NEW JC Science Draft Spec

jam17032010

Had a quick look at this today. The learning outcomes seem very broad and vague. A lot of material seems to have been cut but could be worked in with the vagueness of what's there. It seems more conscious of the scientific process without much focus on knowledge and theory.

Having looked at some of the sample assessments in the appendix, it seems to demand a very high level of thinking and research by students. The weaker students who try to learn off some theory may struggle with this.

Thoughts?

juniorcycle.ie/Curriculum/Consultation

sso

Sounds interesting. A move away from regurgitating definitions would be welcome. Science should be about discovery. Even the weak students get a lot out of the coursework B in the current course. Hard to predict the type if questions you'd see in an exam paper!

rainbowtrout

I notice that the recommended time for delivering this course is 200 hours. The current science syllabus has a recommendation for a minimum of 240 hours.

As Earth Science is included in the new syllabus, I would wonder what has been dropped specifically to accommodate it, I didn't have time to go through the whole thing, but there are few topics absent.

I remember back in the first incarnation of the JC Science syllabus back in the early 90s there were 6 Applied Science options and this was one of them.

EDIT: Had a better look at the Learning Outcomes just now: I guess I'm more conscious of what is absent rather than what is present. Absent from Biology: Skeleton, Muscular System, Senses, Urinary System

Physics: I see no mention of Light and Sound, Magnestism

Chemistry: Air, Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, Water isn't mentioned specifically although I suppose the vague references to solutions and mixtures may include them


Is Chemistry a dirty word in Junior Cert Science now? The Biological World, the Physical World, Materials.

kronsich

What's the story with training for this? I assume the ASTI will vote to continue opposing JC awards so we can't go to the training.

Had a look over the document there and I'm happy enough. Will definitely reduce rote learning and promote student directed learning. The assessment seems a bit simplistic though and the jump from JC science to LC chemistry would be massive!

km79

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I notice that the recommended time for delivering this course is 200 hours. The current science syllabus has a recommendation for a minimum of 240 hours.

As Earth Science is included in the new syllabus, I would wonder what has been dropped specifically to accommodate it, I didn't have time to go through the whole thing, but there are few topics absent.

I remember back in the first incarnation of the JC Science syllabus back in the early 90s there were 6 Applied Science options and this was one of them.

EDIT: Had a better look at the Learning Outcomes just now: I guess I'm more conscious of what is absent rather than what is present. Absent from Biology: Skeleton, Muscular System, Senses, Urinary System

Physics: I see no mention of Light and Sound, Magnestism

Chemistry: Air, Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, Water isn't mentioned specifically although I suppose the vague references to solutions and mixtures may include them


Is Chemistry a dirty word in Junior Cert Science now? The Biological World, the Physical World, Materials.

the lack of basic content in all 3 sections at the moment is crazy. does not prepare them for senior cycle. and now you are saying the SKELETON and the others are now gone. I'm sorry thats ridiculous. I'm all for a bit of extra content like earth science and so on BUT not at the expense of the basics. in chemistry too balancing equations was removed last time around. All of this to make way for projects that are done mainly by the teacher anyway! this seems like even more dumbing down

RealJohn

km79 wrote: »

this seems like even more dumbing down

It seems to me that dumbing down is the main aim of most new syllabi in most subjects. Students not getting high enough marks? Give them easier courses and less to learn. Problem solved. For a few years. Then they have to do it again.

I know it would put pressure on us as teachers and there'd be complaints about it but how about the next time they revise the science or maths syllabus they put more stuff on it without taking out anything to make way for it? There was far more to the junior cert science course I did in school than there is to the one I'm teaching now and we still managed to do alright somehow.

km79

RealJohn wrote: »

It seems to me that dumbing down is the main aim of most new syllabi in most subjects. Students not getting high enough marks? Give them easier courses and less to learn. Problem solved. For a few years. Then they have to do it again.

I know it would put pressure on us as teachers and there'd be complaints about it but how about the next time they revise the science or maths syllabus they put more stuff on it without taking out anything to make way for it? There was far more to the junior cert science course I did in school than there is to the one I'm teaching now and we still managed to do alright somehow.

this is still a consultation document isn't it or am I mistaken? Last year or year before I commented on last consultation document saying exactly that

rainbowtrout

km79 wrote: »

the lack of basic content in all 3 sections at the moment is crazy. does not prepare them for senior cycle. and now you are saying the SKELETON and the others are now gone. I'm sorry thats ridiculous. I'm all for a bit of extra content like earth science and so on BUT not at the expense of the basics. in chemistry too balancing equations was removed last time around. All of this to make way for projects that are done mainly by the teacher anyway! this seems like even more dumbing down

Well I assume that they are when they have specifically mentioned circulation, digestion, reproduction and respiratory systems that the others are gone. There is no objective that covers them.

I have no problem with the introduction of earth science and I have no problem with discovery learning, but some basic information is needed too.

I just wonder how these students will manage with Leaving Cert syllabi when there are gaps in their knowledge, for the most basic stuff. Rote learning isn't great, but some of it serves a purpose.

I watch students time and time again reach for their calculators to do simple arithmetic when I have done the calculation in my head/ on the board faster. Mainly because I learned times tables. I find that because they have to spend time figuring out the basics that they should have learned in primary school that they can't devote as much time to thinking about more complex concepts and problems.

Peter Flynt

On Page 87

Marking the scientific reports
Each of the scientific research components are marked at a common level out of a total of 120 marks. The marking schemes below draw directly from the features of quality for each type of investigation.

The awarding of marks in each row of the grid is based on the professional judgement of the teacher.

man_no_plan

I did science with local studies for my jc. This was in the 90s. We had the same exam as everyone else except the last section I think was earth science and stuff. Did our own individual projects, guided by a legendary teacher, did an interview with the examiner and explained the project to him.

It's backwards we're going. Cut out the hard stuff. Do a mickey mouse project and call it continuous assessment. End result - nobody knows anything.

Maybe we don't need to know everything that was on the old syllabus, or the current syllabus or even the proposed one to live a meaningful life ... But its not going to kill anyone to know it.

We cant continue to dumb down education.

The laws of physics won't suddenly decide to allow heavy **** float just because these guys cant figure out how to stop it from sinking. (okay, okay, dense ****. You get my drift)

Peter Flynt

This i going to be a fecking nightmare for Science teachers.

spurious

man_no_plan wrote: »

I did science with local studies for my jc. This was in the 90s. We had the same exam as everyone else except the last section I think was earth science and stuff. Did our own individual projects, guided by a legendary teacher, did an interview with the examiner and explained the project to him.

It's backwards we're going. Cut out the hard stuff. Do a mickey mouse project and call it continuous assessment. End result - nobody knows anything.

This. This is what the old new JC was supposed to be in 1992, but it all boils down to money. Money to pay examiners, money to have external monitors of teacher marking. The latter already happens in some subjects and the sky hasn't fallen in, but to extend it to all subjects and all candidates would cost money and all the JC 'reform' is about saving money at the end of the day.

Watch the LCA, (a terribly neglected course which was a fantastic idea left to stagnate with nobody watching it or caring about it) be next for the chop. It costs a relatively large amount of money to assess, mostly because of the individual interviews involved in the assessment of many of the modules. It's treated as a joke in too many schools and that has been let happen because no one is watching it and keeping up standards. The 90% attendance rule for all modules is one that is regularly flouted.

'Do your own thing' ends up in a race to the bottom not the top, because it's easier. Why bother striving for excellence when we can just give them all a B/C and 'presume' our B/C is worth the same as one in the convent/brothers/tech.? Nobody will ever know whether it is or isn't if there is no external check.

acequion

spurious wrote: »

This. This is what the old new JC was supposed to be in 1992, but it all boils down to money. Money to pay examiners, money to have external monitors of teacher marking. The latter already happens in some subjects and the sky hasn't fallen in, but to extend it to all subjects and all candidates would cost money and all the JC 'reform' is about saving money at the end of the day.

Watch the LCA, (a terribly neglected course which was a fantastic idea left to stagnate with nobody watching it or caring about it) be next for the chop. It costs a relatively large amount of money to assess, mostly because of the individual interviews involved in the assessment of many of the modules. It's treated as a joke in too many schools and that has been let happen because no one is watching it and keeping up standards. The 90% attendance rule for all modules is one that is regularly flouted.

'Do your own thing' ends up in a race to the bottom not the top, because it's easier. Why bother striving for excellence when we can just give them all a B/C and 'presume' our B/C is worth the same as one in the convent/brothers/tech.? Nobody will ever know whether it is or isn't if there is no external check.

I don't know why so many teachers seem to want external monitoring of teacher marking because that would be a nightmare for teachers. Anyone who's been involved in the JC and LC marking knows how hard the advising examiner can make your life. And that's paid and by choice. It's bad enough being forced to mark our own students without the added stress of someone breathing down our necks.

So I, for one,will be completely honest and say that while I deplore the stingy core reasons for changing the JC, if they do have us doing the work that was always paid,then leave us alone to exercise our own judgement. Of course there will be massive inconsistencies and of course standards will drop. But if the DES is hell bent on destroying our education system because they no longer want to pay the costs of anonymity and consistency,I sure as hell won't be picking up the tab in toil and sweat.

rainbowtrout

acequion wrote: »

I don't know why so many teachers seem to want external monitoring of teacher marking because that would be a nightmare for teachers. Anyone who's been involved in the JC and LC marking knows how hard the advising examiner can make your life. And that's paid and by choice. It's bad enough being forced to mark our own students without the added stress of someone breathing down our necks.

So I, for one,will be completely honest and say that while I deplore the stingy core reasons for changing the JC, if they do have us doing the work that was always paid,then leave us alone to exercise our own judgement. Of course there will be massive inconsistencies and of course standards will drop. But if the DES is hell bent on destroying our education system because they no longer want to pay the costs of anonymity and consistency,I sure as hell won't be picking up the tab in toil and sweat.

Surely this is enough reason for external moderation?

I have examined in schools around the country in my subject area and there are teachers out there who have no problem giving As to everyone in the class just because they handed something in. This happens even though they know an external examiner is coming in.

I predict grades will rise and standards will fall.

acequion

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Surely this is enough reason for external moderation?

I have examined in schools around the country in my subject area and there are teachers out there who have no problem giving As to everyone in the class just because they handed something in. This happens even though they know an external examiner is coming in.

I predict grades will rise and standards will fall.

Yes they will drop, I agree with you. And that really is dreadful. But are you saying you're happy to fill the gap by taking on a huge amount of extra pressure on your own shoulders? And with no reward to you,whatsoever? In fact probably more abuse in the form of teacher bashing because the teacher will be blamed for everything.Are you really saying that?

Teachers aren't the ones ditching the current system. The DES are. It's not surprising really that there are teachers prepared to martyr themselves still more, but I'm not one of them.And I'm not afraid to admit that. Yes I'll do the best I can,but having external monitors, like inspectors, breathing down our necks is a sure fire way to ratchet up the pressure of a job where the pressure is already unbearable. Why do you think teachers are retiring in their droves and a record number are going job sharing,though many can't even afford it?

So why not be realistic and think of your fellow teachers and what they can and can't manage. If the DES want teachers to mark their own students,at least trust their professional judgement as is the case with house exams. If not,then keep the current system in place.There is no happy medium without huge cost to the teachers. And we really have given enough.

rainbowtrout

acequion wrote: »

Yes they will drop, I agree with you. And that really is dreadful. But are you saying you're happy to fill the gap by taking on a huge amount of extra pressure on your own shoulders? And with no reward to you,whatsoever? In fact probably more abuse in the form of teacher bashing because the teacher will be blamed for everything.Are you really saying that?

Teachers aren't the ones ditching the current system. The DES are. It's not surprising really that there are teachers prepared to martyr themselves still more, but I'm not one of them.And I'm not afraid to admit that. Yes I'll do the best I can,but having external monitors, like inspectors, breathing down our necks is a sure fire way to ratchet up the pressure of a job where the pressure is already unbearable. Why do you think teachers are retiring in their droves and a record number are going job sharing,though many can't even afford it?

So why not be realistic and think of your fellow teachers and what they can and can't manage. If the DES want teachers to mark their own students,at least trust their professional judgement as is the case with house exams. If not,then keep the current system in place.There is no happy medium without huge cost to the teachers. And we really have given enough.

I never said I agreed with the new JCSA. You're putting words in my mouth that I've never said. I don't agree with grades given for a national qualification without any form of external moderation. External moderation is very straightforward, someone comes in and samples your work. If it's in order then no moderation is needed, if marks are being awarded like there is no tomorrow then grades change. FETAC has worked like this for years. I don't see it as any pressure whatsoever if you've graded the work properly.

However I don't want to correct my own students work. But if it comes down to that in the end I don't want to see grades being given out wholesale because there are no checks in place.

rainbowtrout

acequion wrote: »

I don't know why so many teachers seem to want external monitoring of teacher marking because that would be a nightmare for teachers. Anyone who's been involved in the JC and LC marking knows how hard the advising examiner can make your life. And that's paid and by choice. It's bad enough being forced to mark our own students without the added stress of someone breathing down our necks.

So I, for one,will be completely honest and say that while I deplore the stingy core reasons for changing the JC, if they do have us doing the work that was always paid,then leave us alone to exercise our own judgement. Of course there will be massive inconsistencies and of course standards will drop. But if the DES is hell bent on destroying our education system because they no longer want to pay the costs of anonymity and consistency,I sure as hell won't be picking up the tab in toil and sweat.

Advising examiners don't make people's lives hard unless they are not doing the job right. And that's a job that a teacher has undertaken after being to a two day conference where every nuance of the paper has been debated and answered agreed on. There is a marking scheme for teachers to follow. And still some people won't do it right. I have no sympathy for correctors who can't follow basic instructions.

acequion

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Advising examiners don't make people's lives hard unless they are not doing the job right. And that's a job that a teacher has undertaken after being to a two day conference where every nuance of the paper has been debated and answered agreed on. There is a marking scheme for teachers to follow. And still some people won't do it right. I have no sympathy for correctors who can't follow basic instructions.

Sorry but the part emboldened above sounds very high handed.The very stance that I,personally,would find hard to work with.

I have been an examiner for years and was many years ago,also an advising examiner. I lost my place because I gave it up for a few years and so had to go back as an assistant examiner which is fine. I have had experience with many advising examiners and you are completely wrong to say that many don't cause hassle unnecessarily."Doing the job right" is very open to interpretation. It encompasses far more than following basic instructions which I would trust the vast majority of professionals to do properly. Just like inspectors,many advising examiners are perfectly reasonable and fine to work with.Others are extremely pernickity and also quite condescending,which from one professional to another, is unacceptable.

Now all that is fine during the summer when 1.It's your sole occupation.2.You have chosen to do it and most importantly 3.You are decently remunerated.

Not fine at all when it is forced upon you without any recompense, on top of all the other duties.Unsustainable pressure on a teacher,I would say.

acequion

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I never said I agreed with the new JCSA. You're putting words in my mouth that I've never said. I don't agree with grades given for a national qualification without any form of external moderation. External moderation is very straightforward, someone comes in and samples your work. If it's in order then no moderation is needed, if marks are being awarded like there is no tomorrow then grades change. FETAC has worked like this for years. I don't see it as any pressure whatsoever if you've graded the work properly.

However I don't want to correct my own students work. But if it comes down to that in the end I don't want to see grades being given out wholesale because there are no checks in place.

External moderation is not straightforward.It is an official procedure,with all the accompanying ramifications and therefore yet another source of pressure on teachers. Saying things like "marks being awarded like there is no tomorrow" is quite inflammatory and indicates that you agree with the general culture of mistrust of recent years. In my view,the increased number of inspections and the possible introduction of external moderation is all part of that culture, which is counter productive.

I repeat what I said earlier. Either keep the the current system where assessment is 100% external or if not,trust teachers to use professional judgement. This half way house of the JCSA, with teachers marking their own students under the constraints of external moderation is essentially getting the teacher to do a new JC for free and subjecting the teacher to enormous extra pressure. I am firmly opposed to that.

rainbowtrout

acequion wrote: »

External moderation is not straightforward.It is an official procedure,with all the accompanying ramifications and therefore yet another source of pressure on teachers. Saying things like "marks being awarded like there is no tomorrow" is quite inflammatory and indicates that you agree with the general culture of mistrust of recent years. In my view,the increased number of inspections and the possible introduction of external moderation is all part of that culture, which is counter productive.

No, again you've tried to put words in my mouth. There are a few subjects in existence already at LC level where teachers mark their own students with external moderation in play. There are teachers out there who see nothing wrong with giving everyone in their class an A just for handing in a project. There are teachers out there who are giving students full marks for projects when they know the students hasn't a clue what they are talking about. The students cannot be blamed for this as they are not grading the projects.

It's also not fair on the many students who are graded fairly by their teachers and get a lower (but fair) mark in another school than the A given out for average work by some.

I have failed some of my own students when grading them for LC. I find the external moderation process extremely straightforward. i fill in their marks on the grading sheets and sign off on them. The extern comes and monitors, and decides whether to moderate or not. They don't tell me if they have done so. I'll only be able to work that out in August when I see their LC grades. I don't get stressed about it, all I have to do is make sure I have all projects available on the day.

acequion

rainbowtrout wrote: »

No, again you've tried to put words in my mouth. There are a few subjects in existence already at LC level where teachers mark their own students with external moderation in play. There are teachers out there who see nothing wrong with giving everyone in their class an A just for handing in a project. There are teachers out there who are giving students full marks for projects when they know the students hasn't a clue what they are talking about. The students cannot be blamed for this as they are not grading the projects.

It's also not fair on the many students who are graded fairly by their teachers and get a lower (but fair) mark in another school than the A given out for average work by some.

I have failed some of my own students when grading them for LC. I find the external moderation process extremely straightforward. i fill in their marks on the grading sheets and sign off on them. The extern comes and monitors, and decides whether to moderate or not. They don't tell me if they have done so. I'll only be able to work that out in August when I see their LC grades. I don't get stressed about it, all I have to do is make sure I have all projects available on the day.

No I'm not putting words into your mouth,but you don't seem to get that I am a staunch defender of teacher's conditions and I feel there's not much point talking about what's fair or unfair to the students if teachers are overworked. Which they will be if this whole JCSA thing goes according to plan.

As a matter of interest which LC subjects are marked like that? And how come the unions are ok about it?

seavill

Construction studies is one that has always been initially done by the class teacher followed by an external person as described above by the other poster.

acequion

seavill wrote: »

Construction studies is one that has always been initially done by the class teacher followed by an external person as described above by the other poster.

Thanks for that piece of information which I wasn't aware of. I teach English and French. I know that this thread is about science, so mods,I'm sorry for pulling it a bit off topic. However,as English is first in the firing line,this whole JCSA thing concerns me greatly. And the biggest issue for everyone,much more so than the course content, is the assessment part. Already it has teachers at each other's throats. So,we have to dig our heels in and continue to refuse to mark our own students which has always been our position and has always served all interests.If the Government no longer want to pay for such a valuable and important service at junior level,then I think the whole thing should be scrapped and let third years just do house exams,like all the other years.

jam17032010

This syllabus is a draft and they are seeking feedback. I would urge all science teacher to send them their views.

man_no_plan

acequion wrote: »

No I'm not putting words into your mouth,but you don't seem to get that I am a staunch defender of teacher's conditions and I feel there's not much point talking about what's fair or unfair to the students if teachers are overworked. Which they will be if this whole JCSA thing goes according to plan.

As a matter of interest which LC subjects are marked like that? And how come the unions are ok about it?

Construction studies and ag science - students may also be interviewed by the examiner in ag science.

Marking the projects isn't stressful, if you have watched them go together and have kept an eye on the folios its quite straightforward

pbear007

jam17032010 wrote: »

This syllabus is a draft and they are seeking feedback. I would urge all science teacher to send them their views.

And let them know what a steaming crock of 5h1t it is !!!!!So the students need to know the relative gravity on Pluto and elemental composition of Uranus but NOT a single bone in human body ?! Jesus wept !

jam17032010

pbear007 wrote: »

And let them know what a steaming crock of 5h1t it is !!!!!So the students need to know the relative gravity on Pluto and elemental composition of Uranus but NOT a single bone in human body ?! Jesus wept !

Maybe re-phrase the "crock of 5h1t" part, but yeah, email them that if that's how you feel. Something tells me that they are not going to make changes based on a post on boards nor can they read your mind.

So maybe email them. No use in complaining about it afterwards like so many teachers do.

evolving_doors

email Pat Kenny on newstalk too, he loves loves science and maths stuff!

pbear007

jam17032010 wrote: »

Maybe re-phrase the "crock of 5h1t" part, but yeah, email them that if that's how you feel. Something tells me that they are not going to make changes based on a post on boards nor can they read your mind.

So maybe email them. No use in complaining about it afterwards like so many teachers do.

I already had done their survey / consultation before posting here ,clearly if it's like every other comparable process it will be completely ignored and is an optical exercise in 'consultation'.( In fact some similar 'questionnaires' in the past were formulated so as to make criticism or alteration of the proposals difficult , if not impossible )

jam17032010

pbear007 wrote: »

I already had done their survey / consultation before posting here ,clearly if it's like every other comparable process it will be completely ignored and is an optical exercise in 'consultation'.( In fact some similar 'questionnaires' in the past were formulated so as to make criticism or alteration of the proposals difficult , if not impossible )

I'd agree with you there. Maybe I'm being naive here, but surely if enough teachers criticise it they can't ignore it. Surely...

pbear007

Sure they weren't even talking to teachers at all until a short while ago .

evolving_doors

jam17032010 wrote: »

I'd agree with you there. Maybe I'm being naive here, but surely if enough teachers criticise it they can't ignore it. Surely...

I think that time has passed... any criticism now will swiftly be delt with the usual way '..."well the consultation process is over so teachers got what they wanted etc..". The fact that the survey might have been biased is 'after the fact'...

Im sick of surveys... Ruari Quinn left a 'great legacy of reform' behind him... by putting out 2 stupid surveys...

This year we've been asked to fill in 4 surveys by the school about 'our teaching' and various staff initiatives/decisions.
Are they anonymous?
What happens the data?
What are they for?
Who's handling them?
Will the info be used against us?
No info given.. just here ya go...fill it in...dont ask questions.
Needless to say the majority just clicked delete...so a minority of about 15% are making the decisions...

These things should be run thorough subject associations/staff meetings with proper debate and discussion.

evolving_doors

in irish times today (7th oct) Unions say teachers should NOT take part in the consultation process as per directive...

I noticed at the end of the article "... 2,745 teachers have already registered for training in the new Junior Cycle programme..."

As I said before, even if you put your name down for future training it can be inferred that you 'endorse' the new JC.

rainbowtrout

Armelodie wrote: »

in irish times today (7th oct) Unions say teachers should NOT take part in the consultation process as per directive...

I noticed at the end of the article "... 2,745 teachers have already registered for training in the new Junior Cycle programme..."

As I said before, even if you put your name down for future training it can be inferred that you 'endorse' the new JC.

That's not necessarily teachers that have signed up. That could be principals signing up teachers. I know our principal did it

evolving_doors

rainbowtrout wrote: »

That's not necessarily teachers that have signed up. That could be principals signing up teachers. I know our principal did it

true enough (not the way it read in the IT though)...

Principals can be union members too!

Nothing wrong with pinning the article up on the Union notice board in school folks.

littlebsci

rainbowtrout wrote: »

That's not necessarily teachers that have signed up. That could be principals signing up teachers. I know our principal did it

I have discovered that this was done in my school by our principal too! Disgusted but not surprised as underhanded nonsense wouldn't be unusual in our place!

rainbowtrout

Armelodie wrote: »

true enough (not the way it read in the IT though)...

Principals can be union members too!

Nothing wrong with pinning the article up on the Union notice board in school folks.

Approximately 700 second level schools in the country. Taking a ball park figure of 4 science teachers in each school = 2800 science teachers.

Granted the real number is probably higher. It would suggest that the vast majority of science teachers have signed up for this inservice. I wasn't even aware it was on, let alone sign up for it.

I'd find it hard to believe that every science teacher in the country has voluntarily signed up for it. I bet principals are mainly behind it.

To be honest if I put that up in my staffroom, I suspect it would be used against us to show that all the rest of the teachers are going, why can't we comply

Peter Flynt

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Approximately 700 second level schools in the country. Taking a ball park figure of 4 science teachers in each school = 2800 science teachers.

Granted the real number is probably higher. It would suggest that the vast majority of science teachers have signed up for this inservice. I wasn't even aware it was on, let alone sign up for it.

I'd find it hard to believe that every science teacher in the country has voluntarily signed up for it. I bet principals are mainly behind it.

To be honest if I put that up in my staffroom, I suspect it would be used against us to show that all the rest of the teachers are going, why can't we comply

Well. . . When we were on directives not to adhere to Croke Park last year (following the rejection of the Haddington Road Agreement)

Who went on RTE to angrily demand an end to the ASTI stance?

NAPD President Kay O’Brien.

Last year [2012] the Director of the NAPD called for pay cuts for teachers and principals. The NAPD also welcomed – uncritically – the introduction of the Minister for Education and Skills’ Framework for Junior Cycle despite the fact that almost half of all principals say that their schools have little or no capacity to implement this new Junior Cycle programme. These statements make clear the difference between the role of teacher unions in representing principals and deputy principals and the role of the NAPD

They're meeting for their conference in Galway next week. . . . No doubt the DES will be back to call on those they fund to deliver for them

km79

parents and students are also allowed leave feedback on proposed new course.make sure as many of them do this as possible ...and make sure ye do it too

jam17032010

The ISTA had a number of meetings scheduled around the country to discuss the new syllabus. The one in Cork was tomorrow night and I was all set to attend. Got an email from the ISTA tonight saying all meetings were cancelled due to they being not allowed by the TUI/ASTI directives of non-compliance.

Not sure if this is the way to go tbh. I'm all for non-compliance with the new assessment, however, while the unions can take industrial action on the new assessment measures, they can't take industrial action on course content. The ISTA are, IMO, one of the best groups to give their opinions on a new science syllabus and should be allowed to discuss course content as whatever is decided now will be the syllabus for years to come and we will be kicking ourselves if we miss an opportunity to have our say.

km79

jam17032010 wrote: »

The ISTA had a number of meetings scheduled around the country to discuss the new syllabus. The one in Cork was tomorrow night and I was all set to attend. Got an email from the ISTA tonight saying all meetings were cancelled due to they being not allowed by the TUI/ASTI directives of non-compliance.

Not sure if this is the way to go tbh. I'm all for non-compliance with the new assessment, however, while the unions can take industrial action on the new assessment measures, they can't take industrial action on course content. The ISTA are, IMO, one of the best groups to give their opinions on a new science syllabus and should be allowed to discuss course content as whatever is decided now will be the syllabus for years to come and we will be kicking ourselves if we miss an opportunity to have our say.

yes this is mental