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

katydid wrote: »

Surely it's total movement from the Travers document - NO STATE CERTIFICATION form school based assessment. Teachers have been saying all along that it's not CA they have a problem with, rather the state certification of it.

"Bypassing the SC" What is the SC? The unions have accepted nothing; the union is the members, not the executive. The unions will only have accepted when and if the members accept it.

go onto Asti Fightbacks Facebook page and read their interpretation of today's events. they have 2 members on the Standing Committee I.e. SC
so they were actually there in the room today unlike us. and they aint happy.
Jan is . Why is that I wonder ?

katydid wrote: »

It's down to the members concerned at the end of the day. It doesn't matter whether the proposers are happy or unhappy.

It's down to the members to vote alright, we are the union, but how many eejits just go with the union recommendation without even bothering to read the stuff themselves.

I know our staff room is full of them.

katydid wrote: »

, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

I don't teach at second level.

I understand why you have no problem with it now .

katydid wrote: »

I have no problem with a union coming up with a proposal and putting it to its members. No matter what the issue. Other issues, such as the CP or HR agreements, concerned me, and I didn't have a problem with the executive of my union putting a proposal to me and my colleagues. That's how a union works.

I know how a union works hence how I knew what SC stood for.
I was not referring to you having no problem with the way the union works.
I was referring to you not knowing what all the fuss was about I.e. The agreement.
You left this part out when quoting me .

katydid is there any chance that you might stop badgering people and let some discussion flow? Please.

This is not some academic debate,many second level teachers affected by this are starting to get worried and it would be nice if people could find an outlet here,both those for and against.

deiseindublin is right.Many people go along with whatever is recommended to them and if the unions recommend acceptance then the likelihood is that it will be accepted. If you are not convinced about the level of disengagement among our collegues just look at the derisory turn out for recent crucially important ballots.

acequion wrote: »

So what do people think? Astifightback are saying that it's a capitulation and a sell out. The Indo had a screaming headline that it's a Coalition cave in. Two totally opposing viewpoints. Who is right?

On paper it doesn't look too bad,two assessments in all. But then my heart sinks at all the talk of bureaucratisation and loads of moderation meetings. Boring minutiae that I personally could not bear.

I think it's been worded very carefully in that regard. I read it early and my initial thought was 'oh that doesn't sound too bad' and then I thought about it and the proposal presented to us a couple of months back was a state exam for 60% and continuous assessment for 40% (graded by teachers) and the student would receive two grades. Leaving out the not wanting to grade our own students issue, teachers raised concerns about the notion of a students scoring an A in one assessment and a D in the other part of the assessment and parents complaining that the teacher was marking too easy/ too harsh / is crap etc, etc.

So now this evening i'm reading a proposal that says we do a second year assessment that will appear alongside their JC grade on the certificate which is now called a Profile of Achievement.


How is this any different? Aren't we still assessing our students under a heading called Classroom Based Assessment under this new proposal?? Have I completely missed something?

Following this, before the end of the first term following the completion of the Junior Cycle, each student will receive a composite Junior Cycle Profile of Achievement from his/her school, which will capture
all of the different assessment elements undertaken over the three years of Junior Cycle

Just as an aside, it mentioned on the news tonight that the students other achievements can be listed in this profile such as Gaisce Award, Young Scientist etc. Is this profile going to be a mini CV for 15 year olds, and will teachers that are already stretched be pressed to do more extra curricular so students have more to add to the cert?

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I think it's been worded very carefully in that regard. I read it early and my initial thought was 'oh that doesn't sound too bad' and then I thought about it and the proposal presented to us a couple of months back was a state exam for 60% and continuous assessment for 40% (graded by teachers) and the student would receive two grades. Leaving out the not wanting to grade our own students issue, teachers raised concerns about the notion of a students scoring an A in one assessment and a D in the other part of the assessment and parents complaining that the teacher was marking too easy/ too harsh / is crap etc, etc.

So now this evening i'm reading a proposal that says we do a second year assessment that will appear alongside their JC grade on the certificate which is now called a Profile of Achievement.


How is this any different? Aren't we still assessing our students under a heading called Classroom Based Assessment under this new proposal?? Have I completely missed something?




Just as an aside, it mentioned on the news tonight that the students other achievements can be listed in this profile such as Gaisce Award, Young Scientist etc. Is this profile going to be a mini CV for 15 year olds, and will teachers that are already stretched be pressed to do more extra curricular so students have more to add to the cert?

There is no 60% / 40% anymore. The school-based assessments and final assessments are separate. So the State Cert will contain their grade from exams and separately in the profile there will be records of other 'achievements'. Sounds a bit like a TY programme with awards, certs, projects and exams all presented in a folder at a grad night.

katydid wrote: »

I presume paperwork regarding how the project was planned and carried out. Evidence, if relevant, that during the process, consultation and advice from the teacher took place. Briefs which show that the assignment instructions were clear and understood by the student, evidence that they were aware of the submission date. Evidence that they submitted the work, and evidence they were given feedback. Checking for plagiarism.

For starters... :-)

You've obviosuly just come thru QQI IV process, can't see JC going anywhere near this level of checking.

Jamfa wrote: »

There is no 60% / 40% anymore. The school-based assessments and final assessments are separate. So the State Cert will contain their grade from exams and separately in the profile there will be records of other 'achievements'. Sounds a bit like a TY programme with awards, certs, projects and exams all presented in a folder at a grad night.

Ya I know there's no 60/40 anymore, but one of the many iterations that the proposals went through (and were rejected) was that the students would end up with two grades on their cert, one from the SEC and one teacher marked.

The grade the student gets from the SEC, might be a 100% grade for the exam and third year written task that is submitted, but there will be a second grade/assessment alongside it graded by the teacher. So the numbers might not add to 100, but there's still 2 grades on the page at the end of the day, and one is the teachers.

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I think it's been worded very carefully in that regard. I read it early and my initial thought was 'oh that doesn't sound too bad' and then I thought about it and the proposal presented to us a couple of months back was a state exam for 60% and continuous assessment for 40% (graded by teachers) and the student would receive two grades. Leaving out the not wanting to grade our own students issue, teachers raised concerns about the notion of a students scoring an A in one assessment and a D in the other part of the assessment and parents complaining that the teacher was marking too easy/ too harsh / is crap etc, etc.

So now this evening i'm reading a proposal that says we do a second year assessment that will appear alongside their JC grade on the certificate which is now called a Profile of Achievement.


How is this any different? Aren't we still assessing our students under a heading called Classroom Based Assessment under this new proposal?? Have I completely missed something?

I don't think you've missed something because I would be thinking along those lines. This proposal has us doing a big chunk of the work which stills appears on their cert /profile of achievement. I can't see how that is any different to what Travers proposed and which was knocked on the head leading to another lunchtime protest.Why the capitulation?

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Ya I know there's no 60/40 anymore, but one of the many iterations that the proposals went through (and were rejected) was that the students would end up with two grades on their cert, one from the SEC and one teacher marked.

The grade the student gets from the SEC, might be a 100% grade for the exam and third year written task that is submitted, but there will be a second grade/assessment alongside it graded by the teacher. So the numbers might not add to 100, but there's still 2 grades on the page at the end of the day, and one is the teachers.

The State Cert is a separate sheet. The school based are just descriptors like 'Achieved' and they'll be reported before the State Cert too.

Jamfa wrote: »

The oral task in English requires next to no paperwork if it's assessing a 3 minute presentation which is reported to parents. Schools will need resources if they have to record them.
All the exams are set and marked by SEC so all the paperwork and correcting if their job.

And how will that oral task be carried out? One student up at the top of the class presenting orally to the teacher and the class? Or still at the top of the class presenting orally to the teacher while all the others are magically "collaborating" in groups? Or a private presentation and then where are the 29 others?

acequion wrote: »

And how will that oral task be carried out? One student up at the top of the class presenting orally to the teacher and the class? Or still at the top of the class presenting orally to the teacher while all the others are magically "collaborating" in groups? Or a private presentation and then where are the 29 others?

You'd have to engage in the supports and CPD provided to get those answers but it's not beyond organising in a simple manner given what happens in other subjects. Do you not get your students to make presentations or do dramas etc already and assess them? It's school based so won't be part of the state cert or grade.

rainbowtrout wrote: »

No, it's not. They will get a set of results from the SEC but the report also says that early in the school year after Junior Cert, so first term of fifth year/TY a profile of achievement put together by the school. That profile will include the SEC results and the school based assessments.




Who is responsible for putting these Profiles of Achievement together? The principal? The school secretary? Teachers? What can go on the profile aside from the classroom based assessment? Stuff like Gaisce, young scientists seem obvious, presumably it includes sporting achievements. Does the lad who trained every week for the year and was on all the teams for the U-16 GAA Connacht schools winning team get it put on, but also the lad who went to training in the first week in September so was on the panel, but really couldn't be arsed. This stuff is quite trivial at this stage, but I can see parents complaining, if their kids aren't picked for extra curricular teams....

The State Cert is separate as it's on a separate page and is a state cert. Also presented to students will be the non state cert achievements. The SEC will send the results out and I assume schools will compile the various results like they do in TY or with summer reports etc. Like TY a school can decide what is included and surely encouraging and supporting our students in their learning is what we want to achieve as teachers.

rainbowtrout wrote: »

The bit I've quoted above is directly from the statement released today. It was also on the news several times this evening. Once junior cert profile to include SEC results, classroom based assessment, other school achievements. They specifically said on the RTE news that students would no longer receive a Junior Cert.

But the whole point of the strikes etc was to ensure that the exams remained state certified so they effectively are whether officially called it or not. The exams are state certified so I'm sure will continue to be referred to as the junior cert state exams or junior cycle state exams. If the system stayed exactly the same there wouldn't be any reforms or need to vote etc.

Jamfa wrote: »

But the whole point of the strikes etc was to ensure that the exams remained state certified so they effectively are whether officially called it or not. The exams are state certified so I'm sure will continue to be referred to as the junior cert state exams or junior cycle state exams. If the system stayed exactly the same there wouldn't be any reforms or need to vote etc.

That depends how schools deal with it. Presumably if this goes through, they will have complete profiles for students by the end of third year, they will have a list of subjects the students are sitting for JC at the end of third year. If a school were to wait for JC results to come in mid September and fill in the grades on the Profile of Achievement and hand that out on the day as the complete profile they parents are getting the whole lot in one go, there might be a bit of paper attached to it with the results from the SEC on the day, but what I'm taking from all of this is that the Profile of Achievement is a composite document that supercedes everything that went before.

Jamfa wrote: »

Well that seems to have come entirely from the unions side especially including CSPE as part of well-being. I can't understand why they fought to save CSPE and not history.

To be honest, I'd imagine that with the cap on 10 JC subjects with most students (in my experience) doing 11, that most students given the chance would have given CSPE the chop from their lists, or their parents would have. Particularly as there is no follow on subject in Leaving Cert.

I'm guessing also that if CSPE was retained as a compulsory subject along with English, Irish and Maths as it is now, that a lot of parents and students would have been complaining that they had to drop one of their other subjects out of their 11.

Jamfa wrote: »

But the results of the school based tasks will have been reported in 2nd or 3rd year so the only surprise will be the state exam results.

But some parents and students will pass absolutely no heed of what is coming home in summer and Christmas tests, but see the JC as official. If the new profile replaces that as the official document, then I think that is what will lend weight to the grade/ assessment.

If I grade a student as a C in a second year assessment ( or a written comment equiavalent to a C) and tell them that in second year, there will be students who will not accept/believe that is their level until they see the full list of grades in Sept fifth year. If they get a C in Junior Cert then they'll accept my grade as fair. if they get an A in Junior Cert, they'll say I'm too harsh/ crap teacher. if they get a D in Junior Cert they'll say 'the questions did suit me on the day' :rolleyes: