*** Proposed New Junior Cert. **Read Mod Warning Post #1 Before Posting**

katydid

km79 wrote: »

http://www.asti.ie/news/latest-news/news-article/article/the-following-statement-has-been-agreed-for-issue-by-the-minister-for-education-and-skills-the-asti//back_to/asti-home/
will be balloted in SEPTEMBER apparently
feels familar doesn't it. ........I want my strike pay back. a pure charade

What exactly is your problem?

katydid

gaiscioch wrote: »

This is like the Nice Treaty, or was it Lisbon... We'll just have to keep voting until we get it "right". What a piss-take; if voting changed anything they really would abolish it (or, at least, the type of voting system - which they've had referenda to do twice in the history of this state)

Thanks be to God that our great democracy's leaders have us voting on a vitally important referendum like lowering the age for Presidential candidates from 35 to 21. What, like, could be more important? It would be awful if we had constitutional change to, say, limit class sizes to 15 students, or limit waiting times in A&E to, say, even 2 hours...

"Liberals" and "conservatives" are bedfellows, united by their persistence in deflecting from social justice issues, all of which cost money. The vast majority of the Irish political establishment is, in other words, united by being economically rightwing and rigging the terms of political debate with their faux conflict along liberal-Tory lines. They no more respect the rights of children to a quality education than they respect the rights of Irish people who vote against their proposals.

/rant over.

It's very simple. The unions are democratic. The executives don't have the power to make these decisions without referring them to the members. They have been negotiating on your behalf and have come up with a proposal. Members are free to accept or reject it.

Would you rather they let the Department do whatever they wanted, and didn't negotiate on your behalf?

You're COMPLAINING because you are being consulted?

political analyst

According to the front page of today's Indo, it has been a climb-down on the part of the Department. I wonder will many secondary teachers feel comforted by that.

Mardy Bum

political analyst wrote: »

According to the front page of today's Indo, it has been a climb-down on the part of the Department. I wonder will many secondary teachers feel comforted by that.

And it is 100% external assessment for state certification.

2011abc

katydid wrote: »

They must be psychic, since no details have been released as yet.

I'm curious to know, if the union gets back some of our pay in the Haddington Road negotiations, whether you will be declining to take the money, now that you've left the union? Or will you grab the benefits won by the union you decided to leave?

Yeah I will Katy ....when it covers all that I've lost over the last seven years including the final postponed benchmarking 'rises'...but somehow I'd say I will have retired beforehand .Anyway any future rises will be hard paid for with extra ' productivity '.

katydid

2011abc wrote: »

Yeah I will Katy ....when it covers all that I've lost over the last seven years including the final postponed benchmarking 'rises'...but somehow I'd say I will have retired beforehand .Anyway any future rises will be hard paid for with extra ' productivity '.

So you won't pay your union dues, but you'll take the improvements the union gets for you. Don't you think that's a tad hypocritical?

2011abc

'Improvements' ?Thats what you call the last seven years?I paid my 'dues' for over two decades and served as steward for several years .Union is now a 'strait jacket' to subdue 'negative' people ,like me apparently who aren't government apologists .

katydid

2011abc wrote: »

'Improvements' ?Thats what you call the last seven years?I paid my 'dues' for over two decades and served as steward for several years .Union is now a 'strait jacket' to subdue 'negative' people ,like me apparently who aren't government apologists .

I'm talking about the improvements they are going to negotiate - some, at least, of our money back.

A union is comprised of its members. Its members make decisions. You seem to have a problem with this democratic concept.

2011abc

Vote until you do what we want (under increasingly menacing threats )is not my idea of democracy .

katydid

2011abc wrote: »

Vote until you do what we want (under increasingly menacing threats )is not my idea of democracy .

What do you mean? This ballot is the only one on these proposals, which they have been thrashing out for months.

Likewise with the CP/HR proposals - they went back each time and renegotiated a different deal, trying to find something that would be accepted by the members. And the members made their decision.

Why is that such a problem for you? I didn't vote for any of the CP/HR proposals, but the majority of my colleagues did. And I accept that, although I was very disappointed.

man_no_plan

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/teachers-to-assess-their-own-students-for-new-junior-cycle-award-1.2222380

I'd like to get a full read of the actual document, still no sign

From the above article...
The key reforms are:

• Students will study a maximum of 10 subjects, whereas currently there is no limit;

• English, Irish and Maths will remain compulsory;

• Schools will offer short courses in areas like computer coding, and Chinese language; these will involve 100 hours of learning - roughly half of an ordinary subject - and will be evaluated through classroom-based assessment.

• A new compulsory subject of “Well Being” will be introduced, incorporating Physical Education; Social, Personal and Health Education (SPHE), including relationships and sexuality; and Civic, Social and Political Education (CSPE);

• While this new course is developed, the existing CSPE syllabus will be retained until 2018 and taught in addition to the 10 subjects;

• For every student, teachers will carry out two structured classroom-based assessments, one each in second and third year;

• A written assessment task supervised by teachers in class will be completed in third year and marked by the SEC;

• Written exams at the end of third year will be shorter - no longer than two hours;

• A Junior Cycle Profile of Achievement will be issued to students by their schools; this will record learning arising from short courses; classroom assessments and the results of state exams;

• No further delay in rolling out the programme, with classroom based assessments to begin next year for English;

• Because they are the first cohort affected, English teachers will be given priority training; schools will be afforded flexibility in the first year and can chose to carry out the initial classroom based assessment in Spring 2016 (in second year) or autumn 2016 (the start of third year) for the first junior cycle class to come under the programme.

Jamfa

man_no_plan wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/teachers-to-assess-their-own-students-for-new-junior-cycle-award-1.2222380

I'd like to get a full read of the actual document, still no sign

From the above article...
The key reforms are:

• Students will study a maximum of 10 subjects, whereas currently there is no limit;

• English, Irish and Maths will remain compulsory;

• Schools will offer short courses in areas like computer coding, and Chinese language; these will involve 100 hours of learning - roughly half of an ordinary subject - and will be evaluated through classroom-based assessment.

• A new compulsory subject of “Well Being” will be introduced, incorporating Physical Education; Social, Personal and Health Education (SPHE), including relationships and sexuality; and Civic, Social and Political Education (CSPE);

• While this new course is developed, the existing CSPE syllabus will be retained until 2018 and taught in addition to the 10 subjects;

• For every student, teachers will carry out two structured classroom-based assessments, one each in second and third year;

• A written assessment task supervised by teachers in class will be completed in third year and marked by the SEC;

• Written exams at the end of third year will be shorter - no longer than two hours;

• A Junior Cycle Profile of Achievement will be issued to students by their schools; this will record learning arising from short courses; classroom assessments and the results of state exams;

• No further delay in rolling out the programme, with classroom based assessments to begin next year for English;

• Because they are the first cohort affected, English teachers will be given priority training; schools will be afforded flexibility in the first year and can chose to carry out the initial classroom based assessment in Spring 2016 (in second year) or autumn 2016 (the start of third year) for the first junior cycle class to come under the programme.

Just seen it: http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Education-Reports/Junior-Cycle-Reform-Joint-Statement-on-Principles-and-Implementation.pdf

man_no_plan

It's on TUI.ie now too. Concerted release... Tue to put it to a ballot, no recommendation as yet

mirrorwall14

So we correct and set the classroom assessments? How is that new?

Only good thing from my perspective is that music is actually addressed and the performance in third year will continue to be externally assessed

man_no_plan

Do we not pick the classroom assessment from a list?

mirrorwall14

man_no_plan wrote: »

Do we not pick the classroom assessment from a list?

Ya but it doesn't say it's externally assessed? Only the third year written assessment says that

km79

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

Ya but it doesn't say it's externally assessed? Only the third year written assessment says that

the devil as always will be in the detail that will arise in practice

acequion

I've been mulling it over for the past hour and I don't think I like it.Here's how I see the pros and the cons:

[Potential] Pros:

1. The CBA's and final exam kept separate.
2. The CBA's can replace house exams, so in theory nothing extra there.
3. The final paper will be much shorter than at present at a maximum of two hours,so presumably much less to prepare and potential for less pressure.

Cons:

1. Very little movement from the Travers document.
2. Suspiciously fast acceptance by the unions,bypassing the SC.Basically WTF??
3. Huge emphasis on these CBA's wanting to give "prominence and importance" to them, while at the same time reducing the "focus on one terminal exam"

These latter two sound very Ruari Quinn and could be paving the way for teacher based assessment by the back door which astifightback are already warning against.

4. Greater "professional collaboration between teachers" to the extent that they want to allow for it in our timetables.

One wonders why, if all we'll be doing is an assessment in second year and another in third year.

5. The students will still go on to prepare a traditional LC, with a two year focus on one terminal,very high stakes exam.

Or is that next for the chop by the next probably FG led Government?

So more cons than pros for me at the moment and I'm very suspicious of the sudden enthusiasm by the unions.I was quite happy to let things slide until September, bringing us closer to the election,but the unions did seem very eager to get it sorted. Now while I don't want to encourage the unhelpful conspiracy theorists or give more ammunition to the anti union brigade, I am uncomfortable about this.

km79

acequion wrote: »

I've been mulling it over for the past hour and I don't think I like it.Here's how I see the pros and the cons:

[Potential] Pros:

1. The CBA's and final exam kept separate.
2. The CBA's can replace house exams, so in theory nothing extra there.
3. The final paper will be much shorter than at present at a maximum of two hours,so presumably much less to prepare and potential for less pressure.

Cons:

1. Very little movement from the Travers document.
2. Suspiciously fast acceptance by the unions,bypassing the SC.Basically WTF??
3. Huge emphasis on these CBA's wanting to give "prominence and importance" to them, while at the same time reducing the "focus on one terminal exam"

These latter two sound very Ruari Quinn and could be paving the way for teacher based assessment by the back door which astifightback are already warning against.

4. Greater "professional collaboration between teachers" to the extent that they want to allow for it in our timetables.

One wonders why, if all we'll be doing is an assessment in second year and another in third year.

5. The students will still go on to prepare a traditional |LC with a two year focus on one terminal,very high stakes exam.

Or is that next for the chop by the next probably FG led Government?

So more cons than pros for me at the moment and I'm very suspicious of the sudden enthusiasm by the unions.I was quite happy to let things slide until September, bringing us closer to the election,but the unions did seem very eager to get it sorted. Now while I don't want to encourage the unhelpful conspiracy theorists or give more ammunition to the anti union brigade, I am uncomfortable about this.

think you have summed it all up quite well there

katydid

acequion wrote: »

I
[*]Very little movement from the Travers document.

[*]Suspiciously fast acceptance by the unions,bypassing the SC.Basically WTF??

Surely it's total movement from the Travers document - NO STATE CERTIFICATION from school based assessment. Teachers have been saying all along that it's not CA they have a problem with, rather the state certification of it.

"Bypassing the SC" What is the SC? The unions have accepted nothing; the union is the members, not the executive. The unions will only have accepted when and if the members accept it.

katydid

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

So we correct and set the classroom assessments? How is that new?

It's not. Teachers continuously assess all the time. It just means that some of that assessment will be designed in a particular way, and recorded on the students' record of achievement.

km79

katydid wrote: »

Surely it's total movement from the Travers document - NO STATE CERTIFICATION form school based assessment. Teachers have been saying all along that it's not CA they have a problem with, rather the state certification of it.

"Bypassing the SC" What is the SC? The unions have accepted nothing; the union is the members, not the executive. The unions will only have accepted when and if the members accept it.

go onto Asti Fightbacks Facebook page and read their interpretation of today's events. they have 2 members on the Standing Committee I.e. SC
so they were actually there in the room today unlike us. and they aint happy.
Jan is . Why is that I wonder ?

katydid

km79 wrote: »

go onto Asti Fightbacks Facebook page and read their interpretation of today's events. they have 2 members on the Standing Committee I.e. SC
so they were actually there in the room today unlike us. and they aint happy.
Jan is . Why is that I wonder ?

It's down to the members concerned at the end of the day. It doesn't matter whether the proposers are happy or unhappy.

deiseindublin

katydid wrote: »

It's down to the members concerned at the end of the day. It doesn't matter whether the proposers are happy or unhappy.

It's down to the members to vote alright, we are the union, but how many eejits just go with the union recommendation without even bothering to read the stuff themselves.

I know our staff room is full of them.

km79

katydid wrote: »

It's down to the members concerned at the end of the day. It doesn't matter whether the proposers are happy or unhappy.

That's true but what do you think of their interpretation of it ?

katydid

km79 wrote: »

That's true but what do you think of their interpretation of it ?

As someone who works with state certified continuous assessment every day, I don't see what all the fuss is about. I respect my colleagues who have a problem with it, and with the decision of the leadership of my union to come up with a proposal and to put it to the membership.

I won't be voting as I don't teach at second level, but I am happy to leave the decision to my colleagues.

katydid

deiseindublin wrote: »

It's down to the members to vote alright, we are the union, but how many eejits just go with the union recommendation without even bothering to read the stuff themselves.

I know our staff room is full of them.

That's democracy for ye...

You don't have a high opinion of your colleagues, do you? Maybe they're not exactly the sheep you assume they are.

km79

katydid wrote: »

, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

I don't teach at second level.

I understand why you have no problem with it now .

katydid

km79 wrote: »

I understand why you have no problem with it now .

I have no problem with a union coming up with a proposal and putting it to its members. No matter what the issue. Other issues, such as the CP or HR agreements, concerned me, and I didn't have a problem with the executive of my union putting a proposal to me and my colleagues. That's how a union works.

km79

katydid wrote: »

I have no problem with a union coming up with a proposal and putting it to its members. No matter what the issue. Other issues, such as the CP or HR agreements, concerned me, and I didn't have a problem with the executive of my union putting a proposal to me and my colleagues. That's how a union works.

I know how a union works hence how I knew what SC stood for.
I was not referring to you having no problem with the way the union works.
I was referring to you not knowing what all the fuss was about I.e. The agreement.
You left this part out when quoting me .