Junior Cert Reform

jam17032010

implausible wrote: »

I was attended a TUI meeting at which John MacGabhann was present and some of what he had to say about the present situation was very interesting. On CP hours, he referred to the Dept knowing full well that these coerced hours are not being well used. The union wrote asking for a change in usage and the reply from the Dept was that there would be a review outside of HRA and JMG added "it may form part of what allows ASTI back into discussions."

On JC reform, he reminded us that as it is not covered under HRA, TUI can take industrial action against its implementation. We can't take action against the syllabus, but we can act if the Dept plans to start inservice without any detail of the mechanics of its implementation.

Rather than take the HRA thread off topic I thought I would start a separate thread about the new Junior Cert. I have major problems with it and I am disappointed to hear that John MacGabhann said that we can't take action against the syllabus.

The issues I have:

• In the current system, all pupils are only known by an exam number by the corrector and every student is equal in the eyes of the corrector. Teachers who mark their own tests could come under pressure from parents and principals to pass certain students leading to unfairness.
• If Certification is going to be issued by the school, then will certificates issued by certain private (or "posher" for a better word) schools be seen as more valuable than other schools.
• Increased work load for teachers.
• The possible demise of certain subjects like History and Geography in some schools that are going to be made short courses and non mandatory.

Possible positives:

• Increasing the amount of continuous assessment (only if it is assessed by the SEC, although I'm sure the Government won't want to pay for this) may take less exam pressure off students. Although the reservation I would have on continuous assessment is that it usually falls on the teacher to do most of the work rather than the student. Will we just be spoon feeding it to them?
• At present, Junior Cert students do an awful lot of subjects and maybe shortening some subjects may lead to less overload on the students.

Discuss.

evolving_doors

Personally, I wouldn't mind standing over any results given, in the same a way I have no fear of retribution from 1st, 2nd & 5th year results..
I can understand peoples concerns about maintaining anonimty and keeping fairness/integrity across all schools...however the hype and pressure the students are put under as if its a dry run for the leaving cert is a bit much...the jc was never meant to be a mini LC, nor should it be.

But what is being proposed looks as wishy washy dept. speak, poached off the uk..key skills and all that..

Pwpane

Is assessment of a syllabus not separate to the syllabus itself?

As far as I'm aware, it's up to the DES (in consultation with the teaching reps) to produce syllabi. Plans for assessment are then drawn up according to the aims of the syllabus. Some years ago, the Junior Cert Science syllabus was to have a practical examination component that never came to fruition due to ASTI opposition to teachers assessing their own students.

So no, I don't think we can object to syllabus content, but we can object to inservice, implementation and assessment procedures.

Only, of course, if we haven't agreed in advance to cooperate with ongoing change...

Parent Future JuniorCert Student

Hi,

I am new to boards and therefore, I apologise if I make a mistake in terms of the etiquette.
I joined boards as I think it is time to start getting some discussion going on the proposal to abolish independent assessment of pupils on completion of the Junior Cert syllabus.

I have not heard any convincing reason for progressing with this proposal. We know the teachers have major concerns in this area. Many parents that I have spoken to also have significant concerns.

I am the parent of two boys in Primary School 6th and 4th class respectively and while thankfully they are great to date, I am really concerned about this development.

The argument for this proposal “ that you are not leaving school looking for a job” does not hold . The benefit of this exam is:
•It is truly independent
o A student in longford is assured that their results are viewed and treated the same as the results of private schools in Dublin
o If a student does poorly – they will not be able to use the excuse “the teacher doesn’t like me”.
o There is no danger of Schools/Teachers marking up their students – in order to mask underlying problems, or just basic grade inflation.
• A parent is compromised
oIf the teacher is going to be correcting your child’s Junior Cert paper - this totally undermines the parent’s scope to take issue with problems they may have with teachers
Teachers are Compromised - As they have already communcated. - And I thank them for giving up their free time to raise this issue and make me aware of it.

I agree totally with the additional education resources that have been focused on children who have difficulties in learning, but I do not see that this should be at the degradation of the children that are not in this category.

theLuggage

Unfortunately I don't think Ruairi Quinn will be listening to teachers on this one. The unions are doing what they're doing but I'm curious about the National Parents Council. What do they think in general and have they contacted the Minister if they have any concerns? I think Quinn would be more swayed by parents than teachers.

eager tortoise

The problem is that most non-teachers, including many parents, do not see this issue as being relevant to them, or society in general. This will have more impact than people realise. It bothers me immensely that Quinn etc are using the statistic of 90% completion as a reason not to have a state certified exam at the end of compulsory schooling (i.e. 16 years). What about the remaining 10%? I am in a DEIS school and 4 of my fifth years have left since the beginning of the year. They are no longer in the education system. It is almost like these students don't count to the department. I'm sure Quinn would argue they will have their 'school' certificate, but what good is that if its from a school with a less than positive reputation? 10% of students is quite a large number to just discount.

Also, having attended the English In-service, my major gripe around assessment is that it blurs the lines between teacher and examiner, as they are no longer separate roles. We were given a scenario whereby teachers would assess students on an oral presentation that they would give at the end of 2nd year. Teachers are supposed to help/guide students as normal as they do it, but then a couple of days later are supposed to sit back and judge them on their efforts. That to my mind is nothing short of farcical, as some students will say they got less help, so should have got a higher mark etc. I just think it is going to become very messy very quickly.

seavill

A different view from a parent of the current JC. Personally the line that struck me was
"Where is the satisfaction in spoon-feeding students with answers for a jar? Couldn’t a robot do that?"

What a complete lack of understanding of what teaching actually involves.

And overall the teachers didn't create the system we must just implement it.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/victoria-white/teachers-should-see-changes-as-offering-them-a-fresh-start-in-careers-261824.html

Pwpane

It's a ridiculous article, full of holes and lack of understanding. It's a bit tell-tale when she mentions Domestic Science, a subject that hasn't existed for many years. The author seems to have a value on investigation as a form of learning but no idea of the value of actual knowledge, or the value of assessing the acquiring of it.

But we can’t reform the Junior Cycle properly unless we move towards continuous assessment, because we must shift from evaluating the results of learning to evaluating how we learn.

What does this actually mean? We should evaluate how the students learn but not evaluate the results of learning? This is nonsense.
And does she think students wouldn't learn material off if their own teacher was assessing it?

There may be a value in having teachers assess their own students. The teacher would have to re-evaluate the content, method and assessment of what they teach. It could very much improve things if done properly, in an ideal world.

But I still think teachers should not assess their own students, for all the standard reasons. They don't have time or energy enough in the current work overload and this would hugely increase the workload. For written tests, if you have a weak class you'll set a test of lower standard. Equally, if you have a very bright class you'll set a test of higher standard - non-comparable results.

Plagiarism is rife in project work. Pressure from parents, concern for students, pressure from principals, and worry for their job would impact on objectivity. Results from different schools would have different currency and exacerbate the inequalities already existing.

I also would not like to correct the work of students of other schools. How could I suspect if something was plagiarised or written by Mammy when I wasn't there to supervise the writing or doing of the project and don't know the student? And I still don't want the extra work - even if it's paid for.

Also, I think it would be quite wonderful to see a 15 year old boy stand and declaim Aeneas' love for Dido. :cool:

Parent Future JuniorCert Student

theLuggage wrote: »

Unfortunately I don't think Ruairi Quinn will be listening to teachers on this one. The unions are doing what they're doing but I'm curious about the National Parents Council. What do they think in general and have they contacted the Minister if they have any concerns? I think Quinn would be more swayed by parents than teachers.

Hi I have not heard from our Parents Council but will check that out. I think generally parents have not given consideration to this as yet and as it is being rolled out slowly, it is seen to have low impact for kids starting next year. So it is not top of their agenda and that is the danger isn't it.:pac:

Studentblogger

Well there's been no teacher-bashing yet - that's definitely a start. I expected to see a lot of people quote that article in the Irish Examiner and use it as ammunition (it really is shocking on so many levels). We'll wait and see.

As a teacher, I can honestly state that I am 100% against this. Do I see some merit in it - yes. Does the Junior Certificate, as is stands, need to be changed - arguably, yes. But not in such a hasty and mindless fashion as is happening at the moment. I would rather things stay as they are than have this rammed down everyones' throats, and without an open, public and transparent debate.

endakenny

Pwpane wrote: »

It's a bit tell-tale when she mentions Domestic Science, a subject that hasn't existed for many years.

Domestic Science still exists but under a different name: Home Economics.

seavill

So it doesn't exist as the poster said. It has been home ec since I started secondary school 17 years ago

BonCourage

As a JC & LC Music teacher... I do worry that the arts are being thrown into a group together!! I also fear that even more emphasis will be put on practical aspects, this will be seriously unfair on students who have just taken up an instrument (recorder/tinwhistle) as opposed to children who have been playing the cello since the age of 4! ... it's one thing testing beginners in 3rd yr, but in 1st yr!!! And that begs another question... should I make allowances for beginners??? Or is that abuse of assessment!!?? Similarly, they will not be prepared for the extraordinarily difficult at times LC music syllabus!!

Subutai

Pwpane wrote: »

But I still think teachers should not assess their own students, for all the standard reasons. They don't have time or energy enough in the current work overload and this would hugely increase the workload. For written tests, if you have a weak class you'll set a test of lower standard. Equally, if you have a very bright class you'll set a test of higher standard - non-comparable results.

Would you? What about SOLO taxonomy, Differentiated objectives, Development and Mastery tasks? You can set the same test, but use that test to assess a diverse range of learning outcomes; provided of course that the test is well designed.

endakenny

jam17032010 wrote: »

• If Certification is going to be issued by the school, then will certificates issued by certain private (or "posher" for a better word) schools be seen as more valuable than other schools.

That will be irrelevant because employers are not in the least bit interested in job applicants' Junior Cert results. In other words, the JCSA will make no difference to pupils' career prospects.

jam17032010 wrote: »

• The possible demise of certain subjects like History and Geography in some schools that are going to be made short courses and non mandatory.

They're not mandatory on the current syllabus anyway. Most parents couldn't care less about those subjects.

Mr Pseudonym

endakenny wrote: »

They're not mandatory on the current syllabus anyway. Most parents couldn't care less about those subjects.

AFAIK, those subjects are mandatory in most cases. I had thought the same (i.e. that only Irish, English, Maths and CSPE are mandatory), but was told by someone that all schools, except for those in a certain category, have other requirements. I would appreciate a clarification from someone.

endakenny

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

AFAIK, those subjects are mandatory in most cases. I had thought the same (i.e. that only Irish, English, Maths and CSPE are mandatory), but was told by someone that all schools, except for those in a certain category, have other requirements. I would appreciate a clarification from someone.

Why would a secondary school be exempt from having to provide History and Geography?

Mr Pseudonym

endakenny wrote: »

Why would a secondary school be exempt from having to provide History and Geography?

Apologies for being vague, but my understanding is that it is for a special type of disadvantaged schools. I'll try to find relevant info.

Mr Pseudonym

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I'll try to find relevant info.

So far, all I've got is this:

"All students must follow courses in Irish (except where exemptions apply), English, Mathematics and Civic, Social and Political Education. There may be other compulsory subjects, depending on the type of school."

Junior Certificate | Citizens Information

endakenny

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

Apologies for being vague, but my understanding is that it is for a special type of disadvantaged schools. I'll try to find relevant info.

Why would a disadvantaged secondary school be exempted from providing History and Geography? Is it the DEIS type of school that is exempted?

Mr Pseudonym

endakenny wrote: »

Why would a disadvantaged secondary school be exempted from providing History and Geography? Is it the DEIS type of school that is exempted?

I'm watching THE match, atm, but I'll try to find details after that. If I'm right, the four subjects previously mentioned plus a Foreign Language, Science, History and Geography are mandatory in most schools. The potential reason for having different requirements for the ~200 DEIS schools is that it would allow their students to get a JC having taken only six subjects, and not require that they take what are the more difficult subjects.

rainbowtrout

endakenny wrote: »

Why would a disadvantaged secondary school be exempted from providing History and Geography? Is it the DEIS type of school that is exempted?

VEC schools (now ETB) are not obliged to provide history or geography, while most do, not all do. I can think of a vocational school in a nearby town that does not offer history for Junior Cert. I'm not sure if they offer geography.

This is going back to the Vocational Education Act 1930 which saw the establishment of vocational schools in Ireland, which had a focus on technical subjects: science, woodwork, metalwork, technical drawing etc. Their general purpose was to train student who would go into trades. Hence the lack of history and geography.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1930/en/act/pub/0029/index.html



Stats from Junior Cert 2013

Approximate no. of candidates: 56k

English: 56208
Irish:48350
Maths: 56025
History: 51342
Geography;52104
CSPE: 55541
Science: 50557.


*Environmental and Social Studies : 695 ( A subject which is a combination of history and geography which is taught in some schools)

Interesting that there are less students doing science for junior cert than history. Presumably it is a choice subject in a number of schools.

Mr Pseudonym

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Stats from Junior Cert 2013

Approximate no. of candidates: 56k

English: 56208
Irish:48350
Maths: 56025
History: 51342
Geography;52104
CSPE: 55541
Science: 50557.


*Environmental and Social Studies : 695 ( A subject which is a combination of history and geography which is taught in some schools)

Interesting that there are less students doing science for junior cert than history. Presumably it is a choice subject in a number of schools.

I think it would be expected, as lab facilities would be required for one to study science (part of the grade is based on experiment write-ups).

That there are differing numbers doesn't really prove anything: just because a student is in a school where a particular subject isn't mandatory doesn't mean s/he won't take it.

rainbowtrout

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I think it would be expected, as lab facilities would be required for one to study science (part of the grade is based on experiment write-ups).

That there are differing numbers doesn't really prove anything: just because a student is in a school where a particular subject isn't mandatory doesn't mean s/he won't take it.

I am aware of the content of the JC science syllabus. I am a science teacher. I think students are less likely to take science as an extra subject outside school if they are not doing it in school due to the need to do 30 mandatory experiments and coursework. There are easier subjects to do outside school. My school did not have science as a mandatory subject. It was optional when I was in school.

The numbers do indicate that at least 5000 students are not doing science whether that be because their schools don't offer it or because its an option at junior cert. those are the most likely reasons.

Mr Pseudonym

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I am aware of the content of the JC science syllabus. I am a science teacher. I think students are less likely to take science as an extra subject outside school if they are not doing it in school due to the need to do 30 mandatory experiments and coursework. There are easier subjects to do outside school. My school did not have science as a mandatory subject. It was optional when I was in school.

The numbers do indicate that at least 5000 students are not doing science whether that be because their schools don't offer it or because its an option at junior cert. those are the most likely reasons.

I wasn't patronising or lecturing; I was drawing attention to why I felt it would be necessary.

From one of my previous posts, it is clear that Science is not mandatory in all schools; potentially it's not in any. However, based on what I think to be the case, it is mandatory in most schools (along with History and Geography).

The reason why the numbers for those three subjects may not be equal is that, in schools where taking them is optional, some may decide to take them anyway. In that event, one would think Geography is the most favourable, and Science, with its difficulty and requirements, the least.

rainbowtrout

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I wasn't patronising or lecturing; I was drawing attention to why I felt it would be necessary.

From one of my previous posts, it is clear that Science is not mandatory in all schools; potentially it's not in any. However, based on what I think to be the case, it is mandatory in most schools (along with History and Geography).

The reason why the numbers for those three subjects may not be equal is that, in schools where taking them is optional, some may decide to take them anyway. In that event, one would think Geography is the most favourable, and Science, with its difficulty and requirements, the least.

Well obviously if its optional some students are going to opt for it and some are not.

And what's this 'science with its difficulty' craic? Science is not difficult. It's no more difficult than any other subject and if students have been given tasters of each subject in first year the material they would have encountered would not have been heavy going. Requirements are all covered in class time due to the nature of them being experiments.

whiteandlight

BonCourage wrote: »

As a JC & LC Music teacher... I do worry that the arts are being thrown into a group together!! I also fear that even more emphasis will be put on practical aspects, this will be seriously unfair on students who have just taken up an instrument (recorder/tinwhistle) as opposed to children who have been playing the cello since the age of 4! ... it's one thing testing beginners in 3rd yr, but in 1st yr!!! And that begs another question... should I make allowances for beginners??? Or is that abuse of assessment!!?? Similarly, they will not be prepared for the extraordinarily difficult at times LC music syllabus!!

Music will still be a standalone subject but there is an additional arts short course coming in. In music I imagine our testing will have to be based on progression on instruments. The theory would be more standard I assume.

Realistically I don't think there is the scope to put more emphasis on the practical within the current system. Facilities and time and size of class prevent it. There is a thread in the PPMTA google group about it, no harm putting your thoughts up there. It's likely a teacher who will be writing the specification so the more we discuss 'publically' the better

eager tortoise

endakenny wrote: »

[/LIST]
That will be irrelevant because employers are not in the least bit interested in job applicants' Junior Cert results. In other words, the JCSA will make no difference to pupils' career prospects.

What about the 10% who are not staying until Leaving Cert? Shouldn't they at least get a state certified piece of paper to acknowledge their 10+ years in the Irish education system?

Furthermore, what about students with special needs, adults returning to education, people studying in prisons and other non-traditional settings...shouldn't they get the chance to get a state-certified acknowledgement of their acheivements? Not all in these categories will have the opportunity to study for a Leaving Cert. What's more, adult learners who return to education generally study for their junior cert in less than 3 years, as would people in prisons etc. so they will probably no longer be eligible since there will be such an emphasis on continuous assessment over 3 years.

Mr Pseudonym

eager tortoise wrote: »

What about the 10% who are not staying until Leaving Cert? Shouldn't they at least get a state certified piece of paper to acknowledge their 10+ years in the Irish education system?

Furthermore, what about students with special needs, adults returning to education, people studying in prisons and other non-traditional settings...shouldn't they get the chance to get a state-certified acknowledgement of their achievements? Not all in these categories will have the opportunity to study for a Leaving Cert. What's more, adult learners who return to education generally study for their junior cert in less than 3 years, as would people in prisons etc. so they will probably no longer be eligible since there will be such an emphasis on continuous assessment over 3 years.

The JC does not acknowledge "10+ years in the Irish education system"; merely completion of junior-cycle. There seems to me little benefit in state-certification of what are likely to be pretty mediocre grades.

It should also be said that the JCSA's type of examination may encourage more to continue to Leaving Cert.

Though the special cases you mention should be considered, dictating the structure based on the needs of an overwhelming minority is patently wrong. The JCSA may also be to the benefit of those groups.

eager tortoise

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

There seems to me little benefit in state-certification of what are likely to be pretty mediocre grades.

It should also be said that the JCSA's type of examination may encourage more to continue to Leaving Cert.

The grades acheived are beside the point. We all know kids who are delighted to get a D in ordinary level subjects and who work hard to get it. It's not fair to say that those acheiving lower grades are less-deserving of state-certification.

Of the students in our place who left after third year, I don't think any of them would have been convinced to stay by having done more group work, power-point presentations and fewer exams. I think the reasons these students leave are more complex and varied and, to a certain extent, beyond the school's control. Having said that, I agree it's a good idea to try a new approach in the hope that the number of students leaving may be decreased.

I am not against Junior Cert reform, but I can't understand why this cannot be done without removing the state certification at the end of Junior Cycle. Some people do rely on it, and it's a nice recognition of achievement which students can proudly take with them, be it to leaving cert or otherwise. I liked a lot of what was presented to us at the recent English in-service, and I mean that sincerely. I don't see why we can't implement a syllabus such as this and have it be state certified at the end. The only reason this is being removed, that I can see, is the financial outlay required from the department/government.

Mr Pseudonym

eager tortoise wrote: »

The grades acheived are beside the point. We all know kids who are delighted to get a D in ordinary level subjects and who work hard to get it. It's not fair to say that those acheiving lower grades are less-deserving of state-certification.

Of the students in our place who left after third year, I don't think any of them would have been convinced to stay by having done more group work, power-point presentations and fewer exams. I think the reasons these students leave are more complex and varied and, to a certain extent, beyond the school's control. Having said that, I agree it's a good idea to try a new approach in the hope that the number of students leaving may be decreased.

I am not against Junior Cert reform, but I can't understand why this cannot be done without removing the state certification at the end of Junior Cycle. Some people do rely on it, and it's a nice recognition of achievement which students can proudly take with them, be it to leaving cert or otherwise. I liked a lot of what was presented to us at the recent English in-service, and I mean that sincerely. I don't see why we can't implement a syllabus such as this and have it be state certified at the end. The only reason this is being removed, that I can see, is the financial outlay required from the department/government.

You misunderstand what I was saying. I meant that state-assessment does not give credibility to a scattering of low grades. They ought to, and still will, get a certificate of completion.

It's not a case of "convincing" them to stay. It's that, if the different modes of assessment recognise their ability, their confidence will improve (which, in turn, will improve performance) and they may be more likely to stay in schooling. I don't doubt that their reasons for discontinuing are numerous and complex.

In my opinion, there are two main reasons why linear assessment is unsuited: the over-bearing exam has the concentration of students and teachers for all of third-year, and it is not the optimum way of assessing students - especially at that age.

Regarding the second point: it's quite common for students to be relatively studious in first-year, but to lose interest as they approach the JC-exam; why shouldn't that early performance be recognised? Assessment will now take a variety of forms: class-presentations, experiment work, creative-writing portfolios, etc, as well as traditional examinations. There will always be down-sides, and implementation is never as successful as formulation, but I'm excited by what I think is a junior-cycle curriculum that will recognise and reward a variety of types of student.

Subutai

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

You misunderstand what I was saying. I meant that state-assessment does not give credibility to a scattering of low grades. They ought to, and still will, get a certificate of completion.

It's not a case of "convincing" them to stay. It's that, if the different modes of assessment recognise their ability, their confidence will improve (which, in turn, will improve performance) and they may be more likely to stay in schooling. I don't doubt that their reasons for discontinuing are numerous and complex.

In my opinion, there are two main reasons why linear assessment is unsuited: the over-bearing exam has the concentration of students and teachers for all of third-year, and it is not the optimum way of assessing students - especially at that age.

Regarding the second point: it's quite common for students to be relatively studious in first-year, but to lose interest as they approach the JC-exam; why shouldn't that early performance be recognised? Assessment will now take a variety of forms: class-presentations, experiment work, creative-writing portfolios, etc, as well as traditional examinations. There will always be down-sides, and implementation is never as successful as formulation, but I'm excited by what I think is a junior-cycle curriculum that will recognise and reward a variety of types of student.

It also has the advantage of removing the overwhelming influence of terminal examinations on learning.

endakenny

eager tortoise wrote: »

What about the 10% who are not staying until Leaving Cert? Shouldn't they at least get a state certified piece of paper to acknowledge their 10+ years in the Irish education system?

They wouldn't need to undergo a State-certified assessment to apply for unskilled jobs. Besides, the collapse of the construction industry means that there are fewer job opportunities for those who left after the JC. That might persuade those 10% to proceed to the LC.

endakenny

eager tortoise wrote: »

Furthermore, what about students with special needs, adults returning to education, people studying in prisons and other non-traditional settings...shouldn't they get the chance to get a state-certified acknowledgement of their acheivements? Not all in these categories will have the opportunity to study for a Leaving Cert. What's more, adult learners who return to education generally study for their junior cert in less than 3 years, as would people in prisons etc. so they will probably no longer be eligible since there will be such an emphasis on continuous assessment over 3 years.

There'd be nothing stopping them from doing the LC. There's also the option of doing FETAC courses.

whiteandlight

Subutai wrote: »

It also has the advantage of removing the overwhelming influence of terminal examinations on learning.

But who is to say that the removal of the influence of the exam on learning will be positive? Our nearest neighbours have had a negative experience in reducing the importance of those exams (allowing repeats, breaking them down etc). Here we are completely removing any externally assessed element to our system at the drop of a pen. The reality is we have absolutely no idea what impact this will have on our students learning.

At the very least this massive change should have been incremental with the new methods, syllabi and continuous assessments elements introduced in conjunction with a state exam. When we have enough data to see what impact these changes had then contemplate removing the state exam entirely.

This smacks of money saving and only that.

Mr Pseudonym

Musicmental85 wrote: »

But who is to say that the removal of the influence of the exam on learning will be positive? Our nearest neighbours have had a negative experience in reducing the importance of those exams (allowing repeats, breaking them down etc). Here we are completely removing any externally assessed element to our system at the drop of a pen. The reality is we have absolutely no idea what impact this will have on our students learning.

Ofc, there will be unintended consequences of the JCSA. But, there is sound reasoning for thinking that the reduction in importance of the exam-assessment will be positive. Even though they will not be externally marked, exams will still form part of JCSA assessment.

The situation with the GCSEs is more complicated than suggested, and I find it frustrating how frequently it is uncritically used as an argument against the JCSAs. The GCSE exams are externally set and assessed by one of several private exam boards. Each subject is split into several modules, with there being (usually) two exam periods per year. By having so frequent exams, the exam-focus of the GCSE is arguably even greater than that for the JC. There have been several criticisms of the exam boards regarding "dumbing-down" of exams in order to attract schools (whose funding is based on performance), and of the competency of the correctors. Combining external assessment with internal assessment has led to grade-inflation of teacher-corrected work. Universities consider the GCSE results of applicants, and that places an importance on GCSE performance that wouldn't exist for JCSAs.

whiteandlight

Can you link me please to the sound reasoning for thinking that the reduction in the importance of the exam based assessment will be positive?

Mr Pseudonym

Musicmental85 wrote: »

Can you link me please to the sound reasoning for thinking that the reduction in the importance of the exam based assessment will be positive?

I've found this to be a good piece. There are several further links on that page.

whiteandlight

That is an opinion piece not a study. Of the references linked three are 54, 22 and 24 years old. Even the most recent reference is 10 years old. I spend a lot of time discussing statistics in school with students and one of the key elements is "when". When the data/report was created is extremely important.
I may have phrased my original question incorrectly. I'm looking for relevant and appropriate studies proving that the reduction of an exam at Junior Cycle has been shown to improve learning.




On the other hand on the back of your contribution to this thread (and it is nice to see both sides of an argument) I went off to read the NCCA white paper on education. This is an Irish based White paper and is only 4 years old so is still relevant. In addition it is specifically geared towards "Ideas for a new Junior Cycle".

Several Quotes stand out:

"The process of change should be centred on the students, teachers, school leaders, school communities and other partners who will be the main agents of the change" page 16.
This has been top down dictated by the Minister for Education. He only consulted these groups after the fact, and even then, only on the timeframe & training-not on the structure of the course itself

"The framework will not involve ‘starting from scratch’ on every aspect of junior cycle education; it will recognise that all realistic change comes about through integrating what we already know with new ideas, and through building on what already works well...But the framework will also provide for dramatic
development in new directions by schools." page 16
Instead the proposed system by the minister quite literally is throwing out every aspect of the current system including both the syllabi, structure and the state monitored terminal exam.

"...A combination of approaches, on the one hand devolving greater opportunities for development to schools themselves but on the other ensuring that this is done within a context of appropriate resourcing and external support, should be a key feature of the change process."
Instead this is being implemented with as little support as possible with all the onus being on the schools to do all the development work.

However far we wish to go along this pathway, a junior cycle qualification that recognises the achievements of learners is essential, particularly as the end of junior cycle schooling currently comes towards the end of the compulsory period of education page 30
Instead we have removed the qualification in favour of a school one which will be pretty much worthless, even given that the JC as a qualification was rapidly being overtaken by the LC.

Creating meaningful learning for students is the principal aim of all learning and teaching activities page 35
This I agree with and I do think that the proposed system will work well with this.

In the absence of nationally administered standardised tests in post-primary school, the outcomes of the Junior Certificate examination
have become the chief means of providing information on the effectiveness of the education system at this level page 38
Actually hadn't considered this. We are moving from a completely state run exam to a completely school run system, are these even going to be comparable in statistical terms? Is it going to be the case that it will be something like the Project Maths many marking scheme changes, ensuring the results match what they need it to?

But there is a challenge for all in ensuring that an effective transfer is achieved from a richer junior cycle experience to a senior cycle that continues to feature a centralised national examination linked to a selection role for further and higher education and the high stakes associated with this for learners. page 42
This is being quietly ignored by the powers that be even though it is flagged in their own report.

Most OECD countries have some form of national examinations at the end of lower secondary schooling. The examinations are frequently compulsory or essential for admission to the next phase of education.
We still do not know whether we will have full exams, what percentage of the course they will be worth and we are moving to a completely internally assessed system.

________________________________________

It is a very interesting document, some wonderful ideas and some that I wouldn't agree with at all. Well worth a read everyone, its here. It is very obvious that it formed the basis of the structure of the new JCSA and most elements from that are included. However most notable among the paper is that there is no mention of the removal of externally assessed exams, just a broadening of the curriculums and introduction of new styles of teaching and learning. I have heard a rumour that the NCCA & all the advisory bodies had no idea that Ruairi Quinn was removing it but that could just be someone blowing wind.


However, I have been there in a pilot school with Project Maths. I suffered and watched students confusion when we could not get answers, when the syllabus kept changing, when there was no answers, when everything promised was always late and when there was just no clarity on what was happening. I do not know how this is going to work and certainly not how its going to work in time without doing massive damage to our current system (which improved in the most recent PISA)

I agree with student centred learning; I agree with wider availability of short courses; I agree with realistic continuous assessment. I do not agree with the removal of the state exam in addition to all the other changes.

Mr Pseudonym

Musicmental85 wrote: »

That is an opinion piece not a study. Of the references linked three are 54, 22 and 24 years old. Even the most recent reference is 10 years old. I spend a lot of time discussing statistics in school with students and one of the key elements is "when". When the data/report was created is extremely important. I may have phrased my original question incorrectly. I'm looking for relevant and appropriate studies proving that the reduction of an exam at Junior Cycle has been shown to improve learning.

However far we wish to go along this pathway, a junior cycle qualification that recognises the achievements of learners is essential, particularly as the end of junior cycle schooling currently comes towards the end of the compulsory period of education page 30
Instead we have removed the qualification in favour of a school one which will be pretty much worthless, even given that the JC as a qualification was rapidly being overtaken by the LC.

In the absence of nationally administered standardised tests in post-primary school, the outcomes of the Junior Certificate examination
have become the chief means of providing information on the effectiveness of the education system at this level page 38
Actually hadn't considered this. We are moving from a completely state run exam to a completely school run system, are these even going to be comparable in statistical terms? Is it going to be the case that it will be something like the Project Maths many marking scheme changes, ensuring the results match what they need it to?

But there is a challenge for all in ensuring that an effective transfer is achieved from a richer junior cycle experience to a senior cycle that continues to feature a centralised national examination linked to a selection role for further and higher education and the high stakes associated with this for learners. page 42
This is being quietly ignored by the powers that be even though it is flagged in their own report.

We still do not know whether we will have full exams, what percentage of the course they will be worth and we are moving to a completely internally assessed system.

Thank you for your lengthy contribution. I'll respond to a few things in order.

I am aware that it is an opinion piece. But it's written by a reputable academic, and draws on research for its conclusion.

I'm currently studying Economics with one of my papers being statistics-intensive Econometrics. Nowhere has the time at which the data was harvested been important. The three sources were published after the GCSE was implemented. As long as nothing has changed which would undermine the conclusions, they are still relevant.

As davidcameron has argued on this and other threads, the JC is of no worth when it comes to future employment. There are some debatable points in this discussion, but that isn't one of them.

One of the arguments I've heard is that, without external examinations, we won't be able to compare pupils. But, we don't do that at the moment! Yes, a pupil can compare how they performed relative to the average. But, no national study comparing performance by region (or other) is conducted. Standardised testing in the most important subjects - English, Maths and Science - will remain.

It is often valid to disregard the recommendations of a report.

My understanding is that some discretion will be granted to schools regarding how students are assessed. I agree that the implementation of this has been disappointing and opaque, but that shouldn't undermine the concept - I get the impression that you are jumping between practical and theoretical concerns.

PISA is a widely discredit study. If it can be said to compare anything, it's usually the social make-up of a country rather than efficacy of curriculums. It's certainly false to conclude that anything has improved since the previous report.

I am not an educationalist, and cannot provide a study supporting the premise that students are more-rounded/better prepared/etc when they have been educated by a particular curriculum. But, I have identified what I believe to be substantial flaws in the Junior Certificate, and the most logical way IMO of solving them involves many of the elements of the proposed reform. I repeat - for the third time: the concept of the terminal exam will still play a role in assessment. The biggest change is that it will no longer be externally set and marked.

I acknowledge your concerns, but think that the most important reform is removing the terminal exam as the sole means of assessment, and that all improvements will stem from that.

whiteandlight

But they aren't? The first source is from before the JC. I haven't studied economics so I am happy to bow to your superior knowledge but I will say "when" was actually mentioned at my Project Maths inservice on Friday!

The JC is of no worth when it comes to future employment. There are some debatable points in this discussion, but that isn't one of them.
Actually I would disagree a little on this. There are still students going into trades and similar where this is the only qualification they have. Yes I agree at the upper end, where lets be honest a degree is the new standard, but at lower ends this is at least something that can be put on a CV in the absence of any qualification. I don't think you can just eliminate it from the debate!

One of the arguments I've heard is that, without external examinations, we won't be able to compare pupils. But, we don't do that at the moment! Yes, a pupil can compare how they performed relative to the average. But, no national study comparing performance by region (or other) is conducted. Standardised testing in the most important subjects - English, Maths and Science - will remain.
Well, yes we do. We are a very small country and don't really need to assess by region-we compare to the national average. When there are only 58k students taking the JC on a yearly basis do we really need to be splitting it into 4? Do we not get better statistics by being in the unusual situation of being able to use the population instead of a sample?

My understanding is that some discretion will be granted to schools regarding how students are assessed. I agree that the implementation of this has been disappointing and opaque, but that shouldn't undermine the concept - I get the impression that you are jumping between practical and theoretical concerns.
Well yes, both concern me. And again I emphasise I do not disagree with the concept of change, only with the removal of an externally assessed exam!

PISA is a widely discredit study. If it can be said to compare anything, it's usually the social make-up of a country rather than efficacy of curriculums. It's certainly false to conclude that anything has improved since the previous report.
But would you not concede that a poor PISA report was the motivator behind governments rolling out massive changes to the exam?

I repeat - for the third time: the concept of the terminal exam will still play a role in assessment. The biggest change is that it will no longer be externally set and marked.
And to be honest I think we will have to agree to disagree here. I am looking forward to many aspects of the new course, I already try and incorporate many of them into my teaching. I do not agree with the removal of the external exam.


the most important reform is removing the terminal exam as the sole means of assessment, and that all improvements will stem from that.
And I totally disagree. Why would all improvements have to stem from that? What is wrong with for example
Music:
30% Practical Work (10% per year of JC)
30% Continuous Assessment (Combination of written, oral and project work)
50% Terminal Exam (Externally Assessed)

This would allow all the changes proposed without removing the external aspect

eager tortoise

endakenny wrote: »

They wouldn't need to undergo a State-certified assessment to apply for unskilled jobs. Besides, the collapse of the construction industry means that there are fewer job opportunities for those who left after the JC. That might persuade those 10% to proceed to the LC.

Well why not give them a state certification anyway? It's not all about jobs. What about learning for the sake of learning? What about personal edification and recognition of achievement? The new model still offers a 3 year programme complete in and of itself. Students do tasks, sit exams and get an award at the end of it. Leaving the model of assessment aside, why take away the accreditation of the state?

Also I don't think students who are leaving nowadays are doing so because they think they can find easy employment, as may have been the case a few years ago, so I don't know if that would account for many of the 10%. However as I have previously said I would be hopeful that retention might improve to some extent.

Mr Pseudonym

Musicmental85 wrote: »

But they aren't? The first source is from before the JC. I haven't studied economics so I am happy to bow to your superior knowledge but I will say "when" was actually mentioned at my Project Maths inservice on Friday!

The JC is of no worth when it comes to future employment. There are some debatable points in this discussion, but that isn't one of them.
Actually I would disagree a little on this. There are still students going into trades and similar where this is the only qualification they have. Yes I agree at the upper end, where lets be honest a degree is the new standard, but at lower ends this is at least something that can be put on a CV in the absence of any qualification. I don't think you can just eliminate it from the debate!

One of the arguments I've heard is that, without external examinations, we won't be able to compare pupils. But, we don't do that at the moment! Yes, a pupil can compare how they performed relative to the average. But, no national study comparing performance by region (or other) is conducted. Standardised testing in the most important subjects - English, Maths and Science - will remain.
Well, yes we do. We are a very small country and don't really need to assess by region-we compare to the national average. When there are only 58k students taking the JC on a yearly basis do we really need to be splitting it into 4? Do we not get better statistics by being in the unusual situation of being able to use the population instead of a sample?

My understanding is that some discretion will be granted to schools regarding how students are assessed. I agree that the implementation of this has been disappointing and opaque, but that shouldn't undermine the concept - I get the impression that you are jumping between practical and theoretical concerns.
Well yes, both concern me. And again I emphasise I do not disagree with the concept of change, only with the removal of an externally assessed exam!

PISA is a widely discredit study. If it can be said to compare anything, it's usually the social make-up of a country rather than efficacy of curriculums. It's certainly false to conclude that anything has improved since the previous report.
But would you not concede that a poor PISA report was the motivator behind governments rolling out massive changes to the exam?

I repeat - for the third time: the concept of the terminal exam will still play a role in assessment. The biggest change is that it will no longer be externally set and marked.
And to be honest I think we will have to agree to disagree here. I am looking forward to many aspects of the new course, I already try and incorporate many of them into my teaching. I do not agree with the removal of the external exam.


the most important reform is removing the terminal exam as the sole means of assessment, and that all improvements will stem from that.
And I totally disagree. Why would all improvements have to stem from that? What is wrong with for example
Music:
30% Practical Work (10% per year of JC)
30% Continuous Assessment (Combination of written, oral and project work)
50% Terminal Exam (Externally Assessed)

This would allow all the changes proposed without removing the external aspect

All relate to the GCSE, so the conclusions are valid with regard to it. The rational for reforming the JC is the same as for it.

I apologise if it came across as though I was playing top-trumps!

The poster endakenny (whom I accidentally referred to as "davidcameron" in my previous post!) has said in a previous thread that he is aware of a Fetac communications module which recommends not including JC results on one's CV. It may be required that one has obtained the qualification, but the grades aren't relevant. Therefore, the same should be the case with the JCSAs.

I completely disagree with regard to comparison. We don't know whether certain types of school, certain regions, etc, outperform others.

For instance, look at this:




For some reason, London dramatically outperforms other English regions, with the gap increasing the poorer someone is. What if the same is true in Ireland? We don't know if it is, and I suspect most, on the basis of experience, would claim it isn't.

I think the PISA performance probably provided impetus, and I'm just glad their response was to my liking!! Btw, if you're interested in a basic critical analysis of PISA, here is a good article.

Can you further explain your opposition to the removal of the externally-assessed exam? Most people's objections relate to worries about credibility of marking. Personally, I have enough respect for teachers that I believe they will correct the exams adequately. Even if the exam were to remain, a sizeable chunk (say, 50%) of a student's grade would be based on internally-marked assessment. I just think there is marginal, if any, befit to external-assessment (especially considering grade-boundaries are so wide), and don't think it's worth the cost.

Mr Pseudonym

Musicmental85 wrote: »

the most important reform is removing the terminal exam as the sole means of assessment, and that all improvements will stem from that.
And I totally disagree. Why would all improvements have to stem from that? What is wrong with for example
Music:
30% Practical Work (10% per year of JC)
30% Continuous Assessment (Combination of written, oral and project work)
50% Terminal Exam (Externally Assessed)

This would allow all the changes proposed without removing the external aspect

Forgot to respond to last paragraph!

If we were devising a curriculum from nothing, what argument would you give for the external exam?

endakenny

eager tortoise wrote: »

Well why not give them a state certification anyway? It's not all about jobs. What about learning for the sake of learning? What about personal edification and recognition of achievement? The new model still offers a 3 year programme complete in and of itself. Students do tasks, sit exams and get an award at the end of it. Leaving the model of assessment aside, why take away the accreditation of the state?

Also I don't think students who are leaving nowadays are doing so because they think they can find easy employment, as may have been the case a few years ago, so I don't know if that would account for many of the 10%. However as I have previously said I would be hopeful that retention might improve to some extent.

There will still be that accreditation, the logo of the Department of Education, although it is nominal.

kittycati

Can people correcting, refrain from being biased, having known students in question ?

Benicetomonty

kittycati wrote: »

Can people correcting, refrain from being biased, having known students in question ?

No, imo. School is like any job in that youre not going to like everyone you work with. In some cases, you are quite actively going to dislike people you work with, and students arent exempt from this.

You can be the most professional teacher in the world but anyone who disagrees with the above is a liar. And that means bias is an inevitability when marking or moderating.

And even if you believe yourself to be above all that, the main stakeholders wont believe that you are. The JC may not be that important, as many posters here have decided, but the students think it is and so do their parents and so do their teachers. And if I give little Johnny a rake of notes home in the run up to his 1st counting presentation, there's going to be accusations levelled willy nilly if his results are not up to scratch, regardless of whether bias came into play.

seavill

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If you personally can't be impartial that says more about you than anything else but to say that no one can and anyone that says they can is a liar is absolute tripe.

I have corrected my own students work every year as a construction studies teacher for the leaving cert. I don't care who has done what I correct the project as a project a name is irrelevant. If you can't do that you definitely can't call yourself professional.

I don't agree with the new plans as they are but that's not saying I can't/won't do my job properly as a professional

Benicetomonty

seavill wrote: »

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If you personally can't be impartial that says more about you than anything else but to say that no one can and anyone that says they can is a liar is absolute tripe.

I have corrected my own students work every year as a construction studies teacher for the leaving cert. I don't care who has done what I correct the project as a project a name is irrelevant. If you can't do that you definitely can't call yourself professional.

I don't agree with the new plans as they are but that's not saying I can't/won't do my job properly as a professional

I think youve misread the post Seavill, I said that anyone who claims to have never disliked a student is a liar, and Il stand by that. I know its the case for every teacher in my school and its a big school, and many of the people that work there are exceptional teachers and absolute professionals.

My opinion is that a natural dislike/ personality clash ( call it what you like) is extremely likely to influence marking at some stage, whether you like it or not. It wont be turning an A to a D, but could be A to B (or B to A- lets not forget the other end of the spectrum when a really good student has an off day giving his oral presentation for whatever reason).

Construction studies leaves you with an end product, which I would imagine is relatively easy to grade when compared with the new JC English course, where just about everything the student does (or doesnt do) from xmas in 2nd year goes towards assessment. English is already the most subjective subject on the curriculum and internal moderation is going to exacerbate that substantially.

I admire your indignation, but I dont view my post as an attack on you, me or teachers in general. I think its simply an inevitabilty based on human nature that 'mistakes' will be made. Why else would we have employed a system based on anonymity until now except to prevent this from happening?

seavill

Benicetomonty wrote: »

No, imo. School is like any job in that youre not going to like everyone you work with. In some cases, you are quite actively going to dislike people you work with, and students arent exempt from this.

You can be the most professional teacher in the world but anyone who disagrees with the above is a liar. And that means bias is an inevitability when marking or moderating.

You do state that it's students that the teacher may not like but you clarify that with the fact that this will effect your marking of their work. Which essentially is saying that teachers will grade based on whether they like the student or not. You can word it whatever way you want but that is essentially what you are saying.

You didn't mention in your last post that you were referring to English when you were talking about the correction. Although I don't think that it's something to do with single subjects. Every subject teacher will end up correcting their own work. Every subject is subjective. As "easy" as it appears to mark construction studies this goes back to a misconception. An example being one large chunk of marks goes towards "safe use of machines and tools". Now the external examiner cannot know this. only the class teacher can and based on "everything they do (or don't do) from the end of 5th year" goes towards the assessment. English is absolutely a very subjective subject however in it's own way so is every subject. We would have a written booklet with the practical piece in Construction Studies. This is the same as getting an essay in English. Completely subjective in terms of the grading of it.

You say "mistakes" this time, what do you mean by this? Are you simply putting the word bias in a different term? Your post whether you initially meant it or not is saying that teachers will end up grading their students work based on whether they like the person or not. "you are quite actively going to dislike people you work with, and students arent exempt from this.......And that means bias is an inevitability when marking or moderating."

You may think it is initevable that the "mistakes"/"bias" will occur. That is your opinion, that is fine. However it doesn't necessarily make it true. I am giving my opinion based on years of already marking my own students and doing it in a professional way, meaning that any gripes/disagrrements are meaningless when I sit down the last week of May to correct my student's work. Yes there will always be people that are not professional and won't do things properly but to make sweeping generalizations about an entire profession (as was discussed in the new charter thread) I feel is baseless and misleading.

whiteandlight

and instead of reporting it you responded. Both of you please debate without attacking a poster or making sweeping generalisations.

Do not respond to this warning on thread.