Unnecessary qualifications creating artificial secondary teacher shortages

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,092
Former education minister Rory Quinn added an extra year of teacher training to secondary teacher qualifications. That is now proving to be a major barrier to entry going by the artificial teacher shortages reported Half of second-level institutions cannot fill the vacancies for teachers - Independent.ie
The shortages could be resolved by reversing Quinn's extra year. This would not be a reactionary step since the empirical evidence shows counterintuitively that teacher training has little or no effect on education results according to a leading researcher,Hanushek of Stanford University. Scroll down to page 81 http://hanushek.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Hanushek 2010 Superman.pdf
 
Last edited:


Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
98
Former education minister Rory Quinn added an extra year of teacher training to secondary teacher qualifications. That is now proving to be a major barrier to entry going by the artificial teacher shortages reported Half of second-level institutions cannot fill the vacancies for teachers - Independent.ie
The shortages could be resolved by reversing Quinn's extra year. This would not be a reactionary step since the empirical evidence shows counterintuitively that teacher training has no effect on education results.
Someone's making money out of it.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,689
Former education minister Rory Quinn added an extra year of teacher training to secondary teacher qualifications. That is now proving to be a major barrier to entry going by the artificial teacher shortages reported Half of second-level institutions cannot fill the vacancies for teachers - Independent.ie
The shortages could be resolved by reversing Quinn's extra year. This would not be a reactionary step since the empirical evidence shows counterintuitively that teacher training has no effect on education results.
And yet only a couple of months ago you started a thread about education in which you named Finland as being exemplary. That'll be the same Finland whose ministry of education says this:
Teacher education
Teachers in Finland are highly trained. In general education all teachers are required a Master’s degree. In vocational education teachers should have a Master’s degree or Bachelor’s degree. The high level of training is seen as necessary as teachers in Finland are very autonomous professionally. Teaching and guidance staff within day-care centres generally have Bachelor’s degrees. Pre-primary teachers in schools hold a Master’s degree.
I read elsewhere (a report on PISA I think) that a Masters is a minimum and in fact many secondary school teachers have a PhD. Maybe that's the way to go?
 

Baron von Biffo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,419
And yet only a couple of months ago you started a thread about education in which you named Finland as being exemplary. That'll be the same Finland whose ministry of education says this:

I read elsewhere (a report on PISA I think) that a Masters is a minimum and in fact many secondary school teachers have a PhD. Maybe that's the way to go?
What with grade inflation and plummeting standards an undergraduate degree today is probably below the standard of a leaving cert 40 years ago. Raising the level of the nominal qualification isn't about raising standards, it's about trying to prevent them dropping even further.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,689
That's a very different point from Pat's argument though. His was not about grade inflation in general, but about teaching, and presumably teaching wrt the rest of society. Dropping the requirements for a single professio is not going to end grade inflation - especially when the one profession suggested is teaching
 

Baron von Biffo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,419
That's a very different point from Pat's argument though. His was not about grade inflation in general, but about teaching, and presumably teaching wrt the rest of society. Dropping the requirements for a single professio is not going to end grade inflation - especially when the one profession suggested is teaching
Pat's point, as always, is that he hates the public service so he has a little rant thread about once a week to vent his spleen.

Quinn's changing the requirements doesn't give us more qualified teachers, rather it acknowledges grade inflation. If we want the same level of teacher we have to recruit those with higher nominal qualifications.

It's no different to shops looking for a Leaving cert now for recruits to positions that 50 years ago would have been adequately filled by someone with a Primary cert.

Teacher shortages are more to do with poor pay and conditions.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,092
And yet only a couple of months ago you started a thread about education in which you named Finland as being exemplary. That'll be the same Finland whose ministry of education says this:

I read elsewhere (a report on PISA I think) that a Masters is a minimum and in fact many secondary school teachers have a PhD. Maybe that's the way to go?
Lots of education systems have teachers with advanced degrees in education but poor results. The key factor for education success in Finland is the very high level of autonomy of schools with minimal interference from government. Holland's highly successful model of nominally religious private schools and Ireland's secondary schools also enjoy a lot of autonomy, although the Irish Leaving Cert has a standardising effect.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,092
What with grade inflation and plummeting standards an undergraduate degree today is probably below the standard of a leaving cert 40 years ago. Raising the level of the nominal qualification isn't about raising standards, it's about trying to prevent them dropping even further.
I quickly read an Independent Newspaper guide to Junior Cert maths and stats and was impressed by the ostensibly high standards. But how many students fall way below the standard?
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,092
Pat's point, as always, is that he hates the public service so he has a little rant thread about once a week to vent his spleen.

Quinn's changing the requirements doesn't give us more qualified teachers, rather it acknowledges grade inflation. If we want the same level of teacher we have to recruit those with higher nominal qualifications.

It's no different to shops looking for a Leaving cert now for recruits to positions that 50 years ago would have been adequately filled by someone with a Primary cert.

Teacher shortages are more to do with poor pay and conditions.
NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
There is no empirical evidence that teacher training education improves student educational results, a counterintuitive fact. There likely is evidence that a good undergraduate education prepares teachers well, especially in subjects that improve communication skills. The extra training year Quinn imposed deters many from entering the profession,reducing competition for places and hence teaching standards.
 
Last edited:

Hillmanhunter1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
2,369
NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
There is no empirical evidence that teacher training education improves student educational results, a counterintuitive fact. There likely is evidence that a good undergraduate education prepares teachers well, especially in subjects that improve communication skills. The extra training year Quinn imposed deters many from entering the profession,reducing competition for places and hence teaching standards.
I'm not sure what you are talking about when you refer to the "extra year of teacher training" added by Ruairi Quinn "proving to be a major barrier to entry" - the link to the Indo in your OP makes no reference to this.

You then go on to assert that "empirical evidence shows counterintuitively that teacher training has no effect on education results". Again, can you please post a link?
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,689
Lots of education systems have teachers with advanced degrees in education but poor results. The key factor for education success in Finland is the very high level of autonomy of schools with minimal interference from government. Holland's highly successful model of nominally religious private schools and Ireland's secondary schools also enjoy a lot of autonomy, although the Irish Leaving Cert has a standardising effect.
It may not be enough on its own, but the Finnish Ed Ministry site I linked to explicitly said that this high degree of autonomy that you praise requires that teachers be highly qualified. Which seems logical TBH.

Do you have any evidence that they are wrong, and that one can have low-qualified teachers operating with a high degree of autonomy? Or poorly qualified anythings for that matter? Rather begs the question of why qualifications are necessary at all if that were the case,
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,092
It may not be enough on its own, but the Finnish Ed Ministry site I linked to explicitly said that this high degree of autonomy that you praise requires that teachers be highly qualified. Which seems logical TBH.

Do you have any evidence that they are wrong, and that one can have low-qualified teachers operating with a high degree of autonomy? Or poorly qualified anythings for that matter? Rather begs the question of why qualifications are necessary at all if that were the case,
Naturally teachers like other selfish professions and trades want to creat barriers to entry to create artificial shortages and drive up wages.
It is sufficient in secondary education for most teachers to have a good undergraduate degree coupled with a modest amount of education theory. Just as important are the personality characteristics that enable a teacher to communicate well and control a classroom. A hard to define quality is body language which is about 60% non verbal according to psychologists.
Finland doesn't rely entirely on academic qualifications and scouts for people who have a natural ability to teach such as coaches of sports teams.
 
Last edited:

Polybius

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2015
Messages
4,413
Ruairi Quinn's priority as Education Minister was to protect the salary and pension arrangements of older and often incompetent teachers. The 2 year qualification for Secondary teachers had nothing to do with improving standards but rather was about reducing the supply of teachers so the older teachers would have have their Celtic Tiger pay agreements secured. The needs of pupils don't come into it.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,092
It may not be enough on its own, but the Finnish Ed Ministry site I linked to explicitly said that this high degree of autonomy that you praise requires that teachers be highly qualified. Which seems logical TBH.

Do you have any evidence that they are wrong, and that one can have low-qualified teachers operating with a high degree of autonomy? Or poorly qualified anythings for that matter? Rather begs the question of why qualifications are necessary at all if that were the case,
TEACHERS DON'T NEED NO EDUCATION!
A leading researcher on what makes for good teachers is Hanushek of Stanford University. Scroll down to page 81 http://hanushek.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Hanushek 2010 Superman.pdf His research shows that educational qualifications of teachers have little relation to their teaching ability. He argues for rewarding teachers based on their contribution to students' achievements but that is difficult to measure in a school team and trade unions would be opposed. He thinks teachers could be recruited based on observed classroom performance. A decentralised school system with schools enjoying local autonomy would be better able to recruit effective teachers and remove the underperforming ones.
However,independent Irish secondary schools sacked only handfuls of teachers over decades thanks to reactionary trade union policies.
The years Irish teachers spend on temporary jobs may be useful for evaluation and selection for permanent jobs when there is a surplus of teachers.
 
Last edited:

APettigrew92

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
2,699
TEACHERS DON'T NEED NO EDUCATION!
A leading researcher on what makes for good teachers is Hanushek of Stanford University. Scroll down to page 81 http://hanushek.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Hanushek 2010 Superman.pdf His research shows that educational qualifications of teachers have little relation to their teaching ability.
It is entirely possible that this is the case. Any teacher on here will suggest such. Often those with the strongest academic pedigree have the most difficulty in teaching as their expectations are so wildly off that they end up overestimating the capacity of a given student to learn effectively. It can lead to students busying themselves in other ways.

He argues for rewarding teachers based on their contribution to students' achievements but that is difficult to measure in a school team and trade unions would be opposed.
It's also just impossible to judge accurately which is why Unions would oppose such thick policies.

That and the teacher can simply beef up their numbers in order to give the impression that it's all going smoothly.

He thinks teachers could be recruited based on observed classroom performance. A decentralised school system with schools enjoying local autonomy would be better able to recruit effective teachers and remove the underperforming ones.
Which will lead, as it already has in most Irish schools which maintain a good degree of autonomy over hiring, a revolving door, jobs-for-the-boys approach. In my old secondary school the Irish teacher was the son of the previous principal and the history teacher the son of the former history teacher. The history teacher was superb, the Irish teacher couldn't speak Irish.

However,independent Irish secondary schools sacked only handfuls of teachers over decades thanks to reactionary trade union policies.
The years Irish teachers spend on temporary jobs may be useful for evaluation and selection for permanent jobs when there is a surplus of teachers.
You're a fool. You know why? You are a fool because you are treating students in these schools as empirical data that can be easily modified by the right engineer.

Human beings are complex enough but teaching children is more complex again. Human interactions are notoriously difficult to quantify yet here you are swinging the cudgel of truth as if things were that simple.

You could have a teacher who excels in every field possible who encounters a class that, for whatever reason, he cannot communicate effectively with and whose results suffer as a result. There is no one-shoe-fits-all approach to teaching.

Your answer - to funnel prospective teachers into precarious employment under the blatant lie that you have the child's interests at heart - is the most bafflingly stupid proposal possible. Only some clown who has never worked a rolling, temporary contract - which exposes you to all sorts of issues financially - would suggest such an approach.

Students need above all stability. They require their teachers to be in the best possible form in order to perform at a required level. The Brits are trying this genius Malthusian policy of education and their standards have fallen through the floor. Supply teachers being contracted out like Uber drivers (another vile entreprise) to teach classes with whom they'll never develop a meaningful relationship.

People are not figures. They never will be. You should approach problems like this with consideration for that.
 

making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
19,299
Ruairi Quinn's priority as Education Minister was to protect the salary and pension arrangements of older and often incompetent teachers. The 2 year qualification for Secondary teachers had nothing to do with improving standards but rather was about reducing the supply of teachers so the older teachers would have have their Celtic Tiger pay agreements secured. The needs of pupils don't come into it.
Ruairi Quinn's objective as Minister for Education was to lay the foundation for the privatisation of education in this country. Prior to becoming minister he was a highly paid 'consultant' for a pro-private education US lobby group.
 

making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
19,299
TEACHERS DON'T NEED NO EDUCATION!
A leading researcher on what makes for good teachers is Hanushek of Stanford University.
Hanshuk - the leading academic advocate for treating education as a commodity and paying teachers based on results - he is a right-wing hack in the pocket of education privatisation lobby groups. His entire focus is on reducing public expenditure on education (and falsely claims that cutting spending has zero impact on the educational attainment of students).

In relation to Hanushek's studies, Kramer states 'these studies are seriously flawed' - Hasci states: 'Hanushek's approach to studying the data is seriously flawed' and 'the evidence does not support Hanushek's argument' - Fuchs states 'the fundamental problem is that the studies... that Hanushek's uses ...are not true experiments' - Ravitch states: 'the dramatic benefits he promises if schools fire 5-10 percent of teachers is not based on real world evidence. It is a talking point, not a policy.'

Finland doesn't rely entirely on academic qualifications and scouts for people who have a natural ability to teach such as coaches of sports teams.
Finland bans public funding of private education - the Finish system is based on ensuring that education is student centred, with highly qualified teachers, small class sizes, major supports for teachers, ensuring every student who is weak at a subject receives additional resource classes (over half the students in Finland receive additional educational supports - in Ireland it is less than 10%), does not have any terminal exams and does not advocate homework. The focus is on valuing education, respecting teachers, encouraging student talents and developing rounded human beings.

It is the polar opposite of what Hanushek argues.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,092
Hanshuk - the leading academic advocate for treating education as a commodity and paying teachers based on results - he is a right-wing hack in the pocket of education privatisation lobby groups. His entire focus is on reducing public expenditure on education (and falsely claims that cutting spending has zero impact on the educational attainment of students).

In relation to Hanushek's studies, Kramer states 'these studies are seriously flawed' - Hasci states: 'Hanushek's approach to studying the data is seriously flawed' and 'the evidence does not support Hanushek's argument' - Fuchs states 'the fundamental problem is that the studies... that Hanushek's uses ...are not true experiments' - Ravitch states: 'the dramatic benefits he promises if schools fire 5-10 percent of teachers is not based on real world evidence. It is a talking point, not a policy.'


Finland bans public funding of private education - the Finish system is based on ensuring that education is student centred, with highly qualified teachers, small class sizes, major supports for teachers, ensuring every student who is weak at a subject receives additional resource classes (over half the students in Finland receive additional educational supports - in Ireland it is less than 10%), does not have any terminal exams and does not advocate homework. The focus is on valuing education, respecting teachers, encouraging student talents and developing rounded human beings.

It is the polar opposite of what Hanushek argues.
Naturally vested interests in education establishments and teacher unions will attack Hanushek for pointing out that vastly increased spending per student in schools over decades hasn't improved education quality. He argues that the spending is wasted on reducing class sizes instead of effective recruitment of teachers based on their performance in the classroom as well as failure to remove underperforming teachers.
 

making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
19,299
Naturally vested interests in education establishments and teacher unions will attack Hanushek for pointing out that vastly increased spending per student in schools over decades hasn't improved education quality. He argues that the spending is wasted on reducing class sizes instead of effective recruitment of teachers based on their performance in the classroom as well as failure to remove underperforming teachers.
And the evidence proves that he is wrong in his assertions
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top