Teacher going on hunger strike

mirrorwall14

Just spotted this in a thread on after hours (it's on breakingnews.ie). Is it just me or is this a really silly thing to do/say? It is creating perfect ammo for ridicule of the profession and detracts from the debate about the strike. I honestly don't see any upside to this

km79

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

Just spotted this in a thread on after hours (it's on breakingnews.ie). Is it just me or is this a really silly thing to do/say? It is creating perfect ammo for ridicule of the profession and detracts from the debate about the strike. I honestly don't see any upside to this

"threatens" to go on hunger strike during a speech......

r93kaey5p2izun

I think it was a really stupid thing to say. Particularly if she included it in a prepared speech as opposed to making an off the cuff remark in the heat of the moment - harder to dismiss as hyperbole or emotions running high in that case. Nonsense really. She should know better. Those giving standing ovations are as bad but perhaps that comment didn't stand out at the time and the rest of her speech was excellent and that's what they were applauding. Of course the media will jump on anything so that may be the case here.

evolving_doors

have to say, heard her on newstalk with PK and she got the attention she needed to get her points across, despite PK's tactics of whataboutery to drag her off topic.

Megaphone, hunger strike... only way to get some attention these days.

...and yes she says she is going to go on hunger strike if it comes in (teacher correcting for certification).

Mardy Bum

Gebgbegb wrote: »

...and yes she says she is going to go on hunger strike if it comes in (teacher correcting for certification).

She won't though and that is what is so bloody stupid about making that point. She sounds like one of those delusional water protesters that are given enough rope and then proceed to hang themselves except this time she constructed the rope herself.

I had no problem with the megaphone man but this rhetoric is embarrassing.

There is one thing which the media keep on reiterating which is wrong - Teachers are opposed to JC reform {FULL STOP}. The news constantly refuses to acknowledge the fact that it is the correcting which teachers are opposed to and I'm not sure whether this is purposefully done or just a generalisation for the masses. If this point could be articulated across at every juncture that would be enough because by most polls the majority do not want teachers correcting for certification.

evolving_doors

Mardy Bum wrote: »

She won't though and that is what is so bloody stupid about making that point. She sounds like one of those delusional water protesters that are given enough rope and then proceed to hang themselves except this time she constructed the rope herself.

I had no problem with the megaphone man but this rhetoric is embarrassing.

There is one thing which the media keep on reiterating which is wrong - Teachers are opposed to JC reform {FULL STOP}. The news constantly refuses to acknowledge the fact that it is the correcting which teachers are opposed to and I'm not sure whether this is purposefully done or just a generalisation for the masses. If this point could be articulated across at every juncture that would be enough because by most polls the majority do not want teachers correcting for certification.

Actually this was the point she was making over and over again (quite clearly too despite pat's attempt at sidetracking).

Mardy Bum

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Actually this was the point she was making over and over again (quite clearly too despite pat's attempt at sidetracking).

That minus the rhetoric would be perfect so.

rainbowtrout

I agree Mardy Bum, but it's a comment I've seen on this forum too. I've seen posts here in the last few weeks, on the strike thread I think, where posters have asked 'So you are opposed to continuous assessment, what would it take for you to accept it?' when it's blatantly obvious we are not opposed to assessment, just correction of it. As per usual there are teachers out there who have no idea of what is actually going on.

mirrorwall14

I agree that it's tough but I suppose I'd worry about the whole Ryanair style 'all coverage is good coverage'. I know to a certain extent sensationalism is needed to get coverage, but I worry that that particular comment is OTT and detracts from our professionalism. As someone in after hours said, what would we say to one of our students who said 'I'm going on hunger strike' because you gave us too much homework. It's too easy a target to ridicule

gaiscioch

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

Just spotted this in a thread on after hours (it's on breakingnews.ie). Is it just me or is this a really silly thing to do/say? It is creating perfect ammo for ridicule of the profession and detracts from the debate about the strike. I honestly don't see any upside to this

A bit off topic here, but...

I see your view, yet I'm always reminded of Fergus Kelly's explanation of the hunger strike as a very ancient Irish response to a personal feeling of injustice committed by the powerful, rather than as some sort of kamikaze type thing. It was always a symbol of alienation and an appeal for the society to put moral pressure on the powerful local figure. (and as Peadar O'Donnell observed after his 41-day hunger strike in 1923, doing without food for so long gave him a deeper spirituality, astonishing clarity and perspective in life so it's not all doom and gloom for the striker).


This extract is based on Fergus Kelly's unsurpassed history of the "Brehon" law, A Guide to Early Irish Law (DIAS, 1988):

'When a wrong had been done, the victim would sit upon the doorstep of the oppressor, taking no food and telling passersby of the crime committed. Those of elevated rank (kings and bards, for instance) could avoid paying the éiric or honour price for someone they had injured; in such cases fasting was the injured person's only form of reprisal. An effective form of protest that often resulted in the situation being rectified, the hunger strike is described in several ancient mythological texts. The tradition never entirely died out, being revived at intervals as a form of nonviolent protest.'

evolving_doors

Mardy Bum wrote: »

That minus the rhetoric would be perfect so.

It's the rhetoric that's getting her a voice.

Like I said last year about megaphone man, the megaphone was just a gimmick, no-one could hear what the hell he was saying with the megaphone anyway but he got interviews afterward and put across the issues which weren't being aired in the media. Then he got himself elected onto the CEC (and wasn't shy of mentioning the megaphone when he was canvassing).

It's just those few words 'I'll go on hunger strike' and straight away she gets to do the circuit in the media. Personally it makes me cringe but look at whats happening, the shuffling silence of thousands of tired feet at lunchtime 'protests' is getting no-one nowhere.

Mardy Bum

Gebgbegb wrote: »

It's the rhetoric that's getting her a voice.

Like I said last year about megaphone man, the megaphone was just a gimmick, no-one could hear what the hell he was saying with the megaphone anyway but he got interviews afterward and put across the issues which weren't being aired in the media. Then he got himself elected onto the CEC (and wasn't shy of mentioning the megaphone when he was canvassing).

It's just those few words 'I'll go on hunger strike' and straight away she gets to do the circuit in the media. Personally it makes me cringe but look at whats happening, the shuffling silence of thousands of tired feet at lunchtime 'protests' is getting no-one nowhere.

Yes I largely agree. It is an ends/means quandary. Too many fools have used hunger strike rhetoric recently in the media to get attention for themselves though and I feel association like this will only make people feel more repugnant of teachers. Just look at the AH thread. No one has a clue about the issue. It is all about the rhetoric.

Ultimately the majority of the population do not give a damn regardless. They view the JC as waste of time even those in various professions. This largely comes about due to ignorance of the learning process for an adolescent. Therefore all they will take notice of is the rhetoric which leaves us open to ridicule. So leave the empty rhetoric at the door.

Puibo

Be grand. Can stop at ten for small lunch and one for big lunch!!

evolving_doors

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

I agree that it's tough but I suppose I'd worry about the whole Ryanair style 'all coverage is good coverage'. I know to a certain extent sensationalism is needed to get coverage, but I worry that that particular comment is OTT and detracts from our professionalism....

I think our professionalism has absolutely no influence on the public and the media in terms of the issues at hand.

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

As someone in after hours said, what would we say to one of our students who said 'I'm going on hunger strike' because you gave us too much homework. It's too easy a target to ridicule

People throw that line in teachers' faces all that time for any union issue and protesting. If we are to accept that line then we have to accept the 'whataboutery' of the public vs. private sector.

It's like the interview following the 'hunger striker' on Pat Kenny. A teacher who worked in the area of special needs suffered from work related injuries (caused by the students (through no fault of their own)). She was simply making the point that she shouldn't be penalised in terms of the 4yr look back for illness when it's a work related risk. If it were prison officers or nurses making the same point no-one would dare to begrudge them a derogation of the rules (which they are entitled to!). But yet we get the 'Pat I work for myself and I dont get any sick pay, these teachers blah blah blah'.

I think the important thing is not to get sidestepped from the substantive issue. There are straw-man arguments being set up left right and centre, but the substantive point must be argued over and the logic must be debated solely within that argument. Entertaining other stuff like 3months holidays/golden pensions/allowances/More Pay just ends up killing the point.

evolving_doors

Puibo wrote: »

Be grand. Can stop at ten for small lunch and one for big lunch!!

Case in point.

Position so weak that debate is impossible... so logical progression is to disrupt the debate.

byhookorbycrook

Heard her on PK too, she came across very well.

man_no_plan

Jamfa wrote: »

With the changes in the Travers proposals teachers won't be assessing any student work for state certification. The oral task this English teacher is threatening to go on hunger strike over is a 3 min presentation at the end of 2nd year which will be assessed by the teacher during class time and reported in the summer to parents. This is exactly what I imagine every English teacher currently does at the end of 2nd year. The result of this task will form part of a more comprehensive report at the end of 3rd year which will include the result of the state certified externally assessed exam.

I don't think that its right or proper to force kids to stand up in front of the class and present a piece of work for assessment.

In current oral and practical exams the student gets to make their best effort in private. I know that when I was doing the leaving I had no problem putting on my French accent in the oral exam but in class everything was bonnjure monssure in the flattest thickest Irish accent imaginable (much to the disappointment of my French teacher). Point is that the assessment has no value other than the experience (which does hold some value). When you're looking over your shoulder at literacy levels an targets and PISA etc you won't have much time for practice and preparation of the oral component.

THEN consider the meeting you have to have with the other teachers of second year, and the time it takes, to moderate the grades. And for the biggest laugh of all how in the name of god do you moderate an oral assessment unless you're all there or recording it?

So don't give me the it's only a matter of..... Nonsense, its unworkable from start to finish. Who will cover the classes of the English teachers to allow for moderation meetings? S\S? More free work by everyone. That's exactly what we need.

And while I think talking of hunger strike is extreme I agree that you need to get into antics to get attention sometimes. And like others have said when you get the airtime you use it.

mirrorwall14

Jamfa wrote: »

The oral presentation doesn't have to be in front of class but will take place during normal school time. Kids makes presentations/debates all the time in class from an early age. Their teacher can record it like they do for lcvp. There won't be moderation as such anymore but review meetings which can take place during the end of May exam period which is when end of term dept meetings currently take place in most schools.

Where are you getting all this detail from? I've read the travers proposals and it is nowhere near that specific

Jamfa

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

Where are you getting all this detail from? I've read the travers proposals and it is nowhere near that specific

The school-based spec was published a year ago & the recent meeting in the dept where the Minister outlined the new arrangements contains details about the review meetings. The JCT website also has lots of updated info. Of course the Union directive instructs teachers to not go near any of this info which seems counter productive to debating the issue.

man_no_plan

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

Where are you getting all this detail from? I've read the travers proposals and it is nowhere near that specific

Yes. And even if people normally have department meetings in May they're not drinking tea and eating cake. There's work to be done. I. My school the splits for the following year are looked at in may so that the secretary can work on it over the summer.

The point is that there is now extra work that needs to be done at some stage and the time needs to cone from somewhere. So.. Either something else doesn't get done, the moderation doesn't get done or time cones from somewhere to do it.

Its as simple as that

Also if it hasn't to be done in front of the class, as you assert jamfa, where will the cover cone from for the English teacher to do the assessment? Bearing in mind that down the line you'll be looking at ten subjects. Ten subjects ten assessments, that's a lot of time.

man_no_plan

Jamfa wrote: »

But it's hardly that much extra give the threat of a hunger strike. Guidance counsellors ex quota positions were completely cut which had a huge impact of their work and conditions and the unions did precious little.

I didn't advocate hunger strike if you read my post.

The guidance cut was dreadful no doubt but id prefer not to mix arguments here. You maintain that assessment of the oral English is no big deal. I Maintain it is.

This is coming no doubt. My argument is only that resources should be put in place first to allow for fair assessment of students.

man_no_plan

Jamfa wrote: »

What kind of resources?

Ah come on now Jamfa. Don't be playing games.

I was thinking a couple of boxes of crayons and a ream of a4.

bjork

man_no_plan wrote: »

......When you're looking over your shoulder at literacy levels an targets and PISA etc you won't have much time for practice and preparation of the oral component.
.....

Would literacy be incorporated in to the whole act of preparing the presentation?

I don't really understand this. Why wouldn't you have time for to practice the oral component? Through out the year if oral assessment is used on individual topics either whole class presentations/groups whatever assessment for learning activities the teacher wants to use to train the students in researching and presenting topics, the final assessment should be a demonstration of their skills learned. The student should be confident in speaking in front of their peers at that stage if it's being practiced regularly.

The idea is not that the teacher spends the 6 weeks before the oral exam getting every student to learn by rote a speech.

evolving_doors

bjork wrote: »

Would literacy be incorporated in to the whole act of preparing the presentation?

I don't really understand this. Why wouldn't you have time for to practice the oral component? Through out the year if oral assessment is used on individual topics either whole class presentations/groups whatever assessment for learning activities the teacher wants to use to train the students in researching and presenting topics, the final assessment should be a demonstration of their skills learned. The student should be confident in speaking in front of their peers at that stage if it's being practiced regularly.

The idea is not that the teacher spends the 6 weeks before the oral exam getting every student to learn by rote a speech.

You really don't understand teenagers if you think that (especially 2nd years!). I know of classes I thought in the past where asking someone to read out loud was a sign that you were pointing them out for ridicule amongst their enemies.

Not everyone aspires to be on Ted talks.

Mardy Bum

Jamfa wrote: »

If you read the English syllabus it is clear that there are 3 strands: Oral, reading, writing. Over the course of the junior cycle teachers should be focusing on the 13 learning outcomes for each strand. A core part of the current junior cert English syllabus was oral communication but because it wasn't assessed at the end of 3rd year most teachers neglected it.

Most teachers neglected oral communication? Are you serious? There are very few classrooms in the country (especially English rooms) where there is absolute silence.

bjork

Gebgbegb wrote: »

You really don't understand teenagers if you think that. I know of classes I thought in the past where asking someone to read out loud was a sign that you were singling them out for ridicule amongst their enemies.

Not everyone aspires to be on Ted talks.

And yet when they enter college and work they are expect to just be able to stand up and talk in front of people.


Maybe the one's your asking were not good readers? Is reading aloud in front of a group an important skill>> Well yes if you want to be a priest. I give presentations and am involved in debates. I don't read verbatim from a book.

Oral is central to language. Everybody may not aspire to on Ted talks, but being able to articulately speak in front of a group and express you opinion is a vital skill for students to learn.

If you chatted to them informally about the topic and gauged their knowledge, how would this be conveyed to an external examiner?>> I'm presuming many will have the same stage fright with an external examiner?

rainbowtrout

Gebgbegb wrote: »

You really don't understand teenagers if you think that (especially 2nd years!). I know of classes I thought in the past where asking someone to read out loud was a sign that you were pointing them out for ridicule amongst their enemies.

Not everyone aspires to be on Ted talks.

Very true. An oral presentation is part of the Communications module which is a compulsory module in all PLC courses. Every single year we have students who try to get out of it. It's worth 10% of their grade and some are willing to forego the marks instead of getting up and doing a presentation, even if it involves them mumbling their way through it, or reading off a sheet/ powerpoint without looking at the group. A lot of persuasion is needed to get these students to do it, and they are on average 17-19.

That doesn't mean I don't think it shouldn't be part of JC English. It is a good skill to have, but not as simple for students as some posters are making out.

bjork

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Very true. An oral presentation is part of the Communications module which is a compulsory module in all PLC courses. Every single year we have students who try to get out of it. It's worth 10% of their grade and some are willing to forego the marks instead of getting up and doing a presentation, even if it involves them mumbling their way through it, or reading off a sheet/ powerpoint without looking at the group. A lot of persuasion is needed to get these students to do it, and they are on average 17-19.

That doesn't mean I don't think it shouldn't be part of JC English. It is a good skill to have, but not as simple for students as some posters are making out.

So because students find it difficult we don't test it?

Would it not be better to find out why they find it so difficult and remedy it?

Mardy Bum

Jamfa wrote: »

Well then they shouldn't have any problem preparing their students and assessing their presentations.

Jamfa you are missing the point completely. The government has foisted worse and worse conditions on teachers over the last four years through different budgets and "Agreements". So much so that it is a two tier profession. There is the guts of a 25% difference in starting salaries because teachers put up and shut up.

Now this initial reform which Quinn shoved through and O Sullivan followed up on and changed slightly is a stepping stone for the same acts which have worsened conditions. If teachers let up on this this will eventually morph into Quinn's proposals in a few years. Just like pay and conditions have been eroded steadily since 2011.

rainbowtrout

bjork wrote: »

So because students find it difficult we don't test it?

Would it not be better to find out why they find it so difficult and remedy it?

No, it's very clear from my post that that is not what I said. But it needs to be wholly incorporated into the teaching of English. Is there enough time with what is already on the syllabus for this to happen?

bjork

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Jamfa you are missing the point completely. The government has foisted worse and worse conditions on teachers over the last four years through different budgets and "Agreements". So much so that it is a two tier profession. There is the guts of a 25% difference in starting salaries because teachers put up and shut up.

Now this initial reform which Quinn shoved through and O Sullivan followed up on and changed slightly is a stepping stone for the same acts which have worsened conditions. If teachers let up on this this will eventually morph into Quinn's proposals in a few years. Just like pay and conditions have been eroded steadily since 2011.

So it's about getting one over on the government, not about what's best for learning

I hear ya!

Mardy Bum

bjork wrote: »

So it's about getting one over on the government, not about what's best for learning

I hear ya!

You are not the best at following an argument. The ultimate goal is to get Quinn's proposals true which were absolute madness. They were penny saving initiatives disguised as reforms. It is about stopping that from happening.

bjork

rainbowtrout wrote: »

No, it's very clear from my post that that is not what I said. But it needs to be wholly incorporated into the teaching of English. Is there enough time with what is already on the syllabus for this to happen?

Enough time? Well if it's time that's a issue, we could find more of that somewhere How much time do you think this will add?


Is it something that will need to be done separate to the syllabus? Will it not be incorporated in to lessons to perhaps assess aspects of the current syllabus? Another tool for the classroom.




You're going to tell me teachers already do this> Of course they do


That's why I'm failing to see the issue

bjork

Mardy Bum wrote: »

You are not the best at following an argument. The ultimate goal is to get Quinn's proposals true which were absolute madness. They were penny saving initiatives disguised as reforms. It is about stopping that from happening.

Will stopping the junior cert reforms solve the 2-tier system?

Mardy Bum

bjork wrote: »

Will stopping the junior cert reforms solve the 2-tier system?

No one is stopping JC reform only the Minister as she refuses to budge on the assessment. The unions are fine with everything bar teachers assessing their own students. However the two tier system exists because teachers allowed the government to extract more and more from the system over the space of four years. They will do the same with regard to the assessment as well.

rainbowtrout

bjork wrote: »

Enough time? Well if it's time that's a issue, we could find more of that somewhere How much time do you think this will add?


Is it something that will need to be done separate to the syllabus? Will it not be incorporated in to lessons to perhaps assess aspects of the current syllabus? Another tool for the classroom.




You're going to tell me teachers already do this> Of course they do


That's why I'm failing to see the issue

I have no idea, English is not my subject. An English teacher would be better placed to answer your questions.

But to give you an idea of my concerns. The current JC Science syllabus has a recommended class contact time of 240-270 hours over 3 years.

The new syllabus has included an astronomy section. Important concepts in physics, chemistry and biology have been left out. Suggested coursework includes putting together powerpoint presentations on chemical elements which anyone with access to the internet can do without any understanding of what they are doing, and also a career investigation. No scientific knowledge needed there either.

Aside from how crap the new proposed syllabus is the proposed time allocation for it is 200 hours.

So much for the government promoting and investing in STEM subjects.

bjork

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I have no idea, English is not my subject. An English teacher would be better placed to answer your questions.

But to give you an idea of my concerns. The current JC Science syllabus has a recommended class contact time of 240-270 hours over 3 years.

The new syllabus has included an astronomy section. Important concepts in physics, chemistry and biology have been left out. Suggested coursework includes putting together powerpoint presentations on chemical elements which anyone with access to the internet can do without any understanding of what they are doing, and also a career investigation. No scientific knowledge needed there either.

Aside from how crap the new proposed syllabus is the proposed time allocation for it is 200 hours.

So much for the government promoting and investing in STEM subjects.

So it's the syllabus, not the method of assessment you have an issue with, or is it both? Because these a 2 very different things


http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Education-Reports/Junior-Cycle-Reform-A-Way-Forward-2-Travers-Report.pdf
I'm just reading the travers report.

Scientific experiments will be counted towards assessment. Is this not what you do anyway in science class?

rainbowtrout

bjork wrote: »

So it's the syllabus, not the method of assessment you have an issue with, or is it both?

In my case both.

Maybe you're completely missing the point here, or deliberately being obtuse. Teachers don't have a problem with a continuous assessment component being included in their subject areas. In most subjects there is already a project making up some percentage of the final grade. Teachers do not want to grade these components.

I've highlighted this particular example on this forum in recent times, but here we go again.

Leaving Cert LVCP: 40% portfolio of work, 60% written exam. Exact same breakdown of marks as proposed JC assessment. Portfolio of work consists of 6 items out of a possible list of 8. Four of those items are compulsory and students have a choice of two out of four optional items. Most are written/typed and involve some bit of research etc. One of the optional items is a recorded interview, where the student is interviewed.

All of the portfolio work is completed under the supervision of the teacher. however, all of the portfolios including the DVDs with the recorded interviews are sent away for marking with the written exams.

If it works for LCVP, why can't new JC be implemented in the same way?

Current JC science syllabus involves coursework set by department, completed in class, but coursework book is sent away for correction with written exams.

This system works, and students can be assured that their work is corrected anonymously, and to the same standards and marking schemes as other students nationally.

For teachers to start assessing at local level, standards are removed, are inconsistent... and the government saves buckets of money.

To go back to your original question - I don't want to correct my own students work, and I think the science syllabus is so woeful it doesn't deserve to be called science. A fact highlighted by the choice of 'materials studies' as the new name for chemistry. Clearly not enough chemistry in it to justify retaining the name.

If the new science syllabus is pushed through, I won't be teaching the concepts of sound and light in physics, or that we have kidneys or a skeleton in biology, but my students will be a dab hand at making text slide in line by line in power point and knowing that it would be handy to know the human systems to become a doctor for their career investigation. Shame that I won't be teaching them all of those human systems because it's not on the course.

TheDriver

Science experiments already count towards the current course, everyone (that has any form of half hearted journal kinda written) will get the 10%

bjork

rainbowtrout wrote: »

In my case both.

Maybe you're completely missing the point here, or deliberately being obtuse. Teachers don't have a problem with a continuous assessment component being included in their subject areas. In most subjects there is already a project making up some percentage of the final grade. Teachers do not want to grade these components.

I've highlighted this particular example on this forum in recent times, but here we go again.

Leaving Cert LVCP: 40% portfolio of work, 60% written exam. Exact same breakdown of marks as proposed JC assessment. Portfolio of work consists of 6 items out of a possible list of 8. Four of those items are compulsory and students have a choice of two out of four optional items. Most are written/typed and involve some bit of research etc. One of the optional items is a recorded interview, where the student is interviewed.

All of the portfolio work is completed under the supervision of the teacher. however, all of the portfolios including the DVDs with the recorded interviews are sent away for marking with the written exams.

If it works for LCVP, why can't new JC be implemented in the same way?

Current JC science syllabus involves coursework set by department, completed in class, but coursework book is sent away for correction with written exams.

This system works, and students can be assured that their work is corrected anonymously, and to the same standards and marking schemes as other students nationally.

For teachers to start assessing at local level, standards are removed, are inconsistent... and the government saves buckets of money.

To go back to your original question - I don't want to correct my own students work, and I think the science syllabus is so woeful it doesn't deserve to be called science. A fact highlighted by the choice of 'materials studies' as the new name for chemistry. Clearly not enough chemistry in it to justify retaining the name.

If the new science syllabus is pushed through, I won't be teaching the concepts of sound and light in physics, or that we have kidneys or a skeleton in biology, but my students will be a dab hand at making text slide in line by line in power point and knowing that it would be handy to know the human systems to become a doctor for their career investigation. Shame that I won't be teaching them all of those human systems because it's not on the course.

Can you link this please where all these will be cut?
\

Here's the draft syllabus and what you are saying is false

http://juniorcycle.ie/NCCA_JuniorCycle/media/NCCA/Curriculum/Science/JC-ScienceSpec_ForConsultation.pdf

rainbowtrout

Nope.

Maybe you're having difficulty reading the syllabus

Elements Strand four: Physical world
Learning outcomes
Students should be able to

1. select and use appropriate measuring instruments*
2. identify and measure/calculate length, mass, time, temperature, area,
volume, density, speed, acceleration, force, potential difference, current,
resistance, electrical power*

3. investigate patterns and relationships between physical observables *
4. research and discuss a technological application of physics in terms of
scientific, societal and environmental impact *
5. design and build simple electronic circuits
Energy 6. explain energy conservation and analyse natural processes in terms of
energy changes and dissipation *
7. design, build, and test a device that transforms energy from one form to
another in order to perform a function; describe the energy changes
and ways of improving efficiency
Sustainability 8. research and discuss the ethical and sustainability issues that arise
from our generation and consumption of electricity

Please highlight in the above learning objectives for physics where light and sound are mentioned please. Because I don't see it.

Strand five: Biological world
Learning outcomes
Students should be able to

1. investigate the structures of animal and plant cells and relate them to
their functions
2. describe asexual and sexual reproduction; explore patterns in the
inheritance and variation of genetically controlled characteristics
3. outline evolution by natural selection and how it explains the diversity of
living things

4. describe the structure, function, and interactions of the organs of the
human digestive, circulatory, and respiratory systems
5. conduct a habitat study; research and investigate the adaptation,
competition and interdependence of organisms within specific habitats
and communities
6. evaluate how human health is affected by: inherited factors and
environmental factors including nutrition; lifestyle choices; examine the
role of micro-organisms in human health
7. describe respiration and photosynthesis as both chemical and
biological processes; investigate factors that affect respiration and
photosynthesis*
8. explain human sexual reproduction; discuss medical, ethical, and
societal issues
9. evaluate how humans can successfully conserve ecological biodiversity
and contribute to global food production; appreciate the benefits that
people obtain from ecosystems.

Also please highlight where the skeletal and urinary system are mentioned in the above objectives for biology, because I also can't see them. For your convenience I have highlighted the systems that are on the syllabus. Also notice that the senses are not mentioned either.

km79

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Nope.

Maybe you're having difficulty reading the syllabus





Please highlight in the above learning objectives for physics where light and sound are mentioned please. Because I don't see it.





Also please highlight where the skeletal and urinary system are mentioned in the above objectives for biology, because I also can't see them. For your convenience I have highlighted the systems that are on the syllabus. Also notice that the senses are not mentioned either.

rainbow trout
I am also a science teacher and am also APPALLED that science students after 3 years will not be able to name the bones in the body, know the functions of the kidneys , parts of the eye etc
But sure who are we to talk.
Posters in the AFTER HOURS forum are clearly bettered informed than teachers in the teachers and lecturers forum .
What was this thread titled again............another thread derailed by an AH expert. .

bjork

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Nope.

Maybe you're having difficulty reading the syllabus





Please highlight in the above learning objectives for physics where light and sound are mentioned please. Because I don't see it.





Also please highlight where the skeletal and urinary system are mentioned in the above objectives for biology, because I also can't see them. For your convenience I have highlighted the systems that are on the syllabus. Also notice that the senses are not mentioned either.

Light and sound were forms of energy last I checked;)


design, build, and test a device that transforms energy from one form to
another in order to perform a function; describe the energy changes
and ways of improving efficiency





Skeletal and urinary - evaluate how human health is affected by: inherited factors and
environmental factors including nutrition; lifestyle choices; examine the
role of micro-organisms in human health



^^Nutrition is important to keep bones and muscles healthy, lets find out what bones and muscles we are trying to keep healthy and how we can do that


and you're calling me obtuse :rolleyes:


So that leaves>> You just don't want to

r93kaey5p2izun

It may be possible to squeeze in missing topics by shoe-horning them in under vague learning outcomes. But the fact is the allocation has been cut between 17 and 25% and new material added. Something's got to give.

The new science syllabus is beyond shocking and the suggested assessments are pathetic.

rainbowtrout

bjork wrote: »

Light and sound were forms of energy last I checked;)


design, build, and test a device that transforms energy from one form to
another in order to perform a function; describe the energy changes
and ways of improving efficiency





Skeletal and urinary - evaluate how human health is affected by: inherited factors and
environmental factors including nutrition; lifestyle choices; examine the
role of micro-organisms in human health



^^Nutrition is important to keep bones and muscles healthy, lets find out what bones and muscles we are trying to keep healthy and how we can do that


and you're calling me obtuse :rolleyes:


So that leaves>> You just don't want to

Mentioning that light and sound are forms of energy, but neglecting to deal with them in any meaningful way is daft. Light as a form of energy does not deal with the concepts of dispersion, diffraction, refraction.

Nor does sound as a form of energy deal with sound travelling in waves, concept of echoes, decibels, etc etc.

Given that there are 40 less hours allocated to the syllabus and an extra section on astronomy, something indeed has to give and there will not be extra time to teach topics that are not on the syllabus.

Energy transformations are already on the current junior cert syllabus. A common energy conversion is hooking up a small solar panel to a multimeter, or create a basic circuit with a light or buzzer in it to a battery.

None of these teach anything about the properties of sound and light.

If the skeleton was to be included in this new syllabus, the skeletal system would be listed with the other systems that are listed. A lesson on nutrition is not going to teach the functions of the skeleton.

bjork

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Mentioning that light and sound are forms of energy, but neglecting to deal with them in any meaningful way is daft. Light as a form of energy does not deal with the concepts of dispersion, diffraction, refraction.

Nor does sound as a form of energy deal with sound travelling in waves, concept of echoes, decibels, etc etc.

Given that there are 40 less hours allocated to the syllabus and an extra section on astronomy, something indeed has to give and there will not be extra time to teach topics that are not on the syllabus.

Energy transformations are already on the current junior cert syllabus. A common energy conversion is hooking up a small solar panel to a multimeter, or create a basic circuit with a light or buzzer in it to a battery.

None of these teach anything about the properties of sound and light.

If the skeleton was to be included in this new syllabus, the skeletal system would be listed with the other systems that are listed. A lesson on nutrition is not going to teach the functions of the skeleton.

Does the section on astronomy replace concepts removed from other sections?

Yes it does> Lenses > the eye>Telescopes
Light and sound> Yes is does. How long does the suns light take to reach the earth. does sound travel in space


So the hours teaching astronomy is spent teaching these concepts you believe have been cut. There may need to be a shift in the amount of time as the material is now being presented differently.

How can you teach about solar energy without teaching how light behaves? It's the first building block. You can't just jump in at NASA level.



You could also do some cross curricular here with nutrition for the astronauts

bjork

Jamfa wrote: »

The science syllabus is still in draft format so might the final one be different? The introduction has been postponed until 2016 and the union directives have prevented any in service. Actually the union directives have meant that teachers shouldn't even be engaging with the draft syllabus. Looking at the draft learning outcomes without any in service or engagement with the NCCA can only lead to confusion as has been the case for English teachers.

Yes, it may be a bit confusing at first and maybe they need to be guided through it.

In the sample exam, the kidneys are there in the diagram


Better start attending those in-service days and drawing on professional knowledge!

km79

bjork wrote: »

Yes, it may be a bit confusing at first and maybe they need to be guided through it.

In the sample exam, the kidneys are there in the diagram


Better start attending those in-service days and drawing on professional knowledge!

the WORD kidneys is there in the diagram but whatever you know best.
Sure you know best having taken the time and expense to get the qualifications and teaching experience etc etc
Sure what would I know ......I've only been teaching the course for over a decade!
Let me spell it out for you ....
Its bad for teachers
Its bad for students
Its good for the government coffers

bjork

km79 wrote: »

the WORD kidneys is there in the diagram but whatever you know best.
Sure you know best having taken the time and expense to get the qualifications and teaching experience etc etc
Sure what would I know ......I've only been teaching the course for over a decade!
Let me spell it out for you ....
Its bad for teachers
Its bad for students
Its good for the government coffers

Yes, you're not the only teacher in the world

Which is it you refer to; the syllabus or the in school certification? or is everything bad? and if so why?


How is removing the kidneys and the eye good for government coffers? When the other complaint is that more material is added ?

spurious

Some extraordinary nit picking and nonsense going on here.
Let's stick to the topic of the thread.

If people want to channel their inner Mystic Meg and see things in the syllabus that are not there, fair play to them.

amacca

spurious wrote: »

Some extraordinary nit picking and nonsense going on here.
Let's stick to the topic of the thread.

If people want to channel their inner Mystic Meg and see things in the syllabus that are not there, fair play to them.

Agreed, they are really clutching at straws. It was amusing to read their posts, like watching people in quicksand thrashing around desperately when the best course of action would be to remain calm and hope that someone with a long sturdy rope comes to rescue them.

Its fairly clear that these "reforms" are at best hastily cobbled together and probably for reasons other than educational outcomes imo.