Cheaper Teachers for Youthreach Centres?

national | worker & community struggles and protests | news report

Tuesday June 20, 2006 19:08

by Teacher

The Vocational Education Committees and their teaching staff unions seem to be in a bit of a muddle about whether or not teachers at Youthreach centres should be properly qualified. Youthreach is an alternative education facility for pupils aged between 15 and 21 who have not succeeded educationally within the ordinary school system. There can be a variety of reasons - social, educational, cultural - why this happens and the centres provide a potentially valuable opportunity to support a group of young people who would otherwise be seriously disadvantaged.

The emphasis is on working in smaller groups and helping the students to develop their particular strengths and abilities. Work placements and project work of various kinds are offered and where the centres are working well they are greatly appreciated by the local community.

For the principals and teachers the work is far more challenging in many ways than an ordinary teaching job. It requires the most skilled, experienced and tolerant teachers if the centres are to have any chance of achieving their objectives.

It's surprising in the light of this that in some regions of the country, some Youthreach principals and teachers have been employed who have no third level education at all - no teaching qualifications and no teaching experience prior to joining Youthreach centres. Other Youthreaches are concerned about this situation. They feel it brings the service into disrepute if standards are not consistent in all regions of the country. The new quality framework is doing a lot to address the issue of standards generally but it seems likely to be a missed opportunity in some Youthreach centres if it as not being applied by appropriately qualified staff.

The background to the situation appears to be that, originally, the Youthreach centres were conceived as employment training centres offering basic skills training. But a policy change has meant that they are now focussed on offering their students educational qualifications such as FETAC approved courses and so the issue may be a temporary consequence of introducing the change.

Youthreach co-ordinators have recently claimed that they and their staff do an equivalent job and deserve to be put on the same salary as VEC school staff. Inconsistent with that, however, in some places they are also actively resisting the idea that either they should be required to have proper teaching qualifications. Parents of children at one VEC Youthreach Centre are concerned that some of the pupils are being taught Leaving Certificate level subjects by people who do not have leaving certificate qualifications themselves. The knowledge deficit is very apparent to their children who are in some cases more advanced in their studies than the people who are teaching them. Some parents say they don't believe their children should be treated as second-class students and think they have a right to the same standard of teaching as any school pupil.

'Frankly, it's insulting' one said. 'Some of my son's friends are enjoying free university education with all the support and professionalism which that guarantees. Why should Youthreach students be treated differently?'

Dermot Stokes who is the national coordinator for Youthreach recently said that up to 70 per cent of the people they teach have special educational needs. There are 6,000 students on the books in approximately 85 Youthreach centres most of whom are under 19. In mainstream schools all pupils are entitled to special needs support but Youthreach pupils have no entitlement to this, a factor exacerbating a very difficult situation.

Teaching unions might want to look closely at this issue - is it a worrying precedent for the profession generally that the Youthreach centres can recruit unqualified teaching staff and principals? More importantly, are Youthreach pupils being let down in some instances?

save preference

Comments (4 of 4)

The wood for the trees

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

A different debate

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.

The wide end of the wedge?

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.

Methodology etc

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.

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Voltaire Network

Cheaper Teachers for Youthreach Centres?

Comments (4 of 4)