Fetac Assessment/Quality assurance

namoosh

I work in a CFE, yesterday I was instructed verbally by my dept head not to enter any students for fetac modules/awards who had not completed enough assessments to pass or who I did not think would pass as the Dept of Ed and FETAC were looking at completion and success rates. I refused to do this as in my opinion if someone submits a piece of work they are entitled to have it assessed and the final grade is given by the FETAC assessor and not the teacher. My dept head said the instruction came from a lot higher up than her and was designed to make completion and pass rates look better. Has anyone else experienced this or is my dept head just chancing her arm?

looksee

Well, whatever about doing what you are instructed to do, I haven't heard any instructions to that effect, and I would also feel that if anyone has submitted they should be marked. I would agree that it is not our decision not to present work, that is a very dodgy precedent.

namoosh

looksee wrote: »

Well, whatever about doing what you are instructed to do, I haven't heard any instructions to that effect, and I would also feel that if anyone has submitted they should be marked. I would agree that it is not our decision not to present work, that is a very dodgy precedent.

Thanks for the reply, I did a bit of research after posting and apparantly the DOE sent out a form looking for student course completion rates and fetac full awards. Our head office has the completion figures cos they get the green register data sent to them every month but they dont want to disclose them to DOE as completion rate is barely 60%, they get the principals to do a student survey in Nov/Dec every year which shows a student retention rate of 85% which they present to the DOE. However with the DOE now looking for the number of students obtaining a full FETAC award a problem arises as the figure will be less than 60% with the balance either failing or being withdrawn while the massaged student numbers show 85% completion, I think they are trying to massage the FETAC figures hence the instruction, I doubt it will be put in wriring.

Further Ed.

This increased demand from the DOE&S for more detailed statistics has been in the pipeline for a while as a result of the PLC/FE sector shouting for extra resources to cope with the numbers applying, based on whether the instruction to the OP was official or non-official here are some issues it raises
1. Do centres not have to submit both Oct and Feb returns ? This is what the DOE&S look at, if your head office has been entering students as on the register in Feb who have left then they are showing incorrect figures (not to mention issues with grant returns etc). However if the students are still there then the issue is around the results and is it fair for your HQ to demand that everyone passes which is what is at the root of this instruction, show only success.
2. Is this instruction, regardless of where it came from (a) a breach of your QA policy and procedures with FETAC and (b) a breach of your Professional Code of Practice (Teaching Council) ? I would raise the matter with your Trade Union. I would be of the opinion that you are been asked to falsify records as you will not be showing marks for work submitted.
3. If your centre has a receipt policy (or something similar as required by FETAC QA and security of assessment material) then evidence will exist that a learner submitted work but that work didn’t get entered for assessment. Once learners submit work they are entitled to have it marked and submitted for assessment. Bottom line has always been No evidence = no marks. Evidence = marks. What happens in July when learners don’t get results ? I won’t like to be dealing with their calls then. If they don’t get a satisfactory answer they will go further. If they have paid their FETAC fee they are entitled to be entered and a FETAC result regardless of its grade.
4. Under the External Examiner system the EE only looked at a range of students not the entire lot. The EE had the right to change the result without the approval or even knowledge of the centre, that has now changed as the EE leaves their sheets in the centre who can decide to accept or reject the decision of the EE. The EE does not return their sheets to FETAC. It is all done online so the EE does not know what the centre enters. It is a move to the External Authentication system. The External Authenticator does not award the grade, the teacher does and the internal verification process (internal to the centre) confirms or rejects it while the EA confirms the processes and then the results are signed off on by the centre.

5. This raises the whole issue of admission policies which vary throughout the PLC/FE sector. Technically as a second level system the PLC/FE sector can not cherry pick students and yet with interviews etc that is what they do. The DOE&S has to look at this in the first instance. It also raises the question as to whether the DOE&S have to amend the entry criteria for PLC sector and instead of saying that anyone who has completed the senior cycle or equivalent regardless of results can proceed to PLC/FE. Very few centres follow this policy and instead have interviews and LC subject or result requirements.
6. In the old days of N3 forms etc I have always heard Externals going on about large numbers entered. But when they turned up at centres for a day’s work they only had to do an hour since the majority of learners were withdrawn, having enrolled in Sept but disappeared in October. This system has now changed with FETAC entries taking place at several times during the year as opposed to just Sept for results the following May. Perhaps DOES centres should be required to enter learners in Sept for May examination period and this would stop situations arising like they did for the OP

7. The DOE&S are not stupid – they will query high retention and high result rates and look for numbers and not just %. If the DOES has any sense they will ask FETAC for number of learners enrolled and completion rates etc and compare them with numbers registered in the centre in Sept.

I can see where your centre/HQ is coming from as they want to keep resources etc but my biggest worry would be the impact on standards as centres pressurise their staff to pass students who in the past would not have made the grade. It calls into question the whole FETAC process and the quality of results. There is a reason that under the LC or JC that schools and their staff can not determine their student’s results.


No doubt this will provoke much discussion on the boards

namoosh

Very interesting!

A friend of mine works in admin, she said they hold the completion rates very close to their chest as VEC is afraid of cut in funding if the 60% completion rate was revealed to the DOE, she is sure the Feb figures are "massaged" to secure funding.

The FETAC situation is interesting, if teachers are pressurised for results the easy way is to pass everyone regardless and without external moderation will it be a race to the bottom?

namoosh

Further Ed. wrote: »

This increased demand from the DOE&S for more detailed statistics has been in the pipeline for a while as a result of the PLC/FE sector shouting for extra resources to cope with the numbers applying, based on whether the instruction to the OP was official or non-official here are some issues it raises
1.Do centres not have to submit both Oct and Feb returns ? This is what the DOE&S look at, if your head office has been entering students as on the register in Feb who have left then they are showing incorrect figures (not to mention issues with grant returns etc). However if the students are still there then the issue is around the results and is it fair for your HQ to demand that everyone passes which is what is at the root of this instruction, show only success.
2.Is this instruction, regardless of where it came from (a) a breach of your QA policy and procedures with FETAC and (b) a breach of your Professional Code of Practice (Teaching Council) ? I would raise the matter with your Trade Union. I would be of the opinion that you are been asked to falsify records as you will not be showing marks for work submitted.
3.If your centre has a receipt policy (or something similar as required by FETAC QA and security of assessment material) then evidence will exist that a learner submitted work but that work didn’t get entered for assessment. Once learners submit work they are entitled to have it marked and submitted for assessment. Bottom line has always been No evidence = no marks. Evidence = marks. What happens in July when learners don’t get results ? I won’t like to be dealing with their calls then. If they don’t get a satisfactory answer they will go further. If they have paid their FETAC fee they are entitled to be entered and a FETAC result regardless of its grade.
4. Under the External Examiner system the EE only looked at a range of students not the entire lot. The EE had the right to change the result without the approval or even knowledge of the centre, that has now changed as the EE leaves their sheets in the centre who can decide to accept or reject the decision of the EE. The EE does not return their sheets to FETAC. It is all done online so the EE does not know what the centre enters. It is a move to the External Authentication system. The External Authenticator does not award the grade, the teacher does and the internal verification process (internal to the centre) confirms or rejects it while the EA confirms the processes and then the results are signed off on by the centre.

5.This raises the whole issue of admission policies which vary throughout the PLC/FE sector. Technically as a second level system the PLC/FE sector can not cherry pick students and yet with interviews etc that is what they do. The DOE&S has to look at this in the first instance. It also raises the question as to whether the DOE&S have to amend the entry criteria for PLC sector and instead of saying that anyone who has completed the senior cycle or equivalent regardless of results can proceed to PLC/FE. Very few centres follow this policy and instead have interviews and LC subject or result requirements.
6.In the old days of N3 forms etc I have always heard Externals going on about large numbers entered. But when they turned up at centres for a day’s work they only had to do an hour since the majority of learners were withdrawn, having enrolled in Sept but disappeared in October. This system has now changed with FETAC entries taking place at several times during the year as opposed to just Sept for results the following May. Perhaps DOES centres should be required to enter learners in Sept for May examination period and this would stop situations arising like they did for the OP

7.The DOE&S are not stupid – they will query high retention and high result rates and look for numbers and not just %. If the DOES has any sense they will ask FETAC for number of learners enrolled and completion rates etc and compare them with numbers registered in the centre in Sept.

I can see where your centre/HQ is coming from as they want to keep resources etc but my biggest worry would be the impact on standards as centres pressurise their staff to pass students who in the past would not have made the grade. It calls into question the whole FETAC process and the quality of results. There is a reason that under the LC or JC that schools and their staff can not determine their student’s results.


No doubt this will provoke much discussion on the boards

WRT to admission policies, very few PLC courses are stand alone FETAC, most have a professional qualification such as IATI as well and it is the external examining body that sets the entry requirement for the student, students that don't meet these criteria are usually shoehorned into a course with lower entry requirements and one that they might not necessarily be that interested in. In fairness to the professional bodies the entry requirements are there to ensure that students who have no chance of succeeding are not taken on.

Another interesting point is the number of hours required for a FETAC module, if a module can be completed in 20 to 30 hours as a part time course why is it taking up to 75 hours in a full time day course? What is the teacher doing for the other 40 hours? Is this an efficient use of resources?

Are PLC colleges running courses that there is no longer much demand for because they have staff with expertise in that area and filling them with students who cant get places in any other courses, I'm thinking of building related courses as an example?

I don't think the DOE wants PLC colleges, I'm of the opinion that they would rather the students to go directly to the IT's who have even worse completion rates. Apparently there is a new student based computer system being implemented in all IT's over the summer which will give detailed reports on the students progress. This should be interesting.

I dont think the DOE actually goes out and looks for or at things, it asks for information and statistics and believes whatever is submitted to it, FETAC need the VEC's to play ball and vice versa I'm sure the figures will match.

looksee

namoosh, while we do have a few departments with external qualifications, most of our courses are Fetac only. We absolutely do not run courses for which there is poor demand. Students have to apply for a particular course and if a course does not have sufficient students it is discontinued. Almost all our courses have considerably more applicants than places.

As to why the day courses take longer, Fetac is not just about studying a subject. It is also about giving a rounded education, work experience and in depth help in moving either into the workplace or on to higher education. There is certainly no time wasted.

We have a strict attendance policy, and I have seen no evidence whatever of teachers being pressured to pass students regardless of results, or attendance figures being massaged, rather the reverse. The whole ethos is to give the students the best opportunity to achieve their course, but with no compromise of quality.

On what do you base your comment about the DOE not wanting PLC courses? That seems like a rather sweeping statement.

namoosh

looksee wrote: »

namoosh, while we do have a few departments with external qualifications, most of our courses are Fetac only. We absolutely do not run courses for which there is poor demand. Students have to apply for a particular course and if a course does not have sufficient students it is discontinued. Almost all our courses have considerably more applicants than places.

As to why the day courses take longer, Fetac is not just about studying a subject. It is also about giving a rounded education, work experience and in depth help in moving either into the workplace or on to higher education. There is certainly no time wasted.

We have a strict attendance policy, and I have seen no evidence whatever of teachers being pressured to pass students regardless of results, or attendance figures being massaged, rather the reverse. The whole ethos is to give the students the best opportunity to achieve their course, but with no compromise of quality.

On what do you base your comment about the DOE not wanting PLC courses? That seems like a rather sweeping statement.

Looksee, I can only speak from my own experience, the courses in my centre have been almost static for the last decade, if there are low numbers e.g. 7 or 8 students are shoehorned into them to make up the numbers, courses have been cancelled due to lack of numbers but it is extremely unusual. Not all our courses have more applicants than places.

I agree with your point regarding a rounded education, but will the DOE take the same view? A FETAC distinction is a FETAC distinction regardless of whether the course is 20, 30 or 75 hours duration as all the learning objectives have been achieved.

We also have a strict attendance policy, we still have a 40% drop out rate and have an emphasis on quality, my question was will the focus on completion rates compromise this.

I would base that on the PLC cap, it is the DOE opposite of upward only rent reviews. Most PLC's to my knowledge are over quota, i.e. they have students for which they receive no allocation from DOE, this is not going to change as the DOE model envisages PLC students going straight to the IT's.

namoosh

Just heard this evening that the principal has refunded fetac examination fee to anyone who has not attended courses for more than 5 weeks and has instructed the exam secretary in writing not to enter them for any fetac modules regardless of whether they have submitted any work or not! I can see this ending up in court, but it does solve the statistics problem.

clowderofcats

we got the same instruction in our VEC centre. Any student who has left the course is not to be entered.

Most were removed from the course because they had not been submitting work for people who teach the core modules or were failing the core modules.

Many are being dumped/forced out of courses because of the attendance policy. But this is only put into force for those who are unlikely to pass the core subjects.

Many of these students have received grants to sit on these course. Some have only left/been forced to leave in the past couple of weeks. If they are not registered they will, effectively, be able to take a level 5 course again, receive grants again etc. How can this be ethical? How can it be justified? We the taxpayers are being taken for a ride again by the VECs.

Also, we have in the past been paid for work marked. This will no longer be the case as their work will not be allowed to be submitted

I am aware of pressure being forced on teachers to pass students. When teachers have refused this, the evaluators were requested to alter results to pass the students. Dreadful stuff!

Once the VECs get their hand on the evaluation process one can expect more obfuscation, and opaqueness. Results will indeed be excellent!

Hope the DOE and Ruairi Quinn is looking at this thread.

coc

namoosh

Say a student starts in Sept pays the FETAC fee passes three modules before christmas and then drops out, he/she is withdrawn and his/her fee is refunded, the teacher who corrected the work is not paid.

Does the teacher not have an entitlement to be paid for work done? Does the student who has paid the required fee not have an entitlement to receive credit for work submitted and the modules completed?

What if the student already has 5 modules completed and only needs the 3 to complete the full award? All I can see is litigation, litigation and more litigation.

I remember my old dept head talking about cross moderation she was involved in years ago, she said it was a joke, the standard between centres varied enormously, the worst centre was the pass, everything else was merit/distinction, no one ever failed, it will suit the vec's perfectly, they don't care about what's really happening on the ground its all about optics. The only thing that carries them is the hard work and committment of most of their teaching staff.