New Junior Cert

derb12

I know that this topic is inextricably linked with HR etc, but I think it is so important that it should have a thread on its own.
Is anyone from the pilot schools on here? What is happening in your schools?

In my case, (ASTI school) we have a committee set up to "look into it". Since before Christmas last year. Nothing reported so far.

I've spent a bit of time over the break looking into various documents that are available and I am not impressed. In principle, I think the idea of changing the JC is good, and certainly bringing in more short courses appropriate to the school setting is a great idea. I've no quibble with the 24 statements of learning. I have looked into the short course on coding and I think it is very positive and useful in order to produce a more computer literate population. I don't like the idea of doing away with terminal exams. I feel this will ratchet up the pressure for LC as the students won't have the experience.
I should state as well, that the idea of having to assess my own students is very worrying.
I've taught JC science for a few years and I notice that when it comes to the investigation (25% of their grade), the good students produce excellent work and the lazy-can't-be-bothered students produce rubbish - they are too lazy to even copy it or get help from home. I make them write the finished report up in school, and I have a fair idea that it is really their own work. But it takes a lot of guidance, effort and vigilance to get this right.
Really curious to hear other people's views an in particular which is happening or planned in the TUI or pilot schools.

whiteandlight

I'm not in a pilot school but I was in a pilot school for project maths and even at my most optimistic cannot see this being rolled out properly. PM was a Disaster for students and teachers involved in the roll out. Everything promised was late, serious lack of guidance and very late syllabus changes including the exam year students. It's still a PR disaster

How they are going to successfully radically reform an entire exam in 15 odd different subjects is beyond me....

happywithlife

I just can't believe the apathy amongst parents on this
Whatever about my concerns as a teacher -and I have loads - I am also massively worried as a parent. I just can't believe so many parents a) don't realise what the changes are and b) simply don't care - apathy is going to be the death of this nation :-(

teacherhead

happywithlife wrote: »

I just can't believe the apathy amongst parents on this
Whatever about my concerns as a teacher -and I have loads - I am also massively worried as a parent. I just can't believe so many parents a) don't realise what the changes are and b) simply don't care - apathy is going to be the death of this nation :-(

There was inservice last week and more next week for principals and deputies. So we will see if the emperor has any clothes.

I have concerns regarding JC but not in regard to.markibg my own students. I'd be quite happy to stand over any mark I'd give without parental pressure.

When I worked in the UK as a NQT I was handed back my marksheet and tools that I hadn't enough A's. Fortunately I was coming home to a job here so I told the hod that if he wanted more A's he could find then himself - not a position everyone was in.

I am concerned about this and the pressure to cook the books to make our marks stack.up against the school next door. In particular as we move towards so called performance management.

In practical terms I think that subject departments will need to work together and sign off in grades as a group in order to take pressure off individuals, then the issue is time.

Then the practical subjects could be a target forthe chop too to save money. If you have half the time devoted yo a short course you only need half the teachers and half the materials etc, it's a slippery slope in thus regard.

thefasteriwalk

English teachers are receiving one day in-service this academic year. One measly day.

Terri26

a day? A maths teacher in my school said they had 15 for Project Maths and everyone knows what a mess Project Maths is. Very uncomfortable with the Tweets for juniorcert.ie - propaganda at it's best in action

whiteandlight

thefasteriwalk wrote: »

English teachers are receiving one day in-service this academic year. One measly day.

One?? That can't be serious! This is an entirely new course with different methodology!

Terri26

one day and three class periods at a later date! It is an absolute joke and if a day is sufficient it highlights even further what a joke it is

thefasteriwalk

Yep. One day this academic year - with next years first years beginning the new course. We're also getting one day during the 2014/15 academic year and one more day during the 2015/16 year. Presumably, we'll be 'taking it one year at a time.' So, realistically, we'll be starting next year with no real idea of where we'll be ending up in 2016. Ridiculous.

The fact that you mentioned some of the mess involved with Project Maths is interesting. I heard somewhere recently -- I think at the INTO conference two weekends ago -- that we're being given one-third of the training/resources/funding that Project Maths was. God only knows where it'll end up. The Specification was released yesterday, but the prescribed texts won't be released until 'Spring.' At that it'll probably just be the prescribed texts for first years.

HansHolzel

teacherhead wrote: »

I have concerns regarding JC but not in regard to markibg my own students. I'd be quite happy to stand over any mark I'd give without parental pressure

God bless your probity and your determination to show neither fear nor favour.

I'm sure all your colleagues are equally steadfast and noble.

teacherhead

happywithlife wrote: »

I just can't believe the apathy amongst parents on this
Whatever about my concerns as a teacher -and I have loads - I am also massively worried as a parent. I just can't believe so many parents a) don't realise what the changes are and b) simply don't care - apathy is going to be the death of this nation :-(

There was inservice last week and more next week for principals and deputies. So we will see if the emperor has any clothes.

I have concerns regarding JC but not in regard to.markibg my own students. I'd be quite happy to stand over any mark I'd give without parental pressure.

When I worked in the UK as a NQT I was handed back my marksheet and tools that I hadn't enough A's. Fortunately I was coming home to a job here so I told the hod that if he wanted more A's he could find then himself - not a position everyone was in.

I am concerned about this and the pressure to cook the books to make our marks stack.up against the school next door. In particular as we move towards so called performance management.

In practical terms I think that subject departments will need to work together and sign off in grades as a group in order to take pressure off individuals, then the issue is time.

Then the practical subjects could be a target forthe chop too to save money. If you have half the time devoted yo a short course you only need half the teachers and half the materials etc, it's a slippery slope in thus regard.

Pang

We are a pilot school for the new JC and were one of the Project Maths pilot schools as well.

We have a committee set up which is really just the department heads and a few of them have been on courses over the past year. I left the committee because we were expected to meet at lunchtime every month for a 'few minutes'. Those few minutes tended to be the full hour, where little was achieved.

Our anchor person has been to loads of courses with our principal about timetabling and short courses etc..

We had a woman from the NCCA give us a whole day inservice on the statements of learning last year. She went through some of the new methodologies as well and made us practice them. We used a lot of last year's Croke Park hours to carry out training for implementing the key skills.

There has been a huge amount of work especially paperwork. We all have to have a department folder dedicated to it and all of us have had to join the JC2.0 special website.

Recently the English teachers were expected to watch some conference or something at 6.30pm at home. I thought that was a bit much. If they are going to implement this new programme, they should be giving us sufficient time and resources to do so.

As a practical teacher, I fear that practical subjects will be eliminated from the timetable. Some of our subjects will be lucky if they even become a short course. I am also really disappointed that PE is to be an optional short course. At a time when good nutrition and exercise should be promoted, the department are relegating PE and Home Economics to bit subjects. I don't believe for one second that the students' best interests have really been thought about. From what we have learnt from all our meetings etc..., the main priority is cost cutting.

whiteandlight

Thanks for the info, although it makes fairly stark reading....

Geologyrocks

science teachers, have your say on JC science curriculum reform
http://www.juniorcycle.ie/Curriculum/Consultation/Subjects/Science

2011abc

Should ASTI teachers even READ that !?

Utter , UTTER baloney !!!A hotchpotch of buzzwords that typifies the sort of policy that is to blame for the sad state of affairs our educational system finds itself in today (and the UK system sorely laments )

How about THIS

New JC Subjects will

" be outcomes based
reflect a continuum of learning with a focus on learner progression
set out clear expectations for learning
provide examples of those expectations
include a focus on literacy, numeracy and key skills
strive for clarity in language and for consistency in terminology."

Well theyve certainly got a 'consistency in terminology '....its ALL UTTER 5hite !!!!A bland statement of the blindingly obvious using 'fancy words'...

A quick browse also reveals a fairly in depth reference to some policy IN WALES !!!!Am I the only one who cant help but think , "F&*^ WALES!" , in response to this .How about coming up with an original idea for once lads!?

2011abc

Seriously I shouldnt be reading this balderdash on my holidays!

Of course we MUST introduce a new acronym so its STEM now .Science , Technolgy , Engineering and Maths (I can imagine how many schools are forced to DROP subjects like Technology and Engineering due to cutbacks!)

Youll also be pleased to hear this new wonder document has a liberal sprinkling of the very latest buzzwords like 'overarching' and 'narrative' -because sometimes the old favourites like 'transparency' get a bit lame even for the penpushers who produce this verbal vomit .

ON OUR PERFORMANCE IN PISA

"In PISA 2006 Ireland was marginally above the OECD average in science achievement. Ireland’s mean score did not change in 2009.
Ireland’s performance in PISA by ranking, scores and score relative to the OECD average shows that Ireland has not shown any discernible improvement in students’ science achievement since previous PISA science assessments in 2000 and 2003."

MARGINALLY ABOVE -SCORE DID NOT CHANGE -NOT SHOWN ANY DISCERNIBLE IMPROVEMENT

Is it just me or does that read as (yes youve guessed it) we're all 'underperforming'...
The aul English thing of if yer not OUTSTANDING youre 'on measures' and then out the door ...
They may as well roll a Union Jack up the flagpole outside Ruairi's office .


EDIT-Go on take the survey - for the laugh!More mind blowing examples of blandness eg Do you agree or disagree that studying Science can help students understand the world better ? And a bizarre series of questions where those in the second half are the 'reverse' of those in the first(answer with Agree /Neutral/Disagree etc eg firstly -'Do you think using a thematic approach might be better than the traditional split of Phy/Chem/Bio ?'And then Do you think it might be worse ?'

Is this REALLY the work of 'Special' Advisors and Inspectors????!!!!(The sad part of the joke is production of that 'consultation paper' probably would have paid a teacher for a year .)

Pwpane

Did ye like this bit?

The development of the new specification for Junior Cycle Science will take account of current
research and developments within the field of science education, particularly the emerging
understanding of the Nature of Science.

The development of the new specification will address continuity and progression. It will
consider whether first year Science should be taught as a common introductory course (CIC),
with a particular focus on consolidating learning from primary school and on the development
of students’ understanding of the Nature of Science. Some consideration should be given to
the development of bridging units to be commenced by students in sixth class and completed
at the start of first year.

We'll have to develop the students' understanding of something that's only emerging....

evolving_doors

Geologyrocks wrote: »

science teachers, have your say on JC science curriculum reform
http://www.juniorcycle.ie/Curriculum/Consultation/Subjects/Science

I remember there was a consultation paper on the new junior cert which went unnoticed by unions (around 2006 i think!).Our principal made an announcement that we should have our say as it seemed to have gone under the radar. So I went on and gave my two cent.

However...when the report came out it was obvious that the questionnaire was rigged with such a hotchpotch of questions that the govt could say that "well this is what parents/business groups and teachers etc. wanted..". I felt a bit duped for having taken the survey.

I would say now be very careful and critical of these surveys as they might be used against you in the future...i.e "we surveyed science teachers extensively and this is what they wanted so they shouldnt be complaining now".

Maybe your subject association should issue advice on these dodgy surveys....bad science is taking place and you are consenting to be a subject.

What I would recommend is that everyone here take the survey and spoil the results. If govt want to know what teachers want they should bloody well listen to them not cook up some dodgy survey to be used as a whip later on.

Geologyrocks

I think even if you are ASTI you should read it as you need to be aware of the changes that will probably happen. I just found the document hilarious (in a worrying way). To change the names of 'Biology, Chemistry, Physics' to themes is just nonsense. I worked in the UK and they had themes instead of Bio, Chem, Physics and all it did was confuse the kids.
Also found it offensive that for one of the questions there were only 2 responses you could choose. It was something like: what is the most important thing that students should learn in science (1) nature of science (2) facts....as if it has to be one or the other. It's just ridiculous. The are completely manipulating the survey to get the responses they want.
I really worry for the transition between JC and LC after reading this document. It was terrible in the UK and the same will happen here

2011abc

Yes the nightmare unfolds in slow motion before our eyes .Maybe in 12months Channel 4 will produce a documentary called Educating Clonmel and we can ALL be so stressed we are allergic to everything ,look twice our age ,have panic attacks ,have no life outside school ,arrive AND leave at 730 etc
The longer ASTI stay out of this hastily thrown together new JC and the extra hours (for our paycuts!) THE BETTER I say .We dont want to renegotiate the use of the hours .(CP+ 'Free' S+S = A MONTHS FREE WORK!!!)Personally I wouldnt even consider doing them again without a pay RISE!

Miss Lockhart

The science consultation document is unbelievable waffle.

Wading through the waffle -am I right in reading that it is to be at a common level? Is that the syllabus or the assessment or both? If that's the case then all I see is a further reduction in the numbers taking science in many schools.

Already science is not offered to many of the weakest students in the country - being seen as just too difficult and largely irrelevant for them, especially with there being no FL. I disagree so strongly with this but only see the situation getting worse now. They may never be going to be the high flying technology grads the government tbink will save the country, but I come across many of these students at PLC level where they are suddenly trying to get to grips with basic science in hairdressing, beauty, childcare and sports etc courses, but are lost and have an attitude of "it's too hard for me". I think a good foundation in basic science is important for everyone. But I don't see this new course offering any hope.

Geologyrocks

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

The science consultation document is unbelievable waffle.

Wading through the waffle -am I right in reading that it is to be at a common level? Is that the syllabus or the assessment or both? If that's the case then all I see is a further reduction in the numbers taking science in many schools.

I took it that it will be taught at a common level and assessed at a common level. I love that they state e-portfolios as a form of assessment. Just another buzz word with no back up that it's any better than the assessment we use now.

Do you know what they mean when they say 1st year would be an introductory course? I can't remember quite how they phrased it but would it be a standalone science intro or mushed in with other subjects?

Pwpane

Unbelievable waffle is right. You'd need to be currently studying for a Master's or a PhD in science education to understand it - and this is the document being offered to parents and students to comment upon.

But from such verbiage comes an actual syllabus and assessment procedures. That was my concern - all the language about students showing what they had achieved i.e. portfolios, videos etc - which leads straight into teacher assessment.

And what's with the 200 hours length of the course? That's quite a bit shorter than the present course. Is this (a) to allow teacher assessment within the school year or (b) to allow it to be a partial course and not a full 3 year one?

The common introductory core proposed for 1st year could be as in project maths, allows students to move from pass to honours in second year and move between schools and teachers (my understanding). Or it could maybe allow students to that course only and then change subject?

Deliberately obtuse waffle, designed to confuse. Not at all suitable as a consultation document.

Miss Lockhart

Yes I assume the Common Introductory Course would work like the one for maths.

The reduced time recommended is ridiculous. The document waffles about sudents not doing as well as we would like in science and about how there isn't enough time currently to cover the course and implement inquiry based learning - so now they propose to reduce the time further?

soopdop123

Hi all,

I'm a new user and I should point out that I am not a teacher. But I'm a very very concerned member of the public (and I know I'm not the only one) about where the education system is going.

I've been reading through this thread, and I'm not qualified to get into the depth of detail on what exactly is going to be required to be assessed for Junior Cert. But it seems to be staring all of us in the face that this is basically going straight down the road that the UK went down X number of years ago, and has ended in a disaster.

I wanted to point out this article to you all....http://news.sky.com/story/1162403/gcse-exams-numbers-to-replace-a-g-grades

If you read past the stuff on grades, the article says the GCSE system is now going to REMOVE continuous assessment from the grading and be based wholly on an exam assessment at the end of the year/cycle. (I know this is only for one or two subjects right now, but I'd lay money that they'll follow suit with the rest eventually). Furthermore, for English, 20% of marks will be based on spelling and punctuation.

So the UK has screwed up and is now going back to basics.

I have to say I am absolutely horrified by Ruairi Quinn's proposals. While the Irish education system is not perfect, it is by no means broken.The breadth of the subjects taken and it's anonymity (ie, you're a number on a page for assessment purposes - an important thing in a small,litigious country like ours) are two of it's huge advantages. It is also beyond crazy to propose that students take only one State exam and nothing else. I appreciate that you guys probably know better than anyone the detail of what could be improved in the system, and how it could be changed; I personally really don't think this is the way to go. There is no way on this earth that teachers should be grading their students (particularly in this country, simply due to the fact that we have such a small population) - it's going to open cans of worms all over the place, and how on earth do you ensure a consistent standard???

There are so many things wrong with these proposals it's hard to know where to start.

I also think that most people are paying absolutely no attention to all of this - Ruairi Quinn is getting it easy in a way, because people's attention is focused on budgets and austerity and the Troika......they don't want to hear about education, so he's probably not meeting the resistance that he should be. I also think that, in the massive focus on job creation, they are allowing industry groups such as IBEC and the American Chamber of Commerce too much of a say in how things work in this country. We are not here to serve America, and they should not be dictating how the basic education system in this country functions.

I appreciate that some of this is off the point, but I think this is going to become a huge issue in the future for us. I don't know whether I'm entitled to respond to the consultations as a member of the public, but if I can, I will. I seriously hope though, that as teachers, you raise an almighty fuss over all of this too, because watch this space - we go down this road and in 20 years time, we'll be back-tracking and trying to figure out how it all went so wrong.

Thanks

endakenny

soopdop123 wrote: »

I have to say I am absolutely horrified by Ruairi Quinn's proposals. While the Irish education system is not perfect, it is by no means broken.The breadth of the subjects taken and it's anonymity (ie, you're a number on a page for assessment purposes - an important thing in a small,litigious country like ours) are two of it's huge advantages. It is also beyond crazy to propose that students take only one State exam and nothing else. I appreciate that you guys probably know better than anyone the detail of what could be improved in the system, and how it could be changed; I personally really don't think this is the way to go. There is no way on this earth that teachers should be grading their students (particularly in this country, simply due to the fact that we have such a small population) - it's going to open cans of worms all over the place, and how on earth do you ensure a consistent standard???

I agree. The new curriculum will be unworkable if the ASTI refuses to implement it. Sacking 17,000 secondary teachers - the membership of the ASTI - for disobeying Quinn would backfire on him because it would cause much greater disruption than the ASTI industrial action is causing. Parents probably would prefer to see the new curriculum dropped instead of allowing the sacking of ASTI members. After all, the 1916 rebels were despised by the public at first but their executions changed public opinion.

soopdop123 wrote: »

I also think that most people are paying absolutely no attention to all of this - Ruairi Quinn is getting it easy in a way, because people's attention is focused on budgets and austerity and the Troika......they don't want to hear about education, so he's probably not meeting the resistance that he should be.

Surely, parents are concerned about their children's education. Aren't they?

happywithlife

endakenny wrote: »

Surely, parents are concerned about their children's education. Aren't they?

They aren't - my sister has a child starting next year and he'll be doing the new English course - she simply couldn't give 2 fiddles. I know. I've tried explaining it to her. There and then in the midst of the conversation she agrees it's lunacy but once the conversation is over it goes completely out of her mind. I guess like many others,she is working hard to keep afloat and fighting for the best supports for her sen child - she doesn't have the time one energy to focus on this battle.
Other friends have children much younger and so when they hear of junior cert & 2014, they tune out cos they don't see it as being relevant to their lives. Up till now, any one else I've discussed it with tried to brush it off as teachers having an auld moan for themselves. I think slowly but surely though, the issues are coming into the public domain, but as I've said before the apathy is sickening and it's only when down the line, it is in and failing, will we hear the public outcry - much like project maths :-/

byhookorbycrook

Interesting points here:
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/damien-kiberd-junior-cert-exams-column-1156713-Nov2013/

DrPatrickBarry

In the UK they are going in the exact opposite direction. They got rid of the O levels to replace them with GCSEs. The GCSE with the emphasis on course work has been percieved as not acadamic enough. It is just so easy now with computers Internet, etc. Students can produce very high quality work with relativley little effort. There are now moving back to an exam based system for the core subjects with a grading of 1 to 9 (9 being best) That seems to lead to the "Rote learning" that is being critized in Ireland. Do these so called experts do any research?
I am not commenting on which way is best but all I can say is I was suprised when my son told me he just has to submit the best 2 out of 4 pieces of work for his GCSE German. Personally I think it could not be put on a plate anymore for him.

whiteandlight

Reminder to all teachers to keep an eye on the consultation process, its one of our few ways to be involved

http://www.juniorcycle.ie/Curriculum/Consultation

ComputerKing

I am very concerned about this and I was wondering is there any way we can stop the reform I know it is very late considering it is being introduced in September but there has to be something that we can do.

endakenny

ComputerKing wrote: »

I am very concerned about this and I was wondering is there any way we can stop the reform I know it is very late considering it is being introduced in September but there has to be something that we can do.

The ASTI - which represents the majority of second-level teachers - is refusing to implement the new curriculum, thus rendering it unworkable.

This isn't like the refusal to implement the new syllabi in Home Economics and Biology, which was resolved in December 2002 (Noel Dempsey allowed the teaching of the elements common to the old and new syllabi in both subjects pending resolution) because the change involves the entire curriculum and it consists of no terminal exams and no State certification.

ComputerKing

endakenny wrote: »

The ASTI - which represents the majority of second-level teachers - is refusing to implement the new curriculum, thus rendering it unworkable.

This isn't like the refusal to implement the new syllabi in Home Economics and Biology, which was resolved in December 2002 (Noel Dempsey allowed the teaching of the elements common to the old and new syllabi in both subjects pending resolution) because the change involves the entire curriculum and it consists of no terminal exams and no State certification.

Can. I ask why do the asti refuse to implement it I has heard about it but not why. Also how long would they be able to keep it out for. I worry they only want a pay rise and don't have my children's education in mind.

endakenny

ComputerKing wrote: »

Can. I ask why do the asti refuse to implement it I has heard about it but not why. Also how long would they be able to keep it out for. I worry they only want a pay rise and don't have my children's education in mind.

The ASTI believes that the new JC would adversely affect the teacher-pupil relationship; it would mean that teachers could not be advocates for their pupils. The best method of assessment in secondary education is the current system because it consists of impartially-marked examinations. There wouldn't be external assessment under the new curriculum. Furthermore, the new curriculum would leave pupils unprepared for the Leaving Cert. Therefore, it's not about money.

Pwpane

endakenny wrote: »

The ASTI - which represents the majority of second-level teachers - is refusing to implement the new curriculum, thus rendering it unworkable.

This isn't like the refusal to implement the new syllabi in Home Economics and Biology, which was resolved in December 2002 (Noel Dempsey allowed the teaching of the elements common to the old and new syllabi in both subjects pending resolution) because the change involves the entire curriculum and it consists of no terminal exams and no State certification.

Can you back up this statement?

As far as I'm aware, the ASTI have only issued a directive not to go to inservice for the new junior cert. I saw and heard nothing about refusal to implement, but maybe I missed something.

endakenny

Pwpane wrote: »

Can you back up this statement?

As far as I'm aware, the ASTI have only issued a directive not to go to inservice for the new junior cert. I saw and heard nothing about refusal to implement, but maybe I missed something.

You're right. The ASTI issued a directive forbidding its members from attending JC in-service but I don't see how they'll implement the new curriculum if they don't attend the in-service.

Pwpane

endakenny wrote: »

You're right. The ASTI issued a directive forbidding its members from attending JC in-service but I don't see how they'll implement the new curriculum if they don't attend the in-service.

I think it's best to be factual in your assertions. It weakens your argument when you present your own wishes as the union's official stance. People may assume that if you falsify one thing, that you'll falsify another.

endakenny

Pwpane wrote: »

I think it's best to be factual in your assertions. It weakens your argument when you present your own wishes as the union's official stance. People may assume that if you falsify one thing, that you'll falsify another.

I didn't falsify it; I merely misinterpreted it. I assumed that the ban on attending in-service means that ASTI members would be unable to teach the new curriculum if the industrial action is still in progress next September.

Pwpane

endakenny wrote: »

I didn't falsify it; I merely misinterpreted it. I assumed that the ban on attending in-service means that ASTI members would be unable to teach the new curriculum if the industrial action is still in progress next September.

Fair enough - but these things work by the letter of the law. Not attending inservice is not the same as not implementing. We may be obliged to implement it without training if all come to all. Which is why I'd be afraid that some teachers may weaken the union stance by looking after their own backs (as they think) and attending the inservice anyway.

I think, however, that we may not be obliged to implement the assessment methodology in that we may use industrial action over that. As far as I know, we are obliged to implement the curriculum but the curriculum is what is taught. This is separate from assessing what is learned.

Pwpane

The following may be of interest regarding teacher assessment of students.

It's from the Royal Society of Chemistry in the UK, available in magazine form (EiC - Education in Chemistry) and also online at www.rsc.org/eic.

From the website: http://www.rsc.org/eic/2013/11/gcse-science-practical-skill

A new report by Ofsted claims that GCSE science does not sufficiently test practical skills. As a result it concludes that pupils are poorly prepared for further science learning or any job that involves science, as teachers do not see the need to teach practical skills thoroughly...

...the report also reflects and explores the concerns often voiced by employers, higher education, and the scientific community’s professional bodies, that too many school leavers are not well-enough equipped scientifically with practical, investigative and analytical skills. Julia Buckingham, chair of SCORE (the science community representing education), said: ‘we are extremely concerned that the design of practical assessment is not being given due consideration by Ofqual and the awarding organisations in the current reform of A-levels and GCSE qualifications.

Ofqual responded:

‘We understand how important practical assessments are to science education. While we’ve decided that exams should be the default method of assessment for new GCSEs, we recognise that in some subjects not all of the required skills can be assessed by exam.

‘We have not decided how practical assessments will be used in the new GCSEs. We will balance the value of practical assessments against the risk of malpractice and the need for them to assess the right skills and deliver valid results.

From the magazine, Nov 2013/Volume 50/Issue 6 (also available at the website at http://www.rsc.org/eic/2013/10/gcse-coursework-reform-exam-assessment):

In its formal response to the government's summer consultations on GCSE reforms, the awarding organisation OCR has called for an end to coursework marks counting towards GCSE results. OCR explains that while it fully supports practical work at this level, it shares the concerns of many teachers in how practical science is currently assessed. In short, 'direct' teacher assessments are difficult to manage, open to abuse, and in many cases have a negative impact on the teaching and learning experience of students. Under OCR's proposals, practical work in science would be part of the subject specifications, but the knowledge gained through this kind coursework would be assessed 'indirectly' through the final written exams, as is currently the case for iGCSE science...

...Another awarding body, AQA, has also expressed its views in this area. In its formal response, AQA comments that while it strongly supports practical approaches to teaching science, assessment should not be the sole determinant of what is taught in schools. AQA recommends that the practical science element assessed by teachers at GCSE should not contribute 10% of the student's overall mark because the inevitable lack of discrimination would mean that the effective weighting is less than the intended weighting. AQA agrees that teachers should assess practical skills but the outcome should be reported as an endorsement on the final certificate, in a similar way that speaking and listening are in English language...

...A review of how practical work is currently assessed by the three main awarding organisations in England commissioned by the Gatsby foundation found that direct assessment of practical skills is used more extensively in some countries that score more highly in the international PISA studies, such as China and Finland, than in England. But perhaps of more significance, the report found a lack of clarity among the awarding bodies as to what these [practical] skills are and how they might effectively be validly assessed.

In conclusion, it appears that politicians want practical assessment in order to compete more successfully with other countries.

But there is disagreement as to what these practical skills are and how they can be validly assessed.

And there is a consensus that teacher assessment is difficult to manage, open to abuse, detrimental to teaching and learning, and negatively affects accurate assessment of the student.