Strike On ! Proposed New Junior Cert **See Mod Warning Post #1**

acequion

katydid wrote: »

I am basing what I say on my experience. You can bury your head in the sand all you want and put me on ignore, but it doesn't change the fact that my experience is valid.

You are free to disagree with me, as I disagree with you, but there's no need to carry on like a five year old.

Wow! So,now I'm like a five year old by calling you for what you are! Fine,I'll happily be a five year old while you continue to hog this thread insisting that your way is the only way.

Enjoy!

katydid

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I've never had a problem sourcing them, FETAC provide a list. Ring someone on the list. My centre isn't big enough to justify two authenticators.

My centre doesn't operate that policy, to the best of my knowledge that's a policy created at ETB level.

We always have problems sourcing enough, and some years some material has to go unmoderated. But we teachers don't know until the very last minute what moderators we will be getting, so there's no temptation to cut corners or even cheat.

If your ETB doesn't operate the system as it should be, that needs to be addressed. As I said, the system isn't perfect, but it can and does operate properly.

poster2525

katydid wrote: »

You are supposed to get as many externs as possible; the problem is sourcing them. If your centre operates a policy of having a different kind of extern every year, that must be its own policy. It shows the need for a coordinated system.

I agree, we should really have a coordinated system in place ......I know, maybe we could use the current coordinated system that's already in place??

And I already work super hard - not afraid of work here!!

rainbowtrout

katydid wrote: »

We always have problems sourcing enough, and some years some material has to go unmoderated. But we teachers don't know until the very last minute what moderators we will be getting, so there's no temptation to cut corners or even cheat.

If your ETB doesn't operate the system as it should be, that needs to be addressed. As I said, the system isn't perfect, but it can and does operate properly.

You have some cheek saying my ETB doesn't operate correctly when work is going unmoderated in your centre. You've been presenting your centre as the model FE centre for the last day or two. It clearly doesn't operate properly when student work isn't checked.

katydid

acequion wrote: »

Wow! So,now I'm like a five year old by calling you for what you are! Fine,I'll happily be a five year old while you continue to hog this thread.

Enjoy!

You're acting LIKE a five year old for saying you're going to put me on ignore because you don't like what I have to say. Act like a child, I call it as it is.

I'm not hogging this thread; I am putting forward an alternative to every other contributor. If you are afraid of reading alternative viewpoints, maybe this is the wrong place for you.

r93kaey5p2izun

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I've never had a problem sourcing them, FETAC provide a list. Ring someone on the list. My centre isn't big enough to justify two authenticators.

My centre doesn't operate that policy, to the best of my knowledge that's a policy created at ETB level.

We are a fairly large centre - we get two authenticators and it is ETB policy that dictates everything here too. Like you we have a list and no problem getting someone from it.

The problem is as you said rainbowtrout, the fact that very technical modules cannot be properly assessed by anybody but an expert in that area. We run level 5 and 6 technical IT courses (software, programming etc - I don't know the details, not my area!) and we get experts in as authenticators every couple of years. But in a small centre with a variety of courses then it could be a few years between suitable authenticators. And if the technical modules are only one part of a more general major award then chances are there will never be a suitable authenticator.

katydid

rainbowtrout wrote: »

You have some cheek saying my ETB doesn't operate correctly when work is going unmoderated in your centre. You've been presenting your centre as the model FE centre for the last day or two. It clearly doesn't operate properly when student work isn't checked.

Jeez, you don't need to take it personally, unless you are a CEO or something! The idea is to extern as much as possible, not to deliberately limit the amount of externs. If that is what your ETB is doing, it is not operating the system correctly; it's as simple as that.

There is no centre where there is 100% moderation. That is just impractical, given that most moderators are teachers who are themselves run ragged trying to get tehir own paperwork done. As I explained, it's not necessary to have it as long as teachers don't know until the last minute who will be moderated and what won't be.

rainbowtrout

katydid wrote: »

Jeez, you don't need to take it personally, unless you are a CEO or something! The idea is to extern as much as possible, not to deliberately limit the amount of externs. If that is what your ETB is doing, it is not operating the system correctly; it's as simple as that.

There is no centre where there is 100% moderation. That is just impractical, given that most moderators are teachers who are themselves run ragged trying to get tehir own paperwork done. As I explained, it's not necessary to have it as long as teachers don't know until the last minute who will be moderated and what won't be.

Again you are making assumptions about something you know nothing about. Not every centre has hundreds of FE students. There are loads of centres that only have 20-30 students, mine being one of them, and plenty of other centres local to me are similar. So having one extern is usually all that is required.

Every folder in my centre is internally verified. As we know the extern will not scrutinise every one I can be assured that at least every folder has been checked by another tutor to ensure the marks add up and all the work is present that there is a mark for. So from that point of view we have 100% verification. I have no control over how many folders the extern moderates.

seavill

I think the point is being missed.

I think most posters have said they are not against CA. Your points have been that if run properly the system can work. Which is fine.

I think where the other posters are coming from is, the way the jcsa has been (or tried to be) implemented currently there is no proper system in place that you mention. And there is no plan that I have heard of to put it in place.

For it to work properly as you say the correct systems and policies need to be there. Surely this is something that needs to be done day one before there are huge issues. The point being that no structures are in place for the new English course for example which is technically already in place. So the system has already failed.

From reading the thread I think this is where the biggest issue is. Obviously people don't want to correct their own students if a proper structure was in place from day one the opposition might not be as strong but we can all see where this is going being rushed in with no concrete proposals. People's concerns are that it will be too late in two years time to try to fix all the problems that could be sorted with a properly thought through system which is not what we are getting currently

katydid

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Again you are making assumptions about something you know nothing about. Not every centre has hundreds of FE students. There are loads of centres that only have 20-30 students, mine being one of them, and plenty of other centres local to me are similar. So having one extern is usually all that is required.

Every folder in my centre is internally verified. As we know the extern will not scrutinise every one I can be assured that at least every folder has been checked by another tutor to ensure the marks add up and all the work is present that there is a mark for. So from that point of view we have 100% verification. I have no control over how many folders the extern moderates.

I am not making any assumptions. I am well aware that there are centres with one or two class groups. You didn't make it clear that you were operating in that scenario, you just said it was your ETB's policy.

katydid

seavill wrote: »

I think the point is being missed.

I think most posters have said they are not against CA. Your points have been that if run properly the system can work. Which is fine.

I think where the other posters are coming from is, the way the jcsa has been (or tried to be) implemented currently there is no proper system in place that you mention. And there is no plan that I have heard of to put it in place.

For it to work properly as you say the correct systems and policies need to be there. Surely this is something that needs to be done day one before there are huge issues. The point being that no structures are in place for the new English course for example which is technically already in place. So the system has already failed.

From reading the thread I think this is where the biggest issue is. Obviously people don't want to correct their own students if a proper structure was in place from day one the opposition might not be as strong but we can all see where this is going being rushed in with no concrete proposals. People's concerns are that it will be too late in two years time to try to fix all the problems that could be sorted with a properly thought through system which is not what we are getting currently

That's exactly what I've been saying all along. The system has to be sorted first, and THAT is what second level teachers should be insisting on before there is any introduction of change. They are putting the cart before the horse.

seavill

katydid wrote: »

That's exactly what I've been saying all along. The system has to be sorted first, and THAT is what second level teachers should be insisting on before there is any introduction of change. They are putting the cart before the horse.

The problem is there are no proposals for sorting any system. The proposals that are there are whats on the table, you are basically saying we go back to stratch and start all over again, which is correct, but thats not what is on the table.

The people here are reacting to what is on the table currently, and what is there is not a proper system or not a proposal to put a proper system in place. Your proposals are all well and good but its not the reality of what is on the table.

People here are against the current set of proposals which is all that there is an option on.

katydid

seavill wrote: »

The problem is there are no proposals for sorting any system. The proposals that are there are whats on the table, you are basically saying we go back to stratch and start all over again, which is correct, but thats not what is on the table.

The people here are reacting to what is on the table currently, and what is there is not a proper system or not a proposal to put a proper system in place. Your proposals are all well and good but its not the reality of what is on the table.

People here are against the current set of proposals which is all that there is an option on.

I know, but they are not asking for a better system, just refusing out of hand to even consider the idea. That's not going to get anyone anywhere. Why not start asking...no, demanding...a proper system?

seavill

katydid wrote: »

I know, but they are not asking for a better system, just refusing out of hand to even consider the idea. That's not going to get anyone anywhere. Why not start asking...no, demanding...a proper system?

They are reacting to the current proposals and dismissing them, and rightly so in my opinion.

You are basically saying we have to start again and put a proper system in place which will not happen in the current situation.

There is a set of proposals that we can accept or reject. If we accept we have the system no one wants that won't be like anything you describe. That is what people are against. yes you have gotten into a war of words in particular about FETAC but my reading of the arguments, as an outsider to the discussion, is that you are talking about one thing, they are talking about the current proposals. Several people have said in response to you that they are not against CA.

Can you see that the system you are talking about has nothing to do with the proposals that are on the table - the only options available.

katydid

seavill wrote: »

They are reacting to the current proposals and dismissing them, and rightly so in my opinion.

You are basically saying we have to start again and put a proper system in place which will not happen in the current situation.

There is a set of proposals that we can accept or reject. If we accept we have the system no one wants that won't be like anything you describe. That is what people are against. yes you have gotten into a war of words in particular about FETAC but my reading of the arguments, as an outsider to the discussion, is that you are talking about one thing, they are talking about the current proposals. Several people have said in response to you that they are not against CA.

Can you see that the system you are talking about has nothing to do with the proposals that are on the table - the only options available.

They are not the only options available. Just the only ones on the table at the moment. This is a huge step for Irish education, it should be done the right way, with unions and department working together, and while that doesn't seem likely at the moment, it's too an important a development not to fight to do it properly.

man_no_plan

katydid wrote: »

A few classes off for a week now and then isn't going to give you much time for correcting, and you can't possibly leave it all until May. It needs to be all done by the time the students finish; the only thing left to correct at that stage would be the end of year exams, which you have to dash to correct before the externs come.

Appeals are not to the school. They are to FETAC. Once you have submitted your marks in May, you have no more to do with it. And that's as it should be.

There IS a system, it DOES work. The hard work that FE centres have put in to developing QA assured systems can be taken on board and used in further developments in other sectors, and even in FE itself.

I'm talking about the JCSA or whatever it is, appeals will be to the school, there is no system. I'm not going to bang on about further ed because its not relevant, ita a different context and a different set of issues..

There is more to this than marking your own students, there is time and resourcing too and they have been well flagged by both unions.

Unless there is a submit online by or post to by date on assignments they will be worked on up to the last possible second as happens all the tine now. Don't tell mevto be a whistleblower because the SEC know the story too and are happy that the candidate are given every opportunity..

There needs to be a discussion on a system before there is any new course, that tmjas mot happened and the des wont let it happen because they are afraid it will cost them money.

There is a consultation process atm for sen. Caveat all proposals must be cost neutral. All they are interested in in money. End of discussion.

seavill

Again missing (or choosing to miss) the point. The jcsa is in. English has already started this year. Had we not gone on strike the first lot of assessment would be getting prepared at least. With no guidelines or none of your procedures.

They are the only ones on the table. There is no "at the moment about it".

Do you agree if we accept the proposals then we will have a very poor system in place that will be nowhere near what you describe.
Have you looked at the proposals from the mediator? How do they match up with your system.
That is what we are currently fighting.

There is no go back and work together as it stands. That is what we are trying to make happen. By fighting it.

If we accept we certainly don't have your system in place

katydid

seavill wrote: »

Again missing (or choosing to miss) the point. The jcsa is in. English has already started this year. Had we not gone on strike the first lot of assessment would be getting prepared at least. With no guidelines or none of your procedures.

They are the only ones on the table. There is no "at the moment about it".

Do you agree if we accept the proposals then we will have a very poor system in place that will be nowhere near what you describe.
Have you looked at the proposals from the mediator? How do they match up with your system.
That is what we are currently fighting.

There is no go back and work together as it stands. That is what we are trying to make happen. By fighting it.

If we accept we certainly don't have your system in place

Why is there no going back? There is always room for movement. The unions have to stand strong, refuse to work the present system, and demand that there be a proper system set up. Of course the present proposals are out of order, but there's no point in throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

seavill

What do you think the unions have been doing. They have been refusing hence why we were on strike. Yet the same proposals are on the table. Either you have no clue what's going on or you are just trying to wind everyone up at this stage

MacGyver007

I think at this juncture that it is worth remembering that assessment is not the only stumbling block in all of this. There are other issues such as the "short courses" to be discussed if/when this obstacle has been overcome so I believe that there is still a good way to go notwithstanding assessment .

While people can talk as much as they want about forms of assessment and how they could work; the unions' standpoint was and still very much is that while we are not against reform of the Junior Cycle, the bottom line is that we will not assess our own students for State certification; it really is as simple as that.

katydid

seavill wrote: »

What do you think the unions have been doing. They have been refusing hence why we were on strike. Yet the same proposals are on the table. Either you have no clue what's going on or you are just trying to wind everyone up at this stage

No, they've taken up the wrong battle. They've been refusing to consider it, full stop, which is the wrong tactic.
I know what is going on. My point is that the unions should be taking a different tack.

seavill

I give up

katydid

MacGyver007 wrote: »

I think at this juncture that it is worth remembering that assessment is not the only stumbling block in all of this. There are other issues such as the "short courses" to be discussed if/when this obstacle has been overcome so I believe that there is still a good way to go notwithstanding assessment .

While people can talk as much as they want about forms of assessment and how they could work; the unions' standpoint was and still very much is that while we are not against reform of the Junior Cycle, the bottom line is that we will not assess our own students for State certification; it really is as simple as that.

But you have to accept that for many people, that bottom line is not the right bottom line. That perhaps a bottom line where you don't rule it out but insist that it be done properly is another possibility?

katydid

seavill wrote: »

I give up

Great tactic.

seavill

There is only so many ways of making the same point that doesn't get understood. There is more to life. You may succeed in winding other up but unfortunately I'm not one

katydid

seavill wrote: »

There is only so many ways of making the same point that doesn't get understood. There is more to life. You may succeed in winding other up but unfortunately I'm not one

Just because you don't understand or accept the points I make doesn't make them invalid, or take away my right to express them. This is a forum for EXCHANGE of ideas. Not a patting on the back forum for people of the same viewpoint.

seavill

katydid wrote: »

Just because you don't understand or accept the points I make doesn't make them invalid, or take away my right to express them. This is a forum for EXCHANGE of ideas. Not a patting on the back forum for people of the same viewpoint.

I fully understand what you are saying thanks. I also accept your points go back a few posts and you will see that. I never said the points you were making were wrong in any way.
I never said you don't have a right to express them. You have become very defensive all of a sudden.

I have exchanged my views with you. We were getting no where despite several posts over and back so I decided to bow out rather than keep going around in circles. You decide to get smart about it with a comment back. Like you did with another poster earlier. I just pointed out to you that tactic makes no difference to me so no point in trying.

As I said i didn't dusafree with your points I was simply communicating where the two different view points were being misunderstood.
Careful on that high horse it can be a long fall sometimes. Maybe read my posts first before you get all defensive and accuse me of things

katydid

seavill wrote: »

I fully understand what you are saying thanks. I also accept your points go back a few posts and you will see that. I never said the points you were making were wrong in any way.
I never said you don't have a right to express them. You have become very defensive all of a sudden.

I have exchanged my views with you. We were getting no where despite several posts over and back so I decided to bow out rather than keep going around in circles. You decide to get smart about it with a comment back. Like you did with another poster earlier. I just pointed out to you that tactic makes no difference to me so no point in trying.

As I said i didn't dusafree with your points I was simply communicating where the two different view points were being misunderstood.
Careful on that high horse it can be a long fall sometimes. Maybe read my posts first before you get all defensive and accuse me of things

Your implied that I was deliberately saying what I said in order to wind people up. That sounds to me like you don't believe that my points are valid or made with sincerity.

seavill

katydid wrote: »

Your implied that I was deliberately saying what I said in order to wind people up. That sounds to me like you don't believe that my points are valid or made with sincerity.

I referred to your post "great tactic" and your similar interactions earlier.

Don't put words in my mouth please.
Again we are going no where and dragging the thread further off topic. I will again finish with you and respectfully request no smart comment in return this time.

MacGyver007

katydid wrote: »

But you have to accept that for many people, that bottom line is not the right bottom line. That perhaps a bottom line where you don't rule it out but insist that it be done properly is another possibility?

Having read all the posts in recent pages, I for one remain as unconvinced about assessing my own students as I was this morning in the same way that you appear also to be as unconvinced the other way; I still believe that the DES are not trying to bulldoze this through for the good of the students of the country. Therefore I'm going to offer to agree to disagree on assessing our own students. However, please have a look at the following:
https://astifightback.wordpress.com/2015/02/14/why-govt-wants-school-based-assessment-so-badly/

On another subtopic within this reformed Junior Cycle, a not insignificant number of teachers have major problems with these "short courses" and the fact that the vast majority of subjects will only be examined at a common level, consigning higher and ordinary levels to the dustbin; surely not the way to prepare for Senior Cycle?