Peter Sutherland And Teachers


I couldn't disagree more. As has already be pointed out, there is a perception that if one pays for something then it is inherently better than something given gratis. Regardless of the school there will always be students who are taking grinds such is the points pressure for some courses. Boards.ie have some very insightful comments from students who attend some of the well known grind schools.

There are no/few discipline issues in the grinds schools because (a) most of the students are motivated to go there, (b) any infringement can result in expulsion, (c) Mammy/Daddy are paying through the nose.
 
My honours maths teacher for the leaving cert did not actually understand the course material, he was a terribly nice guy but he couldnt possibly impart the relevant knowledge as he himself didnt understand it.
Click to expand...

Snap! Our Maths teacher coped by getting the brighter students to go up to the board and go through their solutions to the harder questions. This worked up to a point, but it fell apart for the odd question none of us could tackle. Slowly dawned on us that he couldn't do the questions himself. Other teachers knew about it and were sympathetic, but couldn't do much about it.
 
Had a similar situation myself - useless teacher and parents who could not afford to pay for grinds. I had no unusual aptitude for maths - I was reasonably bright but not especially talented. Slogged hard - spending hours at home grinding out the answers to the obscure questions and came out with an A1. I think if you're ambitious and interested, you will take a degree of responsibility for your own learning - not a bad habit for uni and the great world of work.
 

Thats EXACTLY how we discovered he hadnt a clue! It wasnt Mr C was it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hmm, not being able to perform on demand is not necessarily indicative of academic ability (obviously it's something of a prerequisite for a teacher). I hold a PhD and I quite often 'go blank' when asked questions about my subject area - I'm fine when I can have a bit of time to think about it. Oral responses are not my forte - then again, I'm not a maths teacher.
 
Ciaran - the actual method used by this teacher was to assign us an exam book question and then the following class to go over it, on a number of occasions he would not know how to do it - despite it being assigned a few days earlier (giving him time to figure it out for himself), it was pretty pointless us spending time trying to figure it out only to find that he couldnt say if we had it right or wrong afterwards.
 
From what I remember of honours maths, the solutions are available at the back of the textbook/exam paper. In any case, they're generally self-correcting. I remember sitting both leaving cert papers and knowing exactly which ones were right or not as I did them. You'll know yourself whether they're 'working out' or not. Not trying to exonerate the teacher, just pointing out that having a poor teacher doesn't automatically mean that you have to do badly in state exams.
 
With the newer 'past papers' the solutions are available - not in the ones we used back then. Besides which, if there was something in a solution that we didnt understand (some of the grinds people would bring the solutions in and share with the class) this teacher was not able to explain it to us as he himself didnt understand it.

While I agree that a poor teacher doesnt automatically mean poor exam results I still think that assigning a teacher who doesnt understand the subject to an honours maths class is ludicrous. The role of the teacher is to impart knowledge - he was never going to be able to do this as he was lacking in the knowledge himself in a lot of areas.

If students could fully understand a subject based on the textbook there would be no need for teachers at all.
 
I quite often 'go blank' when asked questions about my subject area - I'm fine when I can have a bit of time to think about it.
Click to expand...

Same here. So if I have to train people (or do interviews) I prepare!

the solutions are available at the back of the textbook/exam paper.
Click to expand...

You can buy solution books, but sometimes you need someone (hopefully your teacher!) to explain why a particular situation is right. Also, sometimes the sample solutions are wrong! Sometimes there is more than one acceptable solution. And sometimes (very rarely!) there's a mistake in the question and there's no "right" solution. It's a great advantage to have a teacher who understands the subject material enough to cope with these subtleties.

Not trying to exonerate the teacher, just pointing out that having a poor teacher doesn't automatically mean that you have to do badly in state exams.
Click to expand...

I agree, and I did very well by teaching myself parts of the course. But weaker (lazier?) students didn't have a chance. I didn't have the same teacher as truthseeker and yet it sounds like both our maths teachers used *exactly* the same methodology. At the time I thought it was his coping strategy, but perhaps they both went to the same advanced class in instilling self-reliance in students!
 

Here's some more;
- involvement in extra-curricular activities
- ability to win back that one kid that every other teacher (and probably his parents) have given up on

But measurement of these areas is going to be hugely difficult.
 
cole said:
I couldn't disagree more.
Click to expand...

When I did my leaving in early 90's, in my honours maths class EVERYONE took grinds because of the teachers incompetence. Very few took grinds in ANY other class.

In this case it was nothing to do with

one pays for something then it is inherently better than something given gratis
Click to expand...

It was students wanting to get a fair crack at getting a reasonable result in a class where most wanted/expected to go to University. Surely a right that we were all entitled to?
 
rmelly said:
When I did my leaving in early 90's, in my honours maths class EVERYONE took grinds because of the teachers incompetence. Very few took grinds in ANY other class.
Click to expand...

That is the exception rather than the rule. My point is that there is a perception that grinds schools are better than state schools. They're not.

It was students wanting to get a fair crack at getting a reasonable result in a class where most wanted/expected to go to University. Surely a right that we were all entitled to?
Click to expand...

Absolutely.
 
ubiquitous said:
Are you saying that they should forfeit the pensions to which they have contributed during their years of service to date? I don't think you would see this happening in any private sector case.
Click to expand...

They should never have been allowed get to the point where they had decades of pensionable service. In most cases, they were NEVER competent, but they couldn't (and still can't) be dealt with appropriately.

An organisation in the private sector would generally not tolerate this incompetence for decades, and it would be unlikely they would be given the same generous defined benefit pensions.
 
"My point is that there is a perception that grinds schools are better than state schools. They're not"

There is clearly a market for the 'grind school' and it seems patronising to suggest that all of those customers are simply deluding themselves.

The talent deficit in teaching honours maths is certainly not a new phenomenon.

In honours Maths I was fortunate enough to be taught (in my publicly funded, non-fee paying school) by possibly the best maths teacher in the country. He taught maths and nothing else (except a religion class - every teacher had to take one) , and mostly just the honours classes- and the brothers who then ran the school were able to recognise his talent, accomodate his wishes and ensure that he remained focussed on the one area where he excelled. At a time when the grind schools were only getting going, teachers in other schools used to quietly suggest to their honours maths students that they might go to this guy for extra classes (which he did every year, though I am sure he did not particularly need the money, and that this was not the motivator).

I think honours maths is substantially harder than every other subject at Leaving Cert level - (though I seem to recall that Honours physics was fairly hard going if you did not do honours maths).

Anyway, the point is that honours maths really does require a bit of a dedicated 'star performer' if it is to be taught well.

If our system allowed us to pay these guys extra, or to bring in outside talent on a contract basis to teach just the honours maths, or in some other way to manage the talent deficit, we would all be better off. Unfortunately, it doesn't. No point in beating around the bush here: the teachers unions will never allow this to happen, so we might as well not look for it. We will still have a talent deficit at honours maths level twenty years from now.
 
RainyDay said:
Here's some more;
- involvement in extra-curricular activities
Click to expand...

Extracurricular involvement is purely voluntary and is not part of a teachers contract. I agree that these activities enhance both students and school. It would be interesting to compare the extracurricular activites at state run schools with those of the grinds schools.

MOB said:
There is clearly a market for the 'grind school' and it seems patronising to suggest that all of those customers are simply deluding themselves.
Click to expand...

Patronising?
My remarks are directed at the grinds schools not individual grinds. There is a big difference. Of course there will always be a market for individual grinds for a wide variety of reasons and I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the perception that grinds schools are better than state schools.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register