Cheaper Teachers for Youthreach Centres?

by Seán Ryan Tue Jun 20, 2006 20:51

Interesting viewpoint Teacher, but a debate in semantics when viewed in the big picture - the general standard of education in Ireland. Why look at the qualification level in teachers?

Why not look at the standard of education in school leavers instead?

Why are unions not up in arms over this issue?

I'd see the issue you have with non-qualified teachers working in Youthreach to be an important issue if I could look at the general state of education and refer to it as a benchmark to describe a level as being acceptable. I'm not for a minute having a go at teachers here, I'm just saying that any focusing on a small microcosm of the children 'educated' in Ireland will not deliver a solution to the problems that face us.

But since the subject refers to teachers without a 3rd level education, working in Youthreach, why not promote a study on the topic and derrive answers on a performance rated system, rather than simple guesswork. Being a good educator, in my opinion, is more a natural skill than one that can be taught.

I'd not worry too much about some teachers possessing a leaving certificate. It doesn't ammount to a whole lot, and is more an excuse that the department of education offer instead of an education, than an actual bonafide education.

A quick journey through enslavement - sometimes called our educational system - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74008

by Teacher Tue Jun 20, 2006 23:41

There is surely another debate that could be had about the worth of the education system. But based on the frame of reference within which the Youthreach model is operating, that very particular situation is being run to the significant disadvantage of some students compared to other educational establishments, in some cases.

I dont mean to defend professional power-broking - something the teaching profession is adroit at.

Natural ability is always a factor in any profession or occupation. Training only serves to enhance that ability when its done properly. No matter how much natural ability you have, you cannot teach a subject at a Level that you have not attained yourself - particularly when other people's exam results are riding on it. . It is very unfair to send students into a situation like that. But the real danger is when the teacher has neither natural ability nor training. The only things left to fill the void are prejudice and incompetence. That can never be justified whatever system you prefer. Unfortunately it's exactly what some Youthreaches have got at the moment, though.

I've heard of some truly shocking practice in the context Im writing about. Most teachers will be made aware of what is or is not acceptable practice during their training so there is at least some check on people who are not so well cut out for it.

The emphasis ought not to be on justifying the wishes or convictions of would-be teachers - it should be about what is in the best interests of the students, first and foremost. What is ideally needed are people who have a good instinct for teaching, who are adequately trained in the subject they are teaching and able to provide the appropriate level of educational information, sensitive to social, cultural and other issues, skilled at managing a variety of behavioural situations and able to utilise a range of teaching methods depending on varying circumstances. That all requires a thorough training, no matter what your natural aptitude might be.

by Seán Ryan Wed Jun 21, 2006 00:54

A well put argument Teacher, and for the most part I thoroughly agree with you. I'd argue with you on your opinion about training, only in the context that I believe, (my opinion coming up lol) that which constitutes a proper methodology in pedagogy is non existent to begin with. The proof is its current product, ourselves and our children. I'd even argue that it's in decline if that's possible.

I realise that I'm opening a very broad argument and that you might feel that it takes from what this article is about. It's not my intention to cause this, but I do see the possibility - my apologies for that. If you do see it this way but still want to discuss this area, feel free to post to the link I gave in my earlier posting.

Anyway, we agree that children are the primal concern and that's an excellent point of reference. Now if only we could get the powers that be to agree. Now there's a job and a half.

by Teacher Wed Jun 21, 2006 17:30

Maybe you attach more importance to the role of teachers in shaping the resulting 'end product' than they deserve? Home and social life are more influential Id argue. But no doubt school is very significant.

Agree no onemethod of teaching is perfect - many approaches are needed. If you want to get something new and/or complicated across you have to teach at some point - even if that means only telling people where and how to find it out for themselves, if they can. Many subjects need a lot more than that but isn't it legitimate to ask what the best means of doing it might be? Preparation and forethought must have some value than none at all?

I once sat through a lecutre on English grammar by the one of the editors of the OED. He sat with his hands on either side of his face, shielding himself from any form of eye contact with his audience, and read the entire 90 minute class (ten minute break) from a written document. Grammar is not most people's idea of a fun night out I suspect but that lecture had most people practically reduced to tears, as you can imagine. He lost me somewhere around conjuctive auxiliaries. My daughter has an Irish teacher (infamous on the 'pages' of Indymedia btw!) who regrds questions as an impertinance. She believes the students mean to criticise her for not teaching them the thing they are asking her to clarify! How can you win with that? I believe there is a place for accountable professionalism - teaching that is routinely self-reflective which the Irish teaching profession currently is not at all.

So things, as you say, are far from perfect. However there must be some merit due to a person who devotes a few years of their life to investigating and preparing themselves for teaching. Stuff like child development and theories of learning at least offer useful pointers and insights even if those theories are not infallible? Added to natural ability, it must have some worth. I just dont buy the idea that gut instinct is enough qualification to point someone at a class of children for up to a year at a time. Esp in a situation where there are no checks at all on how they are doing what they are doing.

But even with qualified teachers, on that last point, the profession is fiercely defensive about any form of accountability for how it does what it does. And the profession is so powerful that no government dares to rattle its cage.