine's Vocational
School, Killybegs, County Donegal. By assault, I mean I was ear-wigged by
him. Ear-wigging involves twisting the victim's earlobes until the victim
winces or even screams in pain. I just happened to be in the wrong place at
the wrong time. I was a good student, waiting for my next class. He was in
the classroom ear-wigging another student, if memory serves. I saw him
through the window of the class-room door doing this. He saw me through the
door-window and came out and ear-wigged me too. He didn't care if anyone
saw him. Maybe, if the headmaster, Mr. Ward, were nearby, he might have
been a little bit more careful. Maybe. He was, however, the
deputy-headmaster when I was being processed through St. Catherine's
Vocational Detention Centre, oops, School between 1986 and 1991. I did my
Leaving Cert in 1991.
Mr. Ward had to have known about Mr. McGee's misconduct. I mean Mr. McGee
systematically did this, I think, to the 13 and 14 years old boys in the
school. He didn't do it to the older boys or to the girls. St. Catherine's
Vocational School was a mixed school.
Mr McGee was a Gaelgeoir. Mr Ward was not, I think. I can imagine that the
headmaster, Mr. Ward, a tall, weedy weakling of a middle-aged man, would
have had a few timid words with Mr McGee about his unprofessional behaviour.
You know in typical Fine Gael style, speaking educated English, he'd say,
"You know, we really ought not to be overly assertive against the students.
I may receive complaints.". To which, Mr McGee would spout in Gaelic a
torrent of expletives for which the brief English translation is; "Feck off
and mind your own business."
Ear-wigging is violence. It's just like slamming a fist into someone's
face. It's just like raping a boy or a girl. However, I think there will
be some who will say, "No, it's not violence.". To which I reply,
"Bullshit". It's violence. I saw Mr McGee's face as he looked down at me
winching in pain as he twisted my earlobe further. He enjoyed it. He
enjoyed the sense of power ear-wigging gave him over the little, helpless13
and 14 year old boys he did it to. He enjoyed inflicting humiliation and
pain on helpless people. It seems to me that sometimes he preferred to teach
fascism and not geography. When he ear-wigged, he can imagine that he's in
control. In fact, he was in control because the headmaster, Mr Ward, had to
have known about Mr McGee's disgusting, barbaric, unpedagogic, undisciplined
and childish behaviour and did nothing. Earlier this summer, I suggested
that a teacher who stooped to such a low of ear-wigging get a 2 week
suspension from work with no pay. Actually, I think, upon reflection, a 4
week suspension with no pay would be more appropriate.
Since I returned to SCI this May, I have discovered that the posters here,
on the whole, have a difficult to impossible time discussing the reality of
endemic violence in Irish society. There was a report back in May, the Ryan
Report,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_to_Inquire_into_Child_Abuse
which detailed systemic violence in Irish Industrial schools (on topic for
this thread I think because these Industrial "schools" were supposed to be
educational institutions) and it was discussed for a few days on SCI only
then to be forgotten, except by "Special Care" of all people who, on
occasion, would post a youtube video of , for example, Michael O'Brien
during the Question and Answer session when he related how he was raped and
beaten by so-called "religious people".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBi4sYK5rjI
Michael O'Brien relates more of his experiences here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoARiGumm4E
Christine Buckley, and many others, were abused by the "Sisters of Mercy".
Mercy? They didn't know the meaning of the word. I recall watching an UTV
report on youtube where Christine Buckley related that if the girls in the
"care" of the "Sisters of Mercy" wet the bed (not surprising really given
the terror they lived under) , the "Sisters of Mercy"'s solution was not to
give the girls in their "care" any water after 4 o'clock in the afternoon
with the result that the following morning, some of the girls collapsed from
exhaustion and thirst during their morning exercise/walk before breakfast.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Michael O'Brien, Christine Buckley, John Kelly and
those other victims of abuse in our schools are the real heroes of Ireland.
They have seen the real underside of our so-called "religious" society and
they have had the courage and honesty to tell, educate and inform the rest
of us
But. none of this is discussed on SCI really. Endemic violence is Irish
society as a subject for discussion is swept under the carpet here. I think
one reason is that most of the posters on SCI are 50 years old plus men. A
pity really. The 50 years old plus men are mostly the people who are running
the Republic of Ireland. These are the people with the power to change the
laws in order to ensure this sort of abusive behaviour by those in positions
of power in our educational system do not happen again.
On the other hand, a lot of pseudo issues are "discussed" on SCI, issues
raised by the likes of Whitewolf Ray, "Special Care" and "J" and many
others. Plenty of right-wing pseudo-issues are "discussed". I'm afraid
that it appears to often crowd out discussion on more worthwhile issues that
affect our daily lives.
To return to the issue of the performance of Irish schools. We have to
*look after* our children properly, not like we thought we did before. I
think that a great majority of teachers would be happy with some degree of
accountability in their work. They understand that they need to be kept on
their toes. That's not to suggest that they are bad people or to place a
slur on them. It's just the nature of their profession. And everyone
gains: both the teachers and the taught. The teachers will be inspired to
teach (and will enjoy her/his job all the more) and the students will find
their own well-springs of inspiration to learn and to be guided in their
learning. That's what a good school is all about, I think.
I found this Irish Independent article on a recent 2009 OECD report entitled
"Education at a Glance 2009".
"On the issue of rewarding performance, the report notes that Ireland is one
of the countries offering the least recognition to its best teachers. By
contrast, school heads in Sweden largely decide teachers' pay based on
performance. In Hungary, school heads can award teachers performance-related
salary bonuses. In the Czech Republic, school heads may reward teachers for
additional services or high-quality teaching -- with bonuses worth up to
50pc of their salary."
The OECD report also drew on an OECD Teaching and Learning International
survey, conducted in 2007/2008, which examined learning environments and
working conditions at second-level schools in 23 countries.
It's findings:
" * 59pc of Irish teachers said poor performance was tolerated in their
schools, the highest in the 23 countries, and almost double the average of
34pc.
* 11pc of Irish teachers said a colleague could be dismissed because of
sustained poor performance, compared with an average of 28pc across the
OECD.
* 39pc of Irish teachers said their principal used effective methods to
determine whether a teacher was performing well or badly, compared with an
average of 55pc.
* About 7pc of Irish teachers said their schools rewarded high or
improving performance, compared with an OECD average of 26pc."
Also: "......in 2007/08, 39pc of second-level schools in Ireland reported no
internal or external school evaluation in the previous five years, the
highest in the countries surveyed."
If performance related pay hasn't been introduced in the Republic of Ireland
yet, then it should be introduced. I think we should let students in the
senior (Leaving Certificate) cycle have a say in determining whether the pay
of their teachers is raised or reduced and even have a say on whether the
teacher is to be dismissed or not.
People will say, "Oh, we can't go that far.". Why not? These older students
will have the vote when they're 18, which is just around the corner for
them. By then, they'll have most of the rights that we, adults, all take
for granted. So, why not give them a say on whether a teacher of theirs
should be given a pay rise or a pay reduction or even whether the teacher
keeps his/her job. An experienced teacher has nothing to fear. He/she has
learned the ropes. He/she knows "the tricks of the trade". He/she knows
the proper methodology for teaching his/her subject area. He's/she's fully
up-to-speed on the content of his/her teaching. No sweat. But, the shoddy
teachers, of course, they're going to panic. Some will leave. Good
riddance to them. "Don't let the door hit you on the way out" et cetera.
Implementing a state-wide scheme of performance related pay (and I'm
thinking more for secondary school teachers than primary school teachers
here) is absolutely necessary. If you think about it, different schools
across the country have a different teaching ethos. As a result of that,
some schools are good, some are bad, some are so-so, for example, in terms
of the Leaving Cert results of their students. I think the head-master has
a big role to play here. I am absolutely certain that there are plenty of
schools across the length and breadth of the State where students are not
being ear-wigged and where the teachers do not scream at the students.
They're called good schools. The Principal has a big role to play obviously
in putting a stop to ill-discipline by either teachers or students . If
there's a performance related pay scheme put in place by the Government
then, over time, nationwide, the difference between the worst-performing and
best-performing schools will be reduced. Surely then, it is in the interest
of the Government to put in place such a scheme.
Of course, implementing such a scheme won't be easy. The government will
have to put a lot of energy and resources into it. It's not impossible. If
the government is on top of its game, it can be done. Of course, as of now,
different schools have different levels of performance. So, obviously, at
the outset, one cannot set a universal standard for all schools and link pay
increases or reductions to that. That's not fair on good teachers, for
example, in low-performing schools.
I went to a low-performing school I think. I recall I got 7 Cs in Higher
Level subjects which, if I'm not mistaken, was the best in my year. I might
be wrong there. At any rate, I was pretty near the top. There were about
70 students in total, I recall, in my year, the students who did the Leaving
Cert in 1991. On the other hand, there are plenty of schools where 7 Higher
Level Cs would be assigned to the worst performing students in their year.
I'm convinced that there was then a great deal of disparity of performance
from school to school in Ireland. And, it's an absolute feckin' scandal.
My concern is that this state of affairs continues.
So, yes, we need to put in place a nationwide, comprehensive and perhaps
complex scheme of performance related pay for teachers.
And how about a hot line for students (primary school students as well as
Secondary School students) that goes straight to the Department of
Education, and not just some private organization, where the student's
confidentiality is assured, and where he/she can relate any alleged abuses
that a teacher may have committed against him/her. These can then be
promptly investigated. Perhaps, we can also set up a parallel investigative
system (quasi-judicial? system) for our schools so that any incident of
mal-practice can be thoroughly investigated in confidence with all sides
given an opportunity to give their side of the story. More serious matters
can be referred to the Irish Judicial System.
Paul Carr
"Paul Carr" <worldp...@hotmail.com> д����Ϣ����:hd6ph3$e9p$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
<snip>
> Ladies and Gentlemen, Michael O'Brien, Christine Buckley, John Kelly and
> those other victims of abuse in our schools are the real heroes of
> Ireland. They have seen the real underside of our so-called "religious"
> society and they have had the courage and honesty to tell, educate and
> inform the rest of us
I should also make mention of Colm O'Gorman..............even if he did join
the PDs.