*** Proposed New Junior Cert. **Read Mod Warning Post #1 Before Posting**

political analyst wrote: »

What I meant was that boys who went to the vocational school because of its greater range of practical subjects were less likely to be academically inclined than those who went to the voluntary school.

When I used the term "academically inclined" I use it to refer to pupils who excel in languages, mathematics, science, business studies, history and geography - all of which are written subjects. Many of those pupils chose one practical subject - in most cases: Art, Music or Technical Graphics.

There were more boys going to the vocational school because it provides Metalwork as well as Woodwork and Technical Graphics, although the boys' voluntary school has since started also providing Metalwork.

I don't often agree with katydid but your statements are insulting to say the least.

I teach those less academically inclined as you call them. I would have been one of those you refer to picking Woodwork Technical Graphics and Art for my JC yet I got a lot more points that many of my colleagues did in their leaving cert. have you looked up the points to be a woodwork or pe teacher compared to an arts course.

Your understanding of the educational system is severely lacking and maybe you should stick to analysing politics if you think that your experience is the way the rest of the country is.

implausible wrote: »

Why? I already do it. I teach 1st year to LC English and Communications to FETAC level 5 students. AfL has been promoted in my ETB for nearly the last ten years and before I realised it had a name, I was doing comment-only anyway. Weaker students especially need specific feedback as a poor grade can be very demoralising and give no pathway to improvement. With excellent students, I'm not sure that the way the teacher marks has a huge bearing on them one way or another.

There will be an increased workload, I've no doubt about that, but keeping the old JC is simply not an option. From teaching FETAC, I've found that if you are giving feedback all along, the final marking is fairly predictable. It's not like we'll be going from doing regular classwork to suddenly marking these assignments; there will be weeks of preparation going into them.

English has always been the most onerous subject in terms of marking work, nothing will change that.

Sorry but I think you're talking rubbish and I find your smug tone extremely grating. You have made it clear all along that you want the new system. Which might be ok in an ideal world if teachers were decently paid,felt rewarded and had good working conditions. But teachers have just been through an extremely demoralising seven years and many of us feel crushed that the union has pretty much caved in.Keeping the old JC is actually very much an option. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it that a little modernisation would not fix. It is outlandish to saddle schools with these "reforms" without major investment and a substantial reduction in the PTR. And I don't know what you mean by "weeks of preparation"! You sound like you're so into it that you can't wait to get started.I have no intention of giving my second and third year classes any more than I do now.

Did you even go on strike with the rest of us? And if you did was your heart even in it?

And this glib attitude that correcting endless batches of up to 30 4-6 page assignments with individualised feedback is no problem is also very annoying. Of course it is a major problem.It's overwhelming! Let's call a spade a spade. Class sizes are far too large and there are too many demands on a teacher's time. And many of us are seriously worried going forward. I enjoy my job but I also enjoy my life and spending countless hours toiling over books and copies is a sure fire recipe for burn out. And I would be very concerned about the physical and mental health of teachers.

Jan O Sullivan and her ilk will be thrilled to have people like you. My philosophy is much closer to my collegues in astifightback who are also very concerned about workload and who are realistic about what is manageable,reasonable and sustainable for any worker.

Alex Meier wrote: »

OK - Point 3.3

Externally set and marked subject examinations, of no longer than two hours, will complement classroom-based assessment of students’ achievements. The external examinations will be set, held and marked by the State Examinations Commission (SEC). The examinations will be held in the month of June in third year

So the exams will take place in June.

Perhaps they are to continue to be supervised by the SEC so.

Not perhaps. The June exams will be set, held and marked by the SEC. The exam or written piece about the second class assessment task will be supervised by the class teacher and take place during a normal class but it will be marked by the SEC with the June exam. It seems likely that it's just a short defective piece so not really an exam.

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

I think the agreement is positive BUT Eat grass/Live Horse. ie We need at least two extra posts per school to get this off the ground and not temp posts. We need schools to be given extra hours allocation -not just told to do it within s and s scheme because once this extends out-all teachers and all subjects will want time to meet.

The idea of two posts is nonsense I think unless they are part of the overall schedule of posts and can be rotated from time to time so that you could give people the chance to move into other duties.

I also think, as I said before, that an admin post would be desirable instead of pulling another good teacher out of their classroom to push paper. I can see why the unions would want the posts to be teacher posts but it it more paperwork less teaching.

The posts should focus on teaching and learning and be classroom based not in procedures and record keeping

Schools are a mess at present with regard to Middle Management and work (including teaching) being done outside of school time,
why is at least 1 school West of the Shannon awaiting two 'A' posts for the past year?
Why are teachers taking on a bigger workload that is frankly NOT teaching?
Why is there so much paperwork which has a knock- on effect of less teaching?
Why are teachers bringing students in before the normal class time and keeping them back after school to deliver subjects such as honours maths?
To do this kind of thing just gives teaching a bad name and lets the Department dump whatever they like on the teacher,as has been done for the past number of years.
Why are teachers putting up with such CRAP?
It seems to be very much a case of 'keep them (the teachers) in the dark and feed them sh1t,great if the teaching profession was a crop of mushrooms.
What of the teaching Unions,are they just taking the money and doing sweet FA for conditions that have deteriorated 100 fold in the past 5 years.
Yes,teachers will moan and whinge but will bend over and put up with the crap.......because ,after all are you not damn lucky to have a job!

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

I think the agreement is positive BUT Eat grass/Live Horse. ie We need at least two extra posts per school to get this off the ground and not temp posts. We need schools to be given extra hours allocation -not just told to do it within s and s scheme because once this extends out-all teachers and all subjects will want time to meet.

I am really surprised that you consider it "positive" Mr White. An agreement that straitjackets teachers on what,how and when we teach the various components, in addition to time taken from teaching for "collaboration meetings".To the extent that in single teacher per subject schools said teacher will have to nip across the road to the boys /girls school,so important is the "collaboration". They'd want to stock up on brollies! And cue bureaucratisation when all the reporting gets underway, on top of the meetings and CPA's. IBEC likes it.So too does John Walsh, it's a lot closer to Ruari's vision than they had hoped.Paving the way for full teacher assessment of JC a bit down the ine.

Is this really what we campaigned for,went on strike for and wrote letters to the paper for,do you think??

Teachers’ time and workload

The Appendix identifies the categories of additional professional time that will be required from implementation of the Framework for Junior Cycle. It proposes 40-minute class periods for all schools. It identifies the time required for Subject Learning and Assessment Review meetings of subject teachers. It states that with effect from September 2017 the class contact time for all full-time teachers with Junior Cycle classes will be reduced from 33 (40 minute) periods to 32 (40 minute) periods – i.e. a maximum class contact time each week of 21 hours and 20 minutes rather than 22 hours. There will be a pro-rata reduction in class contact time for part-time teachers. Additional paid substitution hours will be allocated to schools in the 2015/16 and 2016/17 school years in order to phase in the timetable changes for English, Science and Business teachers.

How do they propose to reduce hows for part time teachers on a pro rata basis? Teach 15 minutes of a class and leave?

km79 wrote: »

all schools to have 40 minute periods
that will be a nice headache for some principals

Reducing timetables by one class will also be a headache where teachers don't have fillers (1 SPHE/CSPE per week) and have a neat timetable that fits 22.

I take it the 40 minutes is planning time?

Alex Meier wrote: »

This seems extremely bizarre.

For a start - Which FT teacher does 22 hours a week "class contact time"?

The Haddington Road Agreement has us doing free S&S . . . there were some weeks last year I did 24 hours (22 teaching, 2 sub) and there were some I did 22H 40m (22 teaching, 1 sub). . . Add in the extra 45 mins supervision i did every week and these figures approach 23.5-24+ hours per week in front of students.

And they still think we're doing 22 hours?

In fact they want to extend the HRA to 2017 in the Lansdowne Road stitch-up. . .

Extra money for S&S will not reduce the 43 hour demand from the DES.

I take your point about all the extra work we are doing, but you are being pedantic about what the 22 hours means.