unions to oppose new JC

teacherhead

http://www.tui.ie/news-events/junior-cycle-meeting-fails-to-address-teachers-concerns-joint-tuiasti-statement.5102.html

so what do we think of this?

2011abc

Crocodile tears ...the game was up after the Yes vote .Lip service ...the unions are keen to be seen to vigorously defend and promote everything except teachers' pay and conditions .

crafty dodger

Mod Warning

Trolling and teacher-bashing will not be tolerated on this forum.

endakenny

At first, I believed that HRA meant that the teachers' unions could take no industrial action at all but it may not be as simple as that.

The unions could argue that, because the action for which this ballot is being held does not involve a strike or withdrawal from S&S and also because teachers would still be attending the CPA/HRA hours during this action, the action in question would not be a breach of HRA. They would still have leverage because, if the action goes ahead, docking teachers' salaries or terminating job security would provoke the unions into walking away from HRA.

However, the fact that some ASTI members have left the union in protest at the ASTI leadership reduces the possibility of the membership voting for action.

teacherhead

endakenny wrote: »

At first, I believed that HRA meant that the teachers' unions could take no industrial action at all but it may not be as simple as that.

The unions could argue that, because the action for which this ballot is being held does not involve a strike or withdrawal from S&S and also because teachers would still be attending the CPA/HRA hours during this action, the action in question would not be a breach of HRA. They would still have leverage because, if the action goes ahead, docking teachers' salaries or terminating job security would provoke the unions into walking away from HRA.

However, the fact that some ASTI members have left the union in protest at the ASTI leadership reduces the possibility of the membership voting for action.

the last point is nonsense. There are plenty of people left to vote if they so wish.

the jc is far more onerous than anything the hra has to offer in my view.

the des have already conceded in the need for more inservice, the timeline for implementation and the fact tat the coursework assessment will take place in school tine.

i reckon drive the boot in a bit harder and see what more we get.

http://education.ie/en/Press-Events/Press-Releases/2014-Press-Releases/PR2014-01-17.html

evolving_doors

I've heard the argument about it creating inequalities.... as the new JC in one school might hold more value than in another. I must be missing something but to what end would this have an impact on enrolement or perceptions of a particular school? Surely its the LC that parents/students care about most!

endakenny

Armelodie wrote: »

I've heard the argument about it creating inequalities.... as the new JC in one school might hold more value than in another. I must be missing something but to what end would this have an impact on enrolement or perceptions of a particular school? Surely its the LC that parents/students care about most!

I agree. Most employers are not interested in the JC results of applicants who have the Leaving Cert and have third-level qualifications.

I am aware that, in the FETAC Level 5 Communications module, students are advised not to put their JC results on the CV.

Miss Lockhart

Armelodie wrote: »

I've heard the argument about it creating inequalities.... as the new JC in one school might hold more value than in another. I must be missing something but to what end would this have an impact on enrolement or perceptions of a particular school? Surely its the LC that parents/students care about most!

Sure, for those who actually complete the LC. Unfortunately I think it's likely that those schools most likely to have a significant cohort leaving after JC are the same schools most likely to be looked down upon by those prone to such judgements.

Barryhazel1970

Ask any one who does FETEC if assessment will be fair. Proably wont. Im a bit tired of ballots-balloting convincing the great unwashed etc. I might just vote No this time as wonder if we will be the grand old duke of York a third time? Didnt go to CEC today. Could not see the point really.

worseforwear

Armelodie wrote: »

I've heard the argument about it creating inequalities.... as the new JC in one school might hold more value than in another. I must be missing something but to what end would this have an impact on enrolement or perceptions of a particular school? Surely its the LC that parents/students care about most!

Dont think effect on enrolment will be the big issue. Certainly some change in current junior cert is required and there are some good changes proposed. I.e short courses and course work .However I have a big problem with having school based assessment. Unless there is across the board standards set as is currently done by Sec the whole project will be undermined. The real issues for students won't surface until they have done the L.cert. by then it will be too late. for them.
10 years time there will be a major row back.
That's only my view.

teacherhead

Your short course and my short course will be two very different things, marked in different ways.

how can our grades be compared? They cant.

worseforwear

Armelodie wrote: »

I've heard the argument about it creating inequalities.... as the new JC in one school might hold more value than in another. I must be missing something but to what end would this have an impact on enrolement or perceptions of a particular school? Surely its the LC that parents/students care about most!

Dont think effect on enrolment will be the big issue. Certainly some change in current junior cert is required and there are some good changes proposed. I.e short courses and course work .However I have a big problem with having school based assessment. Unless there is across the board standards set as is currently done by Sec the whole project will be undermined. The real issues for students won't surface until they have done the L.cert. by then it will be too late. for them.
10 years time there will be a major row back.
That's only my view.

evolving_doors

teacherhead wrote: »

Your short course and my short course will be two very different things, marked in different ways.

how can our grades be compared? They cant.

But we should teach to the student and not the exam...why would 2 students from different schools/classes feel the need to compare their results.?
If we are supposed to be professionals then the onus is on us to differentiate the 'curriculum' (whatever the heck its going to be) according to the students abilities. Should we just 'drive on' even if we know that the student isn't benefitting?

I know that most of the above is idealistic and not really any good when the LC comes around but I suppose...... Finland and all that.

donegal11

teacherhead wrote: »

Your short course and my short course will be two very different things, marked in different ways.

how can our grades be compared? They cant.

The same could be said about third level,the same modules could contain vastly different content/exams across the various institutions (which I assume are corrected by the subject lecturer). Even if the new JC exams are different generally they'll be a bell curve in terms of a certain number of A,B,C etc in a given class. And being graded against their peers at their school on how they contributed in terms of CA and topics focused on by a given teacher(like third level) is surely better than a generic end of year exam in which schools like the Institute of Education thrives on?

teacherhead

donegal11 wrote: »

The same could be said about third level,the same modules could contain vastly different content/exams across the various institutions (which I assume are corrected by the subject lecturer). Even if the new JC exams are different generally they'll be a bell curve in terms of a certain number of A,B,C etc in a given class. And being graded against their peers at their school on how they contributed in terms of CA and topics focused on by a given teacher(like third level) is surely better than a generic end of year exam in which schools like the Institute of Education thrives on?

a bell curve is exactly what the problem is with the current exams. No grade inflation, blah blah blah, crunching numbers, moderating exams.

if there was a plan and an endgame i. Sight id be all for it but this is a rushed. Reactionary, populist move which is politically motivated. If it was that important to change we would start with the leaving cert

donegal11

teacherhead wrote: »

a bell curve is exactly what the problem is with the current exams. No grade inflation, blah blah blah, crunching numbers, moderating exams.

if there was a plan and an endgame i. Sight id be all for it but this is a rushed. Reactionary, populist move which is politically motivated. If it was that important to change we would start with the leaving cert

Whats the problem with bell curve? not everyone can get A's ?

I don't think it's populist either as people don't like change(teachers,parents&students), but what's the worst that can happen? I don't see a problem if we have the ability to teach what interests both teachers and students alike rather than rushing through a syllabus just to get a course covered in time and then guessing potential questions(ie learn an female and irish poet:pac:). And start with the leaving when we don't know if it'll work:eek:!!

teacherhead

donegal11 wrote: »

Whats the problem with bell curve? not everyone can get A's ?

I don't think it's populist either as people don't like change(teachers,parents&students), but what's the worst that can happen? I don't see a problem if we have the ability to teach what interests both teachers and students alike rather than rushing through a syllabus just to get a course covered in time and then guessing potential questions(ie learn an female and irish poet:pac:). And start with the leaving when we don't know if it'll work:eek:!!

not everyone can get a's i agree. By the same token not everyone should get a d even if they don't deserve it and in different years there should be different grade profiles based on the ability of the cohort etc. In any case a bell curve is only useful where you have large numbers - otherwise you might as well throw the scripts down the stairs and give the A to the top one and so on.

in all for change. I don't think the current system is perfect, i have worked in the uk and have had my grades handed back to me as they aren't good enough. ****, i thought i may get the kids to dickie up the coursework and remark it.... Oh no need, just adjust the grades!

the point about changing the lc is that if we were confident that this would work, we would fine, the very fact that people recoil in horror when this is suggested shows how little faith there is in the new JC already and it hasn't even started.

if we're not sure that it works why change until we are sure? Change for its own sake? Change teaching, change to the new syllabi but there has to be concrete moderation and confidence in the results. I have no problem correcting my own students work, i do it all the time. But i have seen how the number crunchers operate, all they want is grades and unless we have a mechanism to ensure fairness this reform is s step too far imo.

Barryhazel1970

Curious about the bell curve. What is you are teaching an A stream-should they all follow the bell curve?!

Barryhazel1970

A lad from coolock and a lad from Foxrock sit the junior 2014. You can compare their results nationally. They have no assistance sitting this exam -thats the current attraction. Could they sit this exam (part of) end of 2nd yr in their school-of course. Could they do a project for say 20%. Of course.(externally assessed) But you shift assessment to their teacher then grinds and other supports will warp system particularly when it heads to LC

teacherhead

Barryhazel1970 wrote: »

A lad from coolock and a lad from Foxrock sit the junior 2014. You can compare their results nationally. They have no assistance sitting this exam -thats the current attraction. Could they sit this exam (part of) end of 2nd yr in their school-of course. Could they do a project for say 20%. Of course.(externally assessed) But you shift assessment to their teacher then grinds and other supports will warp system particularly when it heads to LC

and don't try to tell me that a teacher trying to keep their job will not do whatever it takes to get the marks....

and wait for performance relayed pay...

for all its faults. The current jc is fair at least

ytareh

Yes , for all the irrelevance of much of the HDipEd it taught one (via History of Ed) of the demerits of 'payment by results' -not that it isnt blindingly obvious to all but a moron like the current incumbents in Dept of Ed .

teacherhead

ytareh wrote: »

Yes , for all the irrelevance of much of the HDipEd it thought one (via History of Ed) of the demerits of 'payment by results' -not that it isnt blindingly obvious to all but a moron like the current incumbents in Dept of Ed .

they didn't learn from the great depression either. The lessons of history.....

donegal11

How do current LCA teachers manage were I believe there is a substantial amount of continuous assessments and self guided modules? Do students benefit?

spurious

It's assessment of key assignments for LCA, for every credit awarded, there has to be the evidence of the work and most importantly, it has to be kept in the school to be checked on request. We had such a check before Christmas.

I currently monitor project work in a JC subject. I've found that where teachers assess their own students before I monitor them, they tend (in general and mainly when new to it) to be a bit harder than the national standard on their students.

The current set up in some subjects where teachers can assess their own students if they want to and have external moderation works perfectly well and could be extended.

Sadly the whole raison d'etre of the 'new' JC seems to be to have a national certificate at absolutely no cost (for drafting, setting, printing, superintending, correcting) to the SEC/DES.

donegal11

Is there any payment for LCA teachers for the extra work they do (apart from ex mod)?

Miss Lockhart

I can only speak for the LCA modules I teach, but grading is not a part of my remit. I am required to certify 90% attendance in my class and evidence of completion of Key Assignments. At every inservice I have been to it has been stressed that it is simply completion of the work and that's it - no matter how poor the effort, unless it is plagiarised or the basic requirements are not met, then I must accept it as completed. The students' tasks are graded by an external examiner, as is their practical performance test. And there is a final written exam set and marked by the SEC.

endakenny

Barryhazel1970 wrote: »

A lad from coolock and a lad from Foxrock sit the junior 2014. You can compare their results nationally. They have no assistance sitting this exam -thats the current attraction. Could they sit this exam (part of) end of 2nd yr in their school-of course. Could they do a project for say 20%. Of course.(externally assessed) But you shift assessment to their teacher then grinds and other supports will warp system particularly when it heads to LC

The issue of whether a certificate from a fee-paying school will be worth more than a certificate from a voluntary, community or comprehensive school won't make a difference to pupils' career prospects because potential employers will be interested only in the pupils' LC and third-level results. I know this because the FETAC subject Communications includes preparing the CV and students are advised not to put their JC results on the CV.

seavill

Provided they do a lc or go to college or do a plc course. Many do not even these days people tend to forget that

implausible

endakenny wrote: »

The issue of whether a certificate from a fee-paying school will be worth more than a certificate from a voluntary, community or comprehensive school won't make a difference to pupils' career prospects because potential employers will be interested only in the pupils' LC and third-level results. I know this because the FETAC subject Communications includes preparing the CV and students are advised not to put their JC results on the CV.

But JC results will be looked at by prospective parents looking to enrol their kids in a particular school.

The JC can be a good measure of a student's aptitude and ability to examine well in a subject, which can be vital in choosing subjects and levels for the LC.

It's also valuable for the teacher to be able to assess their students' results against a national standard. One can become very insulated teaching in a school and get either an inflated or underestimated view of the abilities of the student in front of you. An independent, national exam allows you to gain perspective.

endakenny

implausible wrote: »

But JC results will be looked at by prospective parents looking to enrol their kids in a particular school.

The JC can be a good measure of a student's aptitude and ability to examine well in a subject, which can be vital in choosing subjects and levels for the LC.

It's also valuable for the teacher to be able to assess their students' results against a national standard. One can become very insulated teaching in a school and get either an inflated or underestimated view of the abilities of the student in front of you. An independent, national exam allows you to gain perspective.

Aren't official league tables prohibited by law in Ireland? Besides, the unofficial league tables that are published in newspapers are based on the results of the LC, not the JC.

Usually, parental choice of school is based more on discipline than on exam results, i.e. a voluntary school may be more highly regarded than a vocational school. Runners were banned outside PE class at the voluntary school I attended but not at the local vocational school.

teacherhead

endakenny wrote: »

Aren't official league tables prohibited by law in Ireland? Besides, the unofficial league tables that are published in newspapers are based on the results of the LC, not the JC.

Usually, parental choice of school is based more on discipline than on exam results, i.e. a voluntary school may be more highly regarded than a vocational school. Runners were banned outside PE class at the voluntary school I attended but not at the local vocational school.

that's the point just there. The vocational school was less well regarded than the voluntary secondary school because of a perception that runner wearing is an indicator of academic ability.

it reminds me of when we used to get stopped going into nightclubs so that our footwear could be checked. Oh the craic we had the night one of the lads wore shoes instead and got in, fooled them al he did.

Mr Pseudonym

I've just come from another forum (politics.ie), and I'm delighted by the diversity of opinion I've encountered here; there, the overwhelming consensus was that teachers evaluating students was a bad idea. I disagree, and I'll repeat, here, some of the arguments I made on that forum in favour of JCSAs (Junior Cycle Student Award):

Why don't we have an 11-plus exam at the end of primary school in Ireland? Because the results will have no consequences on future schooling, are likely not to be indicative of aptitude, and may damage the confidence of poorly performing children. I think one could make the exact same arguments about the Junior Cert.

JC performance has little bearing on anything – Irish universities don’t consider it; schools don’t specify conditions based on it for LC progression. Such a formal examination of performance is, therefore, unnecessary.

I don't propose that all objectivity be removed - I seem to have more respect for the integrity of teachers. I merely contend that the hyper-objectivity of a state exam is unnecessary. Standardised test will remain in Maths, English, and Science.

Apart from the fact that internal assessment has the capacity to identify achievement that the one-dimensional JC doesn't, the question I ask again and again: why does the JC need to be so objective?

The JCSAs would not be the finished product. Bringing in Mandarin (a bad idea, IMO) or Computer Science (a good one) is making changes to the curriculum; the JCSAs are about reforming the pedagogy. If the new system is still present in thirty years, you can be sure that many new subjects will exist, others will be greatly altered, and some may have been dropped. But, what will remain is the teaching philosophy that sees education as being about more than preparing students for an exam.

Generally speaking, only in the four core subjects at LC would one need to have studied them at JC. It is essential, therefore, that expected outcomes are set for students, in these subjects. It would be a travesty if, for some reason, the JCSAs led to students in disadvantaged schools having covered less material than more "advantaged" schools.

whiteandlight

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I've just come from another forum (politics.ie), and I'm delighted by the diversity of opinion I've encountered here; there, the overwhelming consensus was that teachers evaluating students was a bad idea. I disagree, and I'll repeat, here, some of the arguments I made on that forum in favour of JCSAs (Junior Cycle Student Award):

Why don't we have an 11-plus exam at the end of primary school in Ireland? Because the results will have no consequences on future schooling, are likely not to be indicative of aptitude, and may damage the confidence of poorly performing children. I think one could make the exact same arguments about the Junior Cert.

JC performance has little bearing on anything – Irish universities don’t consider it; schools don’t specify conditions based on it for LC progression. Such a formal examination of performance is, therefore, unnecessary.

I don't propose that all objectivity be removed - I seem to have more respect for the integrity of teachers. I merely contend that the hyper-objectivity of a state exam is unnecessary. Standardised test will remain in Maths, English, and Science.

Apart from the fact that internal assessment has the capacity to identify achievement that the one-dimensional JC doesn't, the question I ask again and again: why does the JC need to be so objective?

The JCSAs would not be the finished product. Bringing in Mandarin (a bad idea, IMO) or Computer Science (a good one) is making changes to the curriculum; the JCSAs are about reforming the pedagogy. If the new system is still present in thirty years, you can be sure that many new subjects will exist, others will be greatly altered, and some may have been dropped. But, what will remain is the teaching philosophy that sees education as being about more than preparing students for an exam.

Generally speaking, only in the four core subjects at LC would one need to have studied them at JC. It is essential, therefore, that expected outcomes are set for students, in these subjects. It would be a travesty if, for some reason, the JCSAs led to students in disadvantaged schools having covered less material than more "advantaged" schools.

Standardised testing is one of the true definable advantages in our system IMO. We, as a society, are fairly rife with cronyism and the 'who you know' culture for everything from jobs to sports. The state exams in Junior cert and leaving cert are one of the only level playing fields in education where the student has to perform and who they are has absolutely no bearing on their exam. (I'm aware that grinds may have an impact on results if the parents are wealthy enough but ultimately the child still has to perform on the day).

While continuous assessment and project work or similar is I agree important, I argue that so is the external stand alone exam. It gives students at that young and important age a tangible goal to aim for. I've put some thought into what I think might be good

As an example of what I would like to see as a music teacher:
30% performance progression including performance in class in front of peers, a practical test with just the teacher and performance in a concert style event. This is no more than is done in most music departments already
20% continuous assessment exams (utilising the built in system in most schools already, 4 exams, Christmas/summer of first and second year)
10% personal project on one area of music using state set guidelines (external assessment maybe if possible)
40% terminal, externally assessed exam with content reduced to reflect the other areas. No need to have a mountain of content in it.

In maths (my other subject)
40% continuous assessment exams (10% per Christmas/summer exam on limited sections of the course)
10% project work. One 5% personal project in first year and one in second year on an area of the students choice using state guidelines
50% terminal externally assessed exam including problem solving, interpretation and rote skills


This type of system wouldn't increase teachers workload substantially (provided the projects are insisted to be student led rather than teacher written!). It makes use of the work that we already do and expands on its recognition. Equally however it does not do away with the external and clearly definable goal.

The biggest problem I have with Ruairi Quinn is that there is nothing settled in relation to this. I thought he had some cheek in the journal article over the weekend saying he realises 'any change is always problematic and fearful for people'?!ts fearful because he hasn't it organised even though there are some pilot schools already teaching it. It's fearful because he has ridden roughshod over opinions from teachers and other professional fields. It's fearful because he is trying to implement a system that has already failed in our nearest neighbour. Change is not what we're afraid of!

Mr Pseudonym

I'm going to break up your post so that I can respond to all the points; it's not that I'm deconstructing it!

Musicmental85 wrote: »

Standardised testing is one of the true definable advantages in our system IMO. We, as a society, are fairly rife with cronyism... The state exams in Junior cert and leaving cert are one of the only level playing fields in education where the student has to perform and who they are has absolutely no bearing on their exam. (I'm aware that grinds may have an impact on results if the parents are wealthy enough but ultimately the child still has to perform on the day).

I agree that the means by which students are assessed is an entirely level playing-field. But, I don't believe it's fair (e.g. some students perform better than others in that setting), and I believe that the socially disadvantaged in this country are failed by the education system as a whole (a discussion for another day!). I agree that it is essential that the LC remains (to borrow a phrase from my previous post) hyper-objective.

While continuous assessment and project work or similar is I agree important, I argue that so is the external stand alone exam. It gives students at that young and important age a tangible goal to aim for. I've put some thought into what I think might be good

I don't agree that an externally-marked state exam is required for that.

As an example of what I would like to see as a music teacher:
30% performance progression including performance in class in front of peers, a practical test with just the teacher and performance in a concert style event. This is no more than is done in most music departments already
20% continuous assessment exams (utilising the built in system in most schools already, 4 exams, Christmas/summer of first and second year)
10% personal project on one area of music using state set guidelines (external assessment maybe if possible)
40% terminal, externally assessed exam with content reduced to reflect the other areas. No need to have a mountain of content in it.

I don't see the benefit of having only 40% of a student's grade be decided by external assessment. The exam itself could be replicated, and then corrected to an equivalent standard by their teacher or (in the case of large schools) another teacher in the subject department.

In maths (my other subject)
40% continuous assessment exams (10% per Christmas/summer exam on limited sections of the course)
10% project work. One 5% personal project in first year and one in second year on an area of the students choice using state guidelines
50% terminal externally assessed exam including problem solving, interpretation and rote skills

WHY must a technical subject like maths be externally assessed?!

The biggest problem I have with Ruairi Quinn is that there is nothing settled in relation to this.

I don't dislike Quinn, but I agree that it has been handled quite poorly.


The reason it doesn't matter if croynism, etc, is present in the system is that the JCSAs will have no bearing on a student's future academic career*. Parents would soon realise that applying pressure to teachers doesn't benefit their child in any way. At present, I imagine, pressure isn't put on teachers regarding xmas exam results; why would that change?


*I hope to god that any reforms to third-level admissions don't include assessing junior-cycle performance!

Mr Pseudonym

At present, by ranking students formally in the JC, ~20% of Higher Level candidates in each subject are condemned to sub-honours grades. That 20% figure should be seen in the context of between 20% and 30% of candidates, in the most-taken subjects, sitting Ord Level papers (for Irish and Maths, the figure is 50%*). Given that, outside of the core subjects, only decidedly poorly performing students take Ord papers, it is disturbing that almost half of all students achieve either: less than a C in a Higher paper, or sit an Ord paper; in Maths and Irish, that rises to ~70%.

Given that the JC performance has little bearing on anything – Irish universities don’t consider it; schools don’t specify conditions based on it for LC progression – it seems unnecessary and detrimental, to me, to rank in this manner.


*as an aside, what I think is lost in the debate over Higher Maths take-up, is that, for the 50% who took Ord JC Maths, the choice of what level to take has effectively already been made

endakenny

teacherhead wrote: »

that's the point just there. The vocational school was less well regarded than the voluntary secondary school because of a perception that runner wearing is an indicator of academic ability.

it reminds me of when we used to get stopped going into nightclubs so that our footwear could be checked. Oh the craic we had the night one of the lads wore shoes instead and got in, fooled them al he did.

I was referring to discipline, not academic ability, though there is a connection between discipline and performance, i.e. where there is good discipline, teachers are less likely to be distracted.

HRA21

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I'm going to break up your post so that I can respond to all the points; it's not that I'm deconstructing it!



I agree that the means by which students are assessed is an entirely level playing-field. But, I don't believe it's fair (e.g. some students perform better than others in that setting), and I believe that the socially disadvantaged in this country are failed by the education system as a whole (a discussion for another day!). I agree that it is essential that the LC remains (to borrow a phrase from my previous post) hyper-objective.



I don't agree that an externally-marked state exam is required for that.



I don't see the benefit of having only 40% of a student's grade be decided by external assessment. The exam itself could be replicated, and then corrected to an equivalent standard by their teacher or (in the case of large schools) another teacher in the subject department.



WHY must a technical subject like maths be externally assessed?!


I think that you both have made very valid arguments for and against external moderation. All in all I believe that a certain amount of external moderation is essential. I don't like to say this but I've seen it with my own eyes. Numbers of students in classes consistently getting grades of 85 or 90 in their christmas/summer exams, then suddenly when they get their mock results and junior cert they are barely getting a D grade because all along the teacher was inflating their results. I know this is a minor issue and no reason to discard the whole initiative. However if this happens within one sub dept, it will have serious ramifications for students ifhow little they actually know in a subject area is not highlighted and they select their Lcert subjects based on "how well they did".
Don't get me wrong, I trust that the vast majority of teachers will approach the jcsa with total professionalism. However all of us having a sense of being watched over our shoulder isn't a bad thing either.

evolving_doors

HRA21 wrote: »

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

[...]However all of us having a sense of being watched over our shoulder isn't a bad thing either.[...]

So when the grades get sent back to us to be 'adjusted to fit the curve' are there any penalties for us refusing? I somehow get the feeling that it'll be more than friendly 'watching' over our shoulders that'll be going on.
This is more about teacher performance linked to pay than it is about Assessment for Learning linked to student 'outcomes' and 'key skills'.

HRA21

Armelodie wrote: »

HRA21 wrote: »

So when the grades get sent back to us to be 'adjusted to fit the curve' are there any penalties for us refusing? I somehow get the feeling that it'll be more than friendly 'watching' over our shoulders that'll be going on.
This is more about teacher performance linked to pay than it is about Assessment for Learning linked to student 'outcomes' and 'key skills'.

Cant see how it's linked to pay but yes it is about teacher performance. It does happen all the same and would be almost impossible to flush it out. How are you going to know what standard teachers of subjects you are not familiar with should be setting? T.y modules are a csae in point. Some teachers do very little while others do great work. Point is that we all know what happens when there is ther is complete absence of regulation. There needs to be a national standard.
I still think that there are a lot of merits in the jcsa in theory. School based Assessment worries me though.

Peter Flynt

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I've just come from another forum (politics.ie), and I'm delighted by the diversity of opinion I've encountered here; there, the overwhelming consensus was that teachers evaluating students was a bad idea. I disagree, and I'll repeat, here, some of the arguments I made on that forum in favour of JCSAs (Junior Cycle Student Award):

Why don't we have an 11-plus exam at the end of primary school in Ireland? Because the results will have no consequences on future schooling, are likely not to be indicative of aptitude, and may damage the confidence of poorly performing children. I think one could make the exact same arguments about the Junior Cert.

JC performance has little bearing on anything – Irish universities don’t consider it; schools don’t specify conditions based on it for LC progression. Such a formal examination of performance is, therefore, unnecessary.

I don't propose that all objectivity be removed - I seem to have more respect for the integrity of teachers. I merely contend that the hyper-objectivity of a state exam is unnecessary. Standardised test will remain in Maths, English, and Science.

Apart from the fact that internal assessment has the capacity to identify achievement that the one-dimensional JC doesn't, the question I ask again and again: why does the JC need to be so objective?

The JCSAs would not be the finished product. Bringing in Mandarin (a bad idea, IMO) or Computer Science (a good one) is making changes to the curriculum; the JCSAs are about reforming the pedagogy. If the new system is still present in thirty years, you can be sure that many new subjects will exist, others will be greatly altered, and some may have been dropped. But, what will remain is the teaching philosophy that sees education as being about more than preparing students for an exam.

Generally speaking, only in the four core subjects at LC would one need to have studied them at JC. It is essential, therefore, that expected outcomes are set for students, in these subjects. It would be a travesty if, for some reason, the JCSAs led to students in disadvantaged schools having covered less material than more "advantaged" schools.

The fact that there are no independent examinations for 11 year olds and soon to be 15 year olds on the basis that "Irish Universities" don't consider them is completely irrelevant and entirely missing the point. Besides there are many degrees from Universities which many would consider irrelevant. Should those courses be closed down?

Having examinations at 11-, 15- or 17-years of age is about setting standards. Having them independently is about ensuring standards are met objectively and without discrimination. When we give examinations to children we are enquiring as to the level of knowledge they have reached at a particular age.

In my view lowering standards at Junior Cert level will lower standards at Leaving Cert level. This is what is going to occur when the first three years of secondary school are turned into one long transition year with wish-washy "subjects" like 'Care in the Community'. Incidentally many students do involve themselves with the aid of their teachers/schools with care in the community - it is just not set as part of the national curriculum.

You're discussing "changing the pedagogy" as if this is some brand new thing that will come in under the JCSA (or is it the GCSE?). Teaching practices and methodologies have changed substantially over the past ten years or so mainly thanks to the dramatic changes in technology. This will continue to occur regardless of the JCSA. Regarding "teaching to an exam". . . This will always occur as long as there are exams. It's plain common sense that anyone preparing for an examination for prepare for the examination thoroughly by referring to past papers. . . .If you don't want "teaching to an exam" then scrap all examinations.

This is just about one Minister looking to leave a legacy after a career on the opposition benches. It's also about saving money by getting the teachers to do the work that others in the SEC were once paid for.

Finally in the past students Junior Cert were studying Shakespeare. Under this new JCSA they'll be giving PowerPoint Presentations under "oral communication" in English.

I don't call that progress. That's a dumbing down of standards.

Mr Pseudonym

Peter Flynt wrote: »

The fact that there are no independent examinations for 11 year olds and soon to be 15 year olds on the basis that "Irish Universities" don't consider them is completely irrelevant and entirely missing the point. Besides there are many degrees from Universities which many would consider irrelevant. Should those courses be closed down?

Having examinations at 11-, 15- or 17-years of age is about setting standards. Having them independently is about ensuring standards are met objectively and without discrimination. When we give examinations to children we are enquiring as to the level of knowledge they have reached at a particular age.

In my view lowering standards at Junior Cert level will lower standards at Leaving Cert level. This is what is going to occur when the first three years of secondary school are turned into one long transition year with wish-washy "subjects" like 'Care in the Community'. Incidentally many students do involve themselves with the aid of their teachers/schools with care in the community - it is just not set as part of the national curriculum.

You're discussing "changing the pedagogy" as if this is some brand new thing that will come in under the JCSA (or is it the GCSE?). Teaching practices and methodologies have changed substantially over the past ten years or so mainly thanks to the dramatic changes in technology. This will continue to occur regardless of the JCSA. Regarding "teaching to an exam". . . This will always occur as long as there are exams. It's plain common sense that anyone preparing for an examination for prepare for the examination thoroughly by referring to past papers. . . .If you don't want "teaching to an exam" then scrap all examinations.

This is just about one Minister looking to leave a legacy after a career on the opposition benches. It's also about saving money by getting the teachers to do the work that others in the SEC were once paid for.

I disagree with almost everything you've said, and am only replying because you used my post as a scaffold.

First paragraph: the first sentence misrepresents my point, the second is a false parallel.

I don't propose that assessment be removed. I merely state that I believe there is no benefit to external assessment. I also think that the current means of assessment isn't effective.

You demonstrate your ignorance of the JCSA by labelling it as a three-year Transition Year. I don't agree that "many" students involve themselves in the community.

The means of assessment forms part of the pedagogy. And, I completely disagree with what you say about "teaching to the test". You also, IMO, greatly overstate the changes technology has had on teaching practices.

Peter Flynt

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I disagree with almost everything you've said, and am only replying because you used my post as a scaffold.

First paragraph: the first sentence misrepresents my point, the second is a false parallel.

I don't propose that assessment be removed. I merely state that I believe there is no benefit to external assessment. I also think that the current means of assessment isn't effective.

You demonstrate your ignorance of the JCSA by labelling it as a three-year Transition Year. I don't agree that "many" students involve themselves in the community.

The means of assessment forms part of the pedagogy. And, I completely disagree with what you say about "teaching to the test". You also, IMO, greatly overstate the changes technology has had on teaching practices.

Er. . .Scaffold?

First paragraph: the first sentence misrepresents my point, the second is a false parallel.

Care to explain your riddle here.

I don't propose that assessment be removed. I merely state that I believe there is no benefit to external assessment. I also think that the current means of assessment isn't effective.

Isn't effective. . . Irish 15 year olds achieved among the highest scores in Europe in recent PISA results. . . . And all those who took these assessments studied for the Junior Certificate. Something is being done right.

You demonstrate your ignorance of the JCSA by labelling it as a three-year Transition Year. I don't agree that "many" students involve themselves in the community.

My ignorance of the JCSA. . . Yea - you're definitely from politics.ie alright as you cannot substantiate your claim with evidence. My view is the view of amny teachers. Currently English teachers are attending inservices and their questions are remaining unanswered as not even the NCCA or the DES know precisley what is going on.

Most students do involve themselves in their communities - From Gaisce to Work Experience to Transition Years Assisting the Elderly with internet access. Many are involved in sporting organisations which run in tandem with their school's team.

The means of assessment forms part of the pedagogy. And, I completely disagree with what you say about "teaching to the test". You also, IMO, greatly overstate the changes technology has had on teaching practices.

You can disagree with what I say about "teaching to the test". . . that doesn't mean it doesn't occur. It does - Not just in schools but in all walks of life.

If you want to get rid of teaching to the test then you have to get rid of tests. . . which you're not in favour of.

endakenny

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/fresh-blow-to-quinns-reform-plans-29933928.html

Mr Pseudonym

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Care to explain your riddle here.

Isn't effective. . . Irish 15 year olds achieved among the highest scores in Europe in recent PISA results. . . . And all those who took these assessments studied for the Junior Certificate. Something is being done right.

My ignorance of the JCSA. . . Yea - you're definitely from politics.ie alright as you cannot substantiate your claim with evidence. My view is the view of amny teachers. Currently English teachers are attending inservices and their questions are remaining unanswered as not even the NCCA or the DES know precisley what is going on.

Most students do involve themselves in their communities - From Gaisce to Work Experience to Transition Years Assisting the Elderly with internet access. Many are involved in sporting organisations which run in tandem with their school's team.

You can disagree with what I say about "teaching to the test". . . that doesn't mean it doesn't occur. It does - Not just in schools but in all walks of life.

If you want to get rid of teaching to the test then you have to get rid of tests. . . which you're not in favour of.

I'll just respond to a few points, but I don't wish to continue this exchange as there's no middle-ground in sight.

I don't think it's unclear: the first sentence of your first paragraph incorrectly portrayed something I said in my post as being a key part of my argument; the second sentence - equating a JC, whose results had no academic consequences, with a university degree lacking in a vocation - is, IMO, not valid.

Your analysis of Ireland's PISA performance is simplistic. Its scores are closer to the median than the top, and has a lower percentage of students scoring in the highest category of Maths than those immediately below it. I also think PISA is greatly limited. But, I don't see how supposed high performance in PISA is a vindication of the JC's means of assessment

I did support my saying that you were ignorant of the JCSAs - you characterised it as being a three-year-long transition year with "wishy-washy" modules like Care in the Community, when that's only a very small part of it. As much as you protest, most would agree that there is not a nationwide phenomenon of large-scale student involvement with "care in the community".

The reason there is so much teaching-to-the-test is that the JC is an overbearing examination that has the focus of all of third year.

seavill

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

As much as you protest, most would agree that there is not a nationwide phenomenon of large-scale student involvement with "care in the community".
.

I think Peter will agree that most of the time I am arguing with him here but I have to pull you up on this. I had half a post written previously making points against a couple of posts of yours which were inaccurate but I gave up as I saw no point looking at your responses.

However you cannot put inaccurate statements out as the one above to make an arguement. There is currently no "care in the community" so there is no one to back up your agruement. You cannot say that "most would agree" as firstly you have no idea if people will agree with you and secondly it is not currently part of the current JC so there is no stats to say if in the future it will be a large or small scale part of the new programme.

As I said I'm not necessarily interested in getting into the rights and wrongs of the whole thing as most posts here seem to be going around in circles but things you are posting are inaccurate to back up your "argeuments"

And just to clarify any school I have ever worked in or any local ones around me that I know kids going to all have some form of care in the community as part of their TY programme so as it currently stands it does have large scale participation of teenagers hoewver its based in the TY not JC programme. No one knows yet if it will be a big or small part of the new JC

Mr Pseudonym

seavill wrote: »

I think Peter will agree that most of the time I am arguing with him here but I have to pull you up on this. I had half a post written previously making points against a couple of posts of yours which were inaccurate but I gave up as I saw no point looking at your responses.

However you cannot put inaccurate statements out as the one above to make an arguement. There is currently no "care in the community" so there is no one to back up your agruement. You cannot say that "most would agree" as firstly you have no idea if people will agree with you and secondly it is not currently part of the current JC so there is no stats to say if in the future it will be a large or small scale part of the new programme.

As I said I'm not necessarily interested in getting into the rights and wrongs of the whole thing as most posts here seem to be going around in circles but things you are posting are inaccurate to back up your "argeuments"

And just to clarify any school I have ever worked in or any local ones around me that I know kids going to all have some form of care in the community as part of their TY programme so as it currently stands it does have large scale participation of teenagers hoewver its based in the TY not JC programme. No one knows yet if it will be a big or small part of the new JC

I urge that you that post your disagreements. You may be pleasantly surprised by my answers, and it may lead someone else to contribute to the debate.

seavill

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I urge that you that post your disagreements. You may be pleasantly surprised by my answers, and it may lead someone else to contribute to the debate.

Well you didn't respond in any way to my disagreements to that post so I won't waste my time

Mr Pseudonym

seavill wrote: »

Well you didn't respond in any way to my disagreements to that post so I won't waste my time

Needless to say, I disagree with what you said in your first post, and feared that stating that would cause you to disengage. If you promise to post your original objections, I'll respond in detail to it!!

seavill

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

Needless to say, I disagree with what you said in your first post, and feared that stating that would cause you to disengage. If you promise to post your original objections, I'll respond in detail to it!!

I'm lost.

You see that your statement about care in the community is false?

Mr Pseudonym

seavill wrote: »

I'm lost.

You see that your statement about care in the community is false?

I disagree with the points in post #45. And will give my responses if you post the points that you said you gave up making.

seavill

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I disagree with the points in post #45. And will give my responses if you post the points that you said you gave up making.

You are trolling now this is stupid you havnt said why you disagree. You havnt responded to my last post. You disagree that care in the community is not done in ty.

Best of luck enjoy yourself