new jc reforms

janes1234

We all striked so much last year. Is this the end of the fight? Will we all just accept the new reforms?

evolving_doors

janes1234 wrote: »

We all striked so much last year. Is this the end of the fight? Will we all just accept the new reforms?

I assume that the majority of teachers have been suitably worn down now and thus predict an acceptance of whatever happens to be rehashed and thrown on the table.

acequion

I disagree. How hard is it to vote no? if teachers are so stupid as to vote for this or not vote at all then they deserve everything they get!

seavill

janes1234 wrote: »

We all striked so much last year. Is this the end of the fight? Will we all just accept the new reforms?

So much? One lunch and what one day or was it two? Hardly martyrs for the cause just yet :P

Icsics

For sure a sense of inevitability has set in, but there is no way I am voting to up my workload after all the cuts in pay & condition we've had

evolving_doors

Icsics wrote: »

For sure a sense of inevitability has set in, but there is no way I am voting to up my workload after all the cuts in pay & condition we've had

Same as CP/HR debacle, keep em voting till they say yes. I know a few teachers that don't give a damn what's on the table. 2nd Yr has started and they just want certainty so they can figure out what they're supposed to teach and 'get on with it'.

acequion

Icsics wrote: »

For sure a sense of inevitability has set in, but there is no way I am voting to up my workload after all the cuts in pay & condition we've had

That's exactly how I feel. How in the name of god could teachers forget the savaging of pay and conditions and now vote this in?? No other sector of the public sectors has had to endure so much!

Maybe I'm being naive but I really am hoping that a majority feel the same and will vote no. But I'm not holding my breath!

evolving_doors

acequion wrote: »

That's exactly how I feel. How in the name of god could teachers forget the savaging of pay and conditions and now vote this in?? No other sector of the public sectors has had to endure so much!

Maybe I'm being naive but I really am hoping that a majority feel the same and will vote no. But I'm not holding my breath!

Turkeys and Christmas come to mind.

On the one hand we're supposed to be differentiating our teaching/assessment methods as we go through the course.... now we'll all 'have to' adopt these methods and fit our classes into it... just to tick a box.

Don't get me wrong though, Ive done presentations with classes before (small classes only!), but on my own terms and using my own professional sensibilities as to where it fitted in. But that's my style, other teachers have their own methods and rationale. Imposing a teaching method on every teacher isn't healthy.

I suppose people will claim that it puts a stop to 'teaching towards the exam' and giving students more skills, but in a lot of cases I can see teachers teaching towards this assessment just because they have to. I think we all remember from our 'HDip' the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation.

acequion

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Imposing a teaching method on every teacher isn't healthy.

100% agree.Ironically this whole thing is supposed to be about getting away from a narrow focus,yet it is actually much narrower with its prescribed course [in English] and its SBA's at set times,with all subject teachers having to confer etc. Bureaucratic and standardised: IN. Freedom and creativity:OUT.

And guess what,everyone will still be focused on THE EXAM. Even more so when the students will then go on to do a traditional LC.

It's a crock of syhte. The honourable thing would be for unions and minister to admit that they have really messed it up and go back to the drawing board.They may still be forced to do that if we all vote NO.

deiseindublin

TUI had a meeting in Dublin last week and were pretty much selling it as this fabulous package that wouldn't be offered again, we'd be crazy not to accept it listening to them.

Sorry, but I'm still a resounding NO, spin it how they will. As it stands we don't even have formats for most subjects etc, how can we vote Yes to the great unknown.

katydid

Gebgbegb wrote: »

I assume that the majority of teachers have been suitably worn down now and thus predict an acceptance of whatever happens to be rehashed and thrown on the table.

But you've got what you wanted. No state certification. We had an opportunity to do a wonderful thing, and you made it clear you wanted no part in it. Is this vote not just a ratification of that?

katydid

acequion wrote: »

And guess what,everyone will still be focused on THE EXAM. Even more so when the students will then go on to do a traditional LC..

And why is that? Because the second level teachers refused to agree to state certification for continuous assessment. It's your fault that all the focus is still on the end of cycle exam.

acequion

katydid wrote: »

And why is that? Because the second level teachers refused to agree to state certification for continuous assessment. It's your fault that all the focus is still on the end of cycle exam.

Must you hog this thread too katydid?? You are not teaching second level so this whole thing does not concern you. You've already told us numerous times how wonderful you think continuous assessment is. Fine.Some people agree with you,most don't seem to,in any case I don't think the op set up this thread for yet another series of tit for tat on issues which have already been debated to death.

Many of the second level teachers directly involved are seriously worried and it would be nice to have a thread where it could be discussed,where people could air their worries and where the yes side could also have their say and let debate ensue.

As it is there are very few posters even bothering to comment on this issue any more,which in itself is worrying.

So I will not be dragged into the same old arguments by the same people just for the sake of it.

katydid

acequion wrote: »

Must you hog this thread too katydid?? You are not teaching second level so this whole thing does not concern you. You've already told us numerous times how wonderful you think continuous assessment is. Fine.Some people agree with you,most don't seem to,in any case I don't think the op set up this thread for yet another series of tit for tat on issues which have already been debated to death.

Many of the second level teachers directly involved are seriously worried and it would be nice to have a thread where it could be discussed,where people could air their worries and where the yes side could also have their say and let debate ensue.

As it is there are very few posters even bothering to comment on this issue any more,which in itself is worrying.

So I will not be dragged into the same old arguments by the same people just for the sake of it.

For heaven's sake, this is an open forum, and different opinions are important. I am a teacher, the attitude of second level teachers in terms of professionalism affect ALL teachers, and I have every right to comment on something that affects our profession.

I'm sorry that you don't like being reminded that second level teachers have brought about this situation, but what point is there in blaming the messenger? There will be a vote on this issue - it is relevant and necessary to look at all aspects of it. The deal on the table is the one you negotiated, in refusing to consider marking your own students for state certification. The question is whether you now vote for it, or go back to the drawing board. It's still not too late to have a re-think, and stop undermining your profession.

duffyp

Instead of saying what you won't accept perhaps make some suggestions of what you will?

The terminal exam is remaining, there are 2 in house tests to do in 2nd and 3rd year, anyone who has done science has done the coursework which is already in place so it won't be that much different except for the moderation.

Yes this will be different, it won't be that much work extra if you currently assess your students regularly and it takes a bit of pressure off the student to just perform on one day in June. I'll be voting yes.

evolving_doors

I think we're now at the stage of the 'middle ground' / 'false compromise' fallacy being put forth.

A 100 ft canyon lies in front of John and Mary. John wants to build a 100 ft bridge to cross the canyon, but Mary doesn't want to cross at all. A compromise between the two would be a 50 ft bridge, which should please both!

Back to the drawing board I say. If you want anything to succeed then talk to unions/teachers first, rather than ramming it through in whatever fashion necessary.

katydid wrote: »

I'm sorry that you don't like being reminded that second level teachers have brought about this situation.

This situation was well and truly brought about by RQ and RQ alone, not teachers.

katydid

Gebgbegb wrote: »

This situation was well and truly brought about by RQ and RQ alone, not teachers.

It wasn't RQ who questioned teachers' professionalism

evolving_doors

katydid wrote: »

It wasn't RQ who questioned teachers' professionalism

By which I assume you are promoting RQ's question to the TUI

"“It begs the question: does your union have less faith in the professional capacity of you as teachers, than I do”...

which of course he had enough sense not to read out at the ASTI conference for obvious reasons.

And here again we have the line being spun about being un-professional because we are afraid stand over our grades.

For me anyway it's just bad pedagogy... let the teachers use their own professional judgement of what methods work best. Same as the project maths inservices; teachers were shown different approaches and encouraged to consult each other as to what works best for the students AND teachers. The outcome in our school is that we are keen to find and try out new methodologies, we collaborate more than ever.

With this, it's just going to be a tick box exercise. Sure it'll work for some students and teachers, but the intrinsic motivation has greatly diminished.

katydid

Gebgbegb wrote: »

By which I assume you are promoting RQ's question to the TUI

"“It begs the question: does your union have less faith in the professional capacity of you as teachers, than I do”...

which of course he had enough sense not to read out at the ASTI conference for obvious reasons.

And here again we have the line being spun about being un-professional because we are afraid stand over our grades.

For me anyway it's just bad pedagogy... let the teachers use their own professional judgement of what methods work best. Same as the project maths inservices; teachers were shown different approaches and encouraged to consult each other as to what works best for the students AND teachers. The outcome in our school is that we are keen to find and try out new methodologies, we collaborate more than ever.

With this, it's just going to be a tick box exercise. Sure it'll work for some students and teachers, but the intrinsic motivation has greatly diminished.

So I'm a bad teacher because I am comfortable marking my own students, and do not give in to pressure...

It's not about using their professional judgement about which method works the best; the method of assessment is not the issue, according to many teachers, but the very concept of assessing one's own students for state certification.

There certainly are questions to be answered about assessment methodology, and it's important that teachers feel comfortable with methods that are unambiguous and clear. But that is not what was argued. What was argued was that teachers did not feel they would be able to withstand pressure from parents, management etc.

evolving_doors

katydid wrote: »

So I'm a bad teacher because I am comfortable marking my own students, and do not give in to pressure...

No, not at all. We've all marked our own students at some stage.

Bad pedagogy is in relation to imposing a certain teaching/learning method on ALL teachers and students. If you think the model as handed down by the dept works for you, then great, you could be doing that yourself anyway, no?

katydid wrote: »

It's not about using their professional judgement about which method works the best;.

I think that teaching is about this, you gauge your own class, their needs and what methods you use (that you have a rationale for) to respond to this.
No method works best, we all know the classes where we have taught 2 similar years the same thing in the same way with totally different outcomes.

katydid wrote: »

the method of assessment is not the issue, according to many teachers, but the very concept of assessing one's own students for state certification.

Well there is that state certification thing (which I'd be opposed to, and i think most teachers). The same 'method of assessment' across all teaching is something I would disagree with.. but don't forget that I might adopt it myself at some stage (and have done) to suit MY own teaching.

katydid wrote: »

There certainly are questions to be answered about assessment methodology, and it's important that teachers feel comfortable with methods that are unambiguous and clear.

Sure, as I said, just like the project maths, methods of teaching and assessing were presented to teachers and they could take them/leave them or modify them if they liked. Remember, there is no such thing as 'best practice', any 'expert' who proclaims that method x,y or z practice is 'the best' is a fool. The teaching and learning takes place in the interaction between teacher and pupil, each interaction is organic and unique and not prescriptive.

katydid wrote: »

But that is not what was argued. What was argued was that teachers did not feel they would be able to withstand pressure from parents, management etc.

Yes some teachers did feel that, and why wouldn't some teachers feel that when they are being strung along on low hours contracts...

so why would any teacher be feeling pressure to change results?... (as has been witnessed in the UK.)

Can you say that individual school results will not be published? (FG say they want this)
Can you say that grades will not be linked to performance reviews (The DES Inspectorate want this).
Can you say that this extra 'thing' won't add any extra workload on to teachers?

Looking at the JC reform as just being a few minor changes in assessment is blinkered. There is a seachange going on in Irish education, you have to look at the bigger picture.

Have a look at the CH4 Dispatches documentary (June 15th): Available HERE

* 500 primary schools were investigated by the Department for Education in 2013, with 37 primary schools having their marks annulled for “maladministration”.

*Case study: a leaked internal email sent by the Department for Education to King’s Farm primary school in Kent reveals serious failings in the way the tests were conducted. A whistleblower spoke to Dispatches about how the school “helped” pupils in a SATs exam – including allowing a child to re-write answers after the exam had finished

*A survey suggests that one in ten secondary schools include GCSE resits in their own overall figures. This is despite the Department for Education banning the practice in its own official statistics.

*Detail of how some secondary schools may boost their headline exam results by signing off poor performing students from the school register. A parent of one of the pupils interviewed in the programme said it meant her daughter had not got the grades she deserved

Is it so far fetched to say it can't or wont happen here?

katydid

Gebgbegb wrote: »

No, not at all. We've all marked our own students at some stage.

Bad pedagogy is in relation to imposing a certain teaching/learning method on ALL teachers and students. If you think the model as handed down by the dept works for you, then great, you could be doing that yourself anyway, no?


I think that teaching is about this, you gauge your own class, their needs and what methods you use (that you have a rationale for) to respond to this.
No method works best, we all know the classes where we have taught 2 similar years the same thing in the same way with totally different outcomes.


Well there is that state certification thing (which I'd be opposed to, and i think most teachers). The same 'method of assessment' across all teaching is something I would disagree with.. but don't forget that I might adopt it myself at some stage (and have done) to suit MY own teaching.



Sure, as I said, just like the project maths, methods of teaching and assessing were presented to teachers and they could take them/leave them or modify them if they liked. Remember, there is no such thing as 'best practice', any 'expert' who proclaims that method x,y or z practice is 'the best' is a fool. The teaching and learning takes place in the interaction between teacher and pupil, each interaction is organic and unique and not prescriptive.

Yes some teachers did feel that, and why wouldn't some teachers feel that when they are being strung along on low hours contracts...

so why would any teacher be feeling pressure to change results?... (as has been witnessed in the UK.)

Can you say that individual school results will not be published? (FG say they want this)
Can you say that grades will not be linked to performance reviews (The DES Inspectorate want this).
Can you say that this extra 'thing' won't add any extra workload on to teachers?

Looking at the JC reform as just being a few minor changes in assessment is blinkered. There is a seachange going on in Irish education, you have to look at the bigger picture.

Have a look at the CH4 Dispatches documentary (June 15th): Available HERE

* 500 primary schools were investigated by the Department for Education in 2013, with 37 primary schools having their marks annulled for “maladministration”.

*Case study: a leaked internal email sent by the Department for Education to King’s Farm primary school in Kent reveals serious failings in the way the tests were conducted. A whistleblower spoke to Dispatches about how the school “helped” pupils in a SATs exam – including allowing a child to re-write answers after the exam had finished

*A survey suggests that one in ten secondary schools include GCSE resits in their own overall figures. This is despite the Department for Education banning the practice in its own official statistics.

*Detail of how some secondary schools may boost their headline exam results by signing off poor performing students from the school register. A parent of one of the pupils interviewed in the programme said it meant her daughter had not got the grades she deserved

Is it so far fetched to say it can't or wont happen here?

I mark my students for state certification. I am a professional, and not afraid to stand up to anyone, student, parent or principal, who might put pressure on me, because I carry out my assessments transparently and objectively.

My teaching methods are not imposed on me by anyone. I devise my teaching method, I devise my assessment, in line with the guidelines supplied, and I carry it out.

Certainly, proscribed methodologies are to be opposed, and indeed, there is extra work, but these were not what was being opposed by the second level teachers. What was opposed what the very concept of assessing for state certification, in any form, on the basis of supposed inability to be objective and to resist pressure from parents.

The examples from the UK are irrelevant and scare mongering. The system in the UK is entirely different, in that funding for schools is in part results based, so it suits them to massage figures. Also, the methodologies of assessment are not tight and objective, and definitely open to abuse. This does not have to be the case, and is not the case where such assessment is done in this country. All is needed for a proper assessment system is a well structured and supported system with internal and external verification, and an expectation of transparency in all documentation and assessment. It's not rocket science.

ccazza

duffyp wrote: »

Instead of saying what you won't accept perhaps make some suggestions of what you will?

The terminal exam is remaining, there are 2 in house tests to do in 2nd and 3rd year, anyone who has done science has done the coursework which is already in place so it won't be that much different except for the moderation.

Yes this will be different, it won't be that much work extra if you currently assess your students regularly and it takes a bit of pressure off the student to just perform on one day in June. I'll be voting yes.

The terminal exam is remaining but in the majority of subjects it is a 2 hour Common level paper. I have a major problem with this as this has to mean the papers will be made easier as they are common level. I just feel this is more dumbing down of subjects. How will these students then cope with the current Leaving Certificate? There are still too many unanswered questions to accept this proposal.

evolving_doors

katydid wrote: »

I mark my students for state certification.

Is this in the established LC or JC system?
This is afterall what we are talking about. FE or 3rd Level is no-more akin to this than saying "I referee for under-12 football therefore teachers should trust their professional judgement".

katydid wrote: »

I am a professional, and not afraid to stand up to anyone, student, parent or principal, who might put pressure on me, because I carry out my assessments transparently and objectively.

Are you permanent?

katydid wrote: »

My teaching methods are not imposed on me by anyone. I devise my teaching method, I devise my assessment, in line with the guidelines supplied, and I carry it out.

Same here, but with this 'reform' we very much do not have control over the assessment.

katydid wrote: »

Certainly, proscribed methodologies are to be opposed, and indeed, there is extra work, but these were not what was being opposed by the second level teachers. What was opposed what the very concept of assessing for state certification, in any form, on the basis of supposed inability to be objective and to resist pressure from parents.

I think there was more to it than that alone. But anyway, that was always a central tenant of teaching/assessing in Ireland... independence and integrity within the system (hence why e-voting crumbled). Once there is a doubt or exploitation then it will all fall back on guess who???

katydid wrote: »

The examples from the UK are irrelevant and scare mongering. The system in the UK is entirely different, in that funding for schools is in part results based, so it suits them to massage figures. Also, the methodologies of assessment are not tight and objective, and definitely open to abuse. This does not have to be the case, and is not the case where such assessment is done in this country. All is needed for a proper assessment system is a well structured and supported system with internal and external verification, and an expectation of transparency in all documentation and assessment. It's not rocket science.

Maybe address these previous points to allay my fears:

Can you say that individual school results will not be published? (FG say they want this)
Can you say that grades will not be linked to performance reviews (The DES Inspectorate want this).
Can you say that this extra 'thing' won't add any extra workload on to teachers?

katydid

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Is this in the established LC or JC system?
This is afterall what we are talking about. FE or 3rd Level is no-more akin to this than saying "I referee for under-12 football therefore teachers should trust their professional judgement".



Are you permanent?



Same here, but with this 'reform' we very much do not have control over the assessment.



I think there was more to it than that alone. But anyway, that was always a central tenant of teaching/assessing in Ireland... independence and integrity within the system (hence why e-voting crumbled). Once there is a doubt or exploitation then it will all fall back on guess who???



Maybe address these previous points to allay my fears:

Can you say that individual school results will not be published? (FG say they want this)
Can you say that grades will not be linked to performance reviews (The DES Inspectorate want this).
Can you say that this extra 'thing' won't add any extra workload on to teachers?

In the FETAC/QQI system. It doesn't matter what level this assessment takes place at; the principle is the same. You do the assessment in a format that is transparent and objective, and you have no questions to answer to anyone. You simply show them the marking sheet and the evidence, and that is that. If they are not happy, there is an appeals procedure.
The only difference is that I am directly answerable to my students, once they are over 18.

Yes, I am permanent. But that's neither here nor there. If your marking scheme is watertight and objective, nobody can query it in anyway. You are the instrument; the marks are achieved by the student themselves. All teachers, be they part time or permanent, have their work cross-moderated, internally and externally verified.

I agree that some of the proposed reforms and assessment methods did not allow you the freedom I have - that, not the concept of assessment for state certification per se, is what you should be opposing.

Yes, the culture of independence and integrity on the basis of anonymity is a feature of the education system, but the fact that independence and integrity is not incompatible with continuous assessment by a teacher has been proven by the FE system. Sometimes a culture has to change, so we can move on. In this case, move from a system that favours certain types of learners over others.

The issues you ask about - publication of results etc. can happen anyway, CA or no CA.

acequion

Excellent insights above by Gebgbegb with which I wholeheartedly agree. A sea change is indeed under way in Irish education.

If it was just the two CBA's replacing summer tests and mocks and relieving some of the pressure on the kids,I'd have no problem. Whatever about the merits or demerits of CA, there has never been any opposition to introducing it among teachers.

The problem is that there is so much more to this "reform" than a few CBA's.

Firstly, I would be very wary of the Minister's desire for "greater professional collaboration among teachers". We already collaborate in our subject departments so why the need for more?

Even more ominous are these SLARs, up to eight hours of them over two years! On paper it's to ensure "consistency and fairness" in the marking. Fine but we mark all the time and have never had to do that before so why now?

And still more worrying is the bit where it says that one teacher in each subject department will be "allocated two additional hours" to coordinate these meetings. And it also says that this coordination work [absolutely no mention of payment or time in lieu] should be rotated to "foster capacity building" "Capacity" for what?

My answer to these questions is that we are being trained in to eventually take charge of all JC assessments,formative an summative just as Ruari Quinn proposed. Make no mistake,folks,that is the long term plan. Those of us who do the state exams marking cannot miss the striking similarity between what is proposed for these meetings and the marking conferences.

My second big problem relates to common papers. As well as Englsh,I teach languages. Now while I feel that the current JC programme in French is in urgent need of an overhaul,it must be the right overhaul. Irish people are shockingly deficient in foreign language skills so this new course could be a chance to finally teach languages properly. And for that you need levels,smaller classes and a big emphasis on oral. The only part of that trilogy proposed by the DES is the latter. And the latter is not possible in a large mixed group. And "differentiation" is just another fancy term for increased teacher work. But differentiation simply does not work in teaching a group to speak a new language.

And finally the reporting. Some new fangled thing.Fine we'd take that, but this new fangled thing will "actively involve them [the pupils] and their parents /guardians in reflection on and discussion of" their progress. Good luck with that!!

And for all that no reduction in the PTR!! No reduction in CP hours!! No reduction in forced S&S!! The slashing of sick leave,including pregnancy related sick leave to remain!!

Lunacy to vote anything other than NO.

History Queen

katydid wrote: »

In the FETAC/QQI system. It doesn't matter what level this assessment takes place at; the principle is the same. You do the assessment in a format that is transparent and objective, and you have no questions to answer to anyone. You simply show them the marking sheet and the evidence, and that is that. If they are not happy, there is an appeals procedure.
The only difference is that I am directly answerable to my students, once they are over 18.

Yes, I am permanent. But that's neither here nor there. If your marking scheme is watertight and objective, nobody can query it in anyway. You are the instrument; the marks are achieved by the student themselves. All teachers, be they part time or permanent, have their work cross-moderated, internally and externally verified.

I agree that some of the proposed reforms and assessment methods did not allow you the freedom I have - that, not the concept of assessment for state certification per se, is what you should be opposing.

Yes, the culture of independence and integrity on the basis of anonymity is a feature of the education system, but the fact that independence and integrity is not incompatible with continuous assessment by a teacher has been proven by the FE system. Sometimes a culture has to change, so we can move on. In this case, move from a system that favours certain types of learners over others.

The issues you ask about - publication of results etc. can happen anyway, CA or no CA.

Comparisons between second level and further education are not useful in relation to the new JC as it is like comparing apples and oranges... yes they are both fruit but entirely different in composition.

Being permanent is relevant as you cannot relate to the current practice of principals pressurising NQTs and non permanent members of staff through implied hints at their chances of more/less hours next year or indeed a position at all. While I appreciate there was always an element of this- the new neccessity of re-interviewing for a position after year one as per the ward report has added extra pressure.

I see your logic but feel it is too idealistic and does not apply in the staffrooms, classrooms and schools that I have experienced anyway.

And by the way I speak as someone who has taught fetac/QQI and second level.

katydid

History Queen wrote: »

Comparisons between second level and further education are not useful in relation to the new JC as it is like comparing apples and oranges... yes they are both fruit but entirely different in composition.

Being permanent is relevant as you cannot relate to the current practice of principals pressurising NQTs and non permanent members of staff through implied hints at their chances of more/less hours next year or indeed a position at all. While I appreciate there was always an element of this- the new neccessity of re-interviewing for a position after year one as per the ward report has added extra pressure.

I see your logic but feel it is too idealistic and does not apply in the staffrooms, classrooms and schools that I have experienced anyway.

And by the way I speak as someone who has taught fetac/QQI and second level.

Assessment is assessment - I too have taught at both levels. The students may be different, the styles of assessment may be different. But the principle of the teacher assessing in a manner that is objective and transparent is the same. Whether for state assessment or for the Friday vocab test.

If assessments are objective and transparent, nobody can pressure anyone to change anything. Unless you think management would be so brazen as to suggest to a part time teacher that they alter a clear and unambiguous mark?

There is nothing idealistic in what I'm saying. It's how I work. It's how my colleagues work, it's how second level colleagues work in other countries (the UK is not the only country that does this). It just requires professionalism and confidence on the part of the teacher, and proper verification systems on the part of the state.

MrJones1973

I think Jc will pass . I was wrong about HR so hopefully I will be wrong about this. To be fair to ASTI a lot was achieved but without at least two posts per school for this-it will be a ton of work. Dont fool yourselves. Took me three solid days to do a second year plan for English.

History Queen

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

I think Jc will pass . I was wrong about HR so hopefully I will be wrong about this. To be fair to ASTI a lot was achieved but without at least two posts per school for this-it will be a ton of work. Dont fool yourselves. Took me three solid days to do a second year plan for English.

I'm still at my 2nd year plan... I'm finding it really difficult. Just hard when there is so much unknown.

Also Katydid we are just going to have to agree to disagree I am afraid. Assessment is different depending on who -what and how you are assessing so I still contend that your outlook isn't realistic in the vast majority of cases though obviously it is working very well where you are.

I am working without security long enough to dread the ballot passing. I for one am voting NO and hope many more will join me

Jamfa

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

I think Jc will pass . I was wrong about HR so hopefully I will be wrong about this. To be fair to ASTI a lot was achieved but without at least two posts per school for this-it will be a ton of work. Dont fool yourselves. Took me three solid days to do a second year plan for English.

Would that not be expected with a new course, no inservice & a directive barring department planning? The 22 hours less teaching time & an assessment coordinator have been agreed & the fears of extra work will be a hard one to sell to the public when striking.

katydid

History Queen wrote: »

Also Katydid we are just going to have to agree to disagree I am afraid. Assessment is different depending on who -what and how you are assessing so I still contend that your outlook isn't realistic in the vast majority of cases though obviously it is working very well where you are.

It works very well in most places where it is used. Here in Ireland and abroad. I have seen the disaster in the UK and I have seen the way it works successfully in Germany.

I think it's a shame for Irish students, who deserve a better system than just a final exam, and it's a shame for the profession, that second level teachers have basically said they don't have the professionalism to do what hundreds of thousands of their colleagues do all the time.

deiseindublin

I teach lots of QQI katydid, it works alright but it's a hell of a lot of more work. I can't see it working in a second level setting or in our second level system. Attendance alone would be a huge issue for us. CA would do the kids harm. They rise to the challenge for 10 days in June but no way they'd be able for the pace of CA in lots of different subjects on lots of different days.

I'm really getting tired of you pulling out the 'teachers questioning their own professionalism' card. There's a lot more to it. We get your opinion on the matter, and have done for months.

gaiscioch

acequion wrote: »

... this new course could be a chance to finally teach languages properly. And for that you need levels,smaller classes and a big emphasis on oral. The only part of that trilogy proposed by the DES is the latter. And the latter is not possible in a large mixed group. And "differentiation" is just another fancy term for increased teacher work. But differentiation simply does not work in teaching a group to speak a new language.

....
And for all that no reduction in the PTR!! No reduction in CP hours!! No reduction in forced S&S!! The slashing of sick leave,including pregnancy related sick leave to remain!!

Lunacy to vote anything other than NO.

This is an exceptional post in its entirety. The highlighted parts are the sections which represent the reasons for my most determined "No!" to this proposal. If there is still a single teacher in this state who looks at these "reforms" in isolation, rather than as part of a clear trend to make Irish teachers as malleable and exploitable as English teachers are, the utter myopia of these Irish teachers makes them deserving of having the conditions of employment which English teachers have. Don't come back complaining when your quality of life as a teacher is so abysmal. Low paid, and low conditions. Just how many teachers signed up for both of those (as opposed to just low pay and good conditions) when they became teachers? An Irish teacher voting for this is making an assertion of abject idiocy. Turkeys. Christmas.

I miss Peter Flynt on this forum. At the time I thought he was a bit too cynical - or perhaps in hindsight I just didn't want to hear it. Now, I realise he was right. We, Irish teachers, have been duped. We have been shortsighted. This naive "ah the state is in trouble; we all need to take cuts" thinking in 2009 has morphed into something enormously different now. Now, it is clear that since 2009 the recession has merely been used as an excuse to change the culture of our profession by imposing a workload and the ersatz English culture of enormous bureaucracy upon Irish teachers. The spiritual and vocational aspect to teaching still exists but the weight of these cultural changes are unquestionably killing it, and in very many most of my colleagues it's a dead letter judging by how many have pulled away from volunteering their time to help students after school.

katydid

deiseindublin wrote: »

I teach lots of QQI katydid, it works alright but it's a hell of a lot of more work. I can't see it working in a second level setting or in our second level system. Attendance alone would be a huge issue for us. CA would do the kids harm. They rise to the challenge for 10 days in June but no way they'd be able for the pace of CA in lots of different subjects on lots of different days.

I'm really getting tired of you pulling out the 'teachers questioning their own professionalism' card. There's a lot more to it. We get your opinion on the matter, and have done for months.

Yes, it's a lot of work. That, and other issue, are what should have been argued. That's not what the basis of teachers' objections were. They were saying they didn't want to have to deal with pressure from parents, and felt they couldn't be objective. That is the bottom line, whether or not you like the fact or not.

There are many reasons to object to the JC changes as they are, but to object to the concept per se for those reasons is irresponsible and unprofessional.

Inspector Coptoor

katydid wrote: »

Yes, it's a lot of work. That, and other issue, are what should have been argued. That's not what the basis of teachers' objections were. They were saying they didn't want to have to deal with pressure from parents, and felt they couldn't be objective. That is the bottom line, whether or not you like the fact or not.

There are many reasons to object to the JC changes as they are, but to object to the concept per se for those reasons is irresponsible and unprofessional.

In your opinion.
As someone NOT teaching either JC or LC curricula.
Stop beating the same drum.
The tune is old and grating.

Vote No to the LRA.
Let the HRA run its course.
FEMPI is over.
Time to take the power back.

katydid

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

In your opinion.
As someone NOT teaching either JC or LC curricula.
Stop beating the same drum.
The tune is old and grating.

Vote No to the LRA.
Let the HRA run its course.
FEMPI is over.
Time to take the power back.

It is unprofessional to suggest that a teacher is unable to be objective and has a problem withstanding pressure from outside influences.

As someone who does this kind of assessment and sees that it works, I have every right to comment on the issues raised by the colleagues who are questioning the integrity and professionalism of my profession, and by extension, questioning my integrity and professionalism.

acequion

katydid wrote: »

It is unprofessional to suggest that a teacher is unable to be objective and has a problem withstanding pressure from outside influences.

As someone who does this kind of assessment and sees that it works, I have every right to comment on the issues raised by the colleagues who are questioning the integrity and professionalism of my profession, and by extension, questioning my integrity and professionalism.

Sorry katydid but you are becoming enormously annoying banging on and on about YOUR integrity and professionalism.Can you not see that nobody is agreeing with you so to quote one of our oft used expressions,"Get over yourself!!

Ok you're entitled to your opinions about what works and what doesn't work in your sector but for all your beating the same tune you haven't even told us what exactly you teach. Because I'd be very surprised if you ever taught JC and LC English! Transparency and objectivity are virtually impossible to prove when trying to explain to a student that his/her 7 page short story or debate speech didn't quite have that x factor to make B,or A or whatever the student and his mom and dad think it should have got. Show them the marking sheet and explain ad infinitum and they still say you marked too hard. Hence the protection of the anonymity of the state exam.

JC results came out yesterday and there were quite a few English students in my school who got B where we expected A,C where we expected B etc. Standards are high,too much so for 14-15 year olds in my opinion, and many were disappointed. But they accept that grade from an anonymous source and move on to try to do better at LC. They would never accept it from their own teachers. English is a subject where an experienced teacher/ examiner knows almost instinctively what standard a student has,but because you are evaluating something intangible, it is very difficult to justify the rationale of your mark,despite working to a "transparent", "objective" marking scheme.

katydid

acequion wrote: »

Sorry katydid but you are becoming enormously annoying banging on and on about YOUR integrity and professionalism.Can you not see that nobody is agreeing with you so to quote one of our oft used expressions,"Get over yourself!!

Ok you're entitled to your opinions about what works and what doesn't work in your sector but for all your beating the same tune you haven't even told us what exactly you teach. Because I'd be very surprised if you ever taught JC and LC English! Transparency and objectivity are virtually impossible to prove when trying to explain to a student that his/her 7 page short story or debate speech didn't quite have that x factor to make B,or A or whatever the student and his mom and dad think it should have got. Show them the marking sheet and explain ad infinitum and they still say you marked too hard. Hence the protection of the anonymity of the state exam.

JC results came out yesterday and there were quite a few English students in my school who got B where we expected A,C where we expected B etc. Standards are high,too much so for 14-15 year olds in my opinion, and many were disappointed. But they accept that grade from an anonymous source and move on to try to do better at LC. They would never accept it from their own teachers. English is a subject where an experienced teacher/ examiner knows almost instinctively what standard a student has,but because you are evaluating something intangible, it is very difficult to justify the rationale of your mark,despite working to a "transparent", "objective" marking scheme.

Well, I'm sorry if it annoys you, but you know, I love my job, I do it well, and I consider people who question my capacity to do it quite annoy me.

I am telling you that it can be done objectively, you are telling me you can't. You design the assignments so that the marking scheme is as clear as it can be, and if, on rare occasions, there is some room for tweaking, that's where your experience and professional judgement comes in.

Your colleagues in this country and elsewhere manage, so the clear difference is that you don't have faith in your own objectivity.

evolving_doors

katydid wrote: »

[...]

I am telling you that it can be done objectively, you are telling me you can't. You design the assignments so that the marking scheme is as clear as it can be, and if, on rare occasions, there is some room for tweaking, that's where your experience and professional judgement comes in.
....

Yes we do that every day at our own professional discretion as befits our class and their needs. Why the need for other 'experts' (read: politicians advised by whom exactly??? spin doctors from the media) to tell us how to do it en masse and at the same time (no matter what the educational need for our particular class).

What is the theoretical rationale for this change that every teacher must conform and adopt a particular teaching methodology?

... just cos other countries do it!!!
... just cos its done in FE!!!
... I dunno just cos ...teachers are being unprofessional if they don't?

Lets get down to the research backing this... can someone point to a publication or journal article and we can get started. Otherwise it's change for the sake of change.

katydid

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Yes we do that every day at our own professional discretion as befits our class and their needs. Why the need for other 'experts' (read: politicians advised by whom exactly??? spin doctors from the media) to tell us how to do it en masse and at the same time (no matter what the educational need for our particular class).

What is the theoretical rationale for this change that every teacher must conform and adopt a particular teaching methodology?

... just cos other countries do it!!!
... just cos its done in FE!!!
... I dunno just cos ...teachers are being unprofessional if they don't?

Lets get down to the research backing this... can someone point to a publication or journal article and we can get started. Otherwise it's change for the sake of change.

So if you do it every day, and trust your professional judgement and experience, why does that fly out the window when it comes to state certification?

Nobody's telling you to do anything en masse or to adopt any particular teaching methodology, only to adopt an assessment methodology. You already teach to an assessment methodology - the end of cycle written exam.

Change that allows those learners who are not good at or can't handle the stress of once off, written exams is hardly change for the sake of change. We already have this facility in LCA, and it is excellent.

Other countries do it because it's FAIR to more students. FE does it because it's FAIR to more students.

vamos!

katydid wrote: »

It works very well in most places where it is used. Here in Ireland and abroad. I have seen the disaster in the UK and I have seen the way it works successfully in Germany.

I think it's a shame for Irish students, who deserve a better system than just a final exam, and it's a shame for the profession, that second level teachers have basically said they don't have the professionalism to do what hundreds of thousands of their colleagues do all the time.

In Germany where there are 3 types of secondary schools generally linked to ability. Where students repeat a year when grades are not up to scratch or change to a more suitable school. Where class sizes are smaller. Where children arriving to Germany with little or poor German are placed in a different class until their German is up to scratch. Where SEN students are not always (usually not in my experience) integrated in a mainstream class. Where teachers don't take football teams after class and where schools are bigger and more anonymous. Where teachers are still pretty well respected in society and well paid one permanent. Where teaching is a profession and not a pert-time job while building up hours for 5 years. Where teachers aren't expected to spoon-feed to the extent we do here.

We are heading towards common level classes- common as in higher and ordinary level, mild to severe special educational needs, poor levels of English etc all in one 'class' with one teacher who can now assess their grades. Get real. Those of us who are actually working in the current system as it stands have every right to say whet we will and won't accept. People working in a different sector can speculate but haven't actually got a clue.

katydid

vamos! wrote: »

In Germany where there are 3 types of secondary schools generally linked to ability. Where students repeat a year when grades are not up to scratch or change to a more suitable school. Where class sizes are smaller. Where children arriving to Germany with little or poor German are placed in a different class until their German is up to scratch. Where SEN students are not always (usually not in my experience) integrated in a mainstream class. Where teachers don't take football teams after class and where schools are bigger and more anonymous. Where teachers are still pretty well respected in society and well paid one permanent. Where teaching is a profession and not a pert-time job while building up hours for 5 years. Where teachers aren't expected to spoon-feed to the extent we do here.

We are heading towards common level classes- common as in higher and ordinary level, mild to severe special educational needs, poor levels of English etc all in one 'class' with one teacher who can now assess their grades. Get real. Those of us who are actually working in the current system as it stands have every right to say whet we will and won't accept. People working in a different sector can speculate but haven't actually got a clue.

I can do a hell of a lot more than speculate. I have worked in the German system, in the UK system and in the Irish system at second level, and now I work at FE level. I have used the CA system in Germany and in the UK and here at FE level.

The difference in ability is not a factor in the integrity of the assessment system. The school I taught in in Germany was a Realschule, the middle ranking of the three tier system. I know from relations who went to Gymnasium that the level of assessment was different, because the level of the subject was different. But the principle is the same; weekly or fortnightly tests are carried out, marked and the notes kept over the length of the year, and the length of the cycle. For the Abitur, the equivalent of the LC, two thirds of the grade is calculated on these tests and one third on end of cycle exam, of which a couple can be orals, where the mark is given by a panel of teachers.

I don't like the German system for many reasons, the three tier system being one of them, because young people are consigned to a certain level of expectation at the age of 10. But their continuous assessment system works well, and has done so for years. It's not a fancy or airy fairy system, it's a series of Klassenarbeit, or class tests, which are transparent and objective. The motivation amongst students is very high, not just at Gymnasium level. In my first few weeks, I was astonished that the kids were asking me when the next Klassenarbeit was - they were anxious to keep up their grades, and had no trepidation about it, as the tests were so regular, they were well used to them, and knew that if one lot didn't go too well, they had time to catch up.

I have also taught in the UK and there, CA is an unmitigated disaster, because it is far too airy fairy, and is basically a box ticking exercise, with students given chance after chance to come back and resit the same assessment to get a better mark.

We don't have to slavishly follow any system. The German one is very rigid, the UK one is the opposite. I don't have direct experience of others at second level, but I know that it is perfectly possible to set up a system that is easy to administer as well as fair and objective.

I may not be actually working in the current system at second level, but I am working in the same education system with learners just out of second level. Many of them have come through LCA, where they have been assessed for state certification by their teachers without any hullaballoo. As I said before, assessment is assessment, whether a student is twelve or twenty two. You set the assessment, you mark it, you give it back, you explain where marks were awarded or lost. If someone queries your marks, you have the documentation to back them up. End of story.

All this stuff about not being able to be objective or to resist pressure is nonsense; your colleagues teaching LCA and QQI can do it. There are many reasons to oppose the proposed reforms, but to focus on those is ridiculous.

acequion

katydid wrote: »

All this stuff about not being able to be objective or to resist pressure is nonsense; your colleagues teaching LCA and QQI can do it. There are many reasons to oppose the proposed reforms, but to focus on those is ridiculous.

The "nonsense" and the "ridiculous" at this point is your repetitiveness!! Your posts are saying the same thing over and over and over and over again.

You've been given several reasons and examples by several posters as to why assessment of one's own pupils at second level is not so black and white, yet you refuse to even acknowledge our views and experiences. How obtuse is that!

Your attitude is going beyond annoying and is now becoming insulting. At the start of this thread I asked you appealingly "Must you hog this one too?" Obviously you must.

This is not about YOU and what YOU think and believe. You've told us in multitudes of posts! This is about whether we,the second level teachers,should accept or not the current set of proposals.

A shame that the stubbornness of one poster is constantly derailing discussion. I've no doubt you'll be indignantly rebutting this post as you have done with all posts. Off you go katydid,have the last word,because I've had enough!

katydid

acequion wrote: »

The "nonsense" and the "ridiculous" at this point is your repetitiveness!! Your posts are saying the same thing over and over and over and over again.

You've been given several reasons and examples by several posters as to why assessment of one's own pupils at second level is not so black and white, yet you refuse to even acknowledge our views and experiences. How obtuse is that!

Your attitude is going beyond annoying and is now becoming insulting. At the start of this thread I asked you appealingly "Must you hog this one too?" Obviously you must.

This is not about YOU and what YOU think and believe. You've told us in multitudes of posts! This is about whether we,the second level teachers,should accept or not the current set of proposals.

A shame that the stubbornness of one poster is constantly derailing discussion. I've no doubt you'll be indignantly rebutting this post as you have done with all posts. Off you go katydid,have the last word,because I've had enough!

And the posts that respond to me are saying the same thing over and over again too. Ignoring the evidence from their colleagues in Ireland and around the world, and claiming that, because they work in the sector (although most of them have never operated a similar system) they know better than those who have operated it successfully.

I have been given no reasons as to why a teacher can't be objective and professional. I've been given examples which I thoroughly agree with, such as the methodologies proposed, the workload etc. Those are valid objections, and should be paramount.

I find it insulting to have my professionalism questioned repeatedly. If you find it insulting to have it pointed out that it is unprofessional to claim that you can't be objective or resist outside pressure, well, there's not much I can do about that. Perhaps you could consider what being a professional teacher means - that's it about giving the student the best possible opportunity, not making life easy for yourself by not having to face Johnny's mammy in Tesco.

This certainly is not about me and what I believe, and I have never suggested any such thing. It is about what the facts show, and the facts show that in this country and elsewhere, CA for state certification happens without the problems the second level teachers here are claiming will happen. You do NOT discuss marks with parents or anyone else other than the feedback you give the student and you remain objective by a proper and transparent marking scheme.

This is a thread about the proposed JC reforms. If people are to make decisions which affect the future of education in Ireland, they need to make informed decisions.
If you want a mutual appreciation society where everyone nods in agreement with each other and has no interest in hearing facts which endanger their opinions, fine, set up a thread to that effect. These boards are for debate and exchange of ideas. I find it extremely worrying that, as a teacher, you seem so upset by someone daring to challenge your pre-conceived ideas.

neverfinished

In fairness, this is at least the second thread on the junior cert that you have taken over by continually harping on about objectivity and professionalism and ignoring any other points by posters. I chose to stop commenting in the last thread because of this. Again, I am watching you ignore the points people are making and bring it back to an attack on their beliefs. I worry sometimes about how you can take a whole piece of text with valid and well thought out points and completely ignore it.

ejak1

I have taught LCA for years and at no stage have I ever been required to submit a grade or mark for any of my students. LCA teachers do not assess their own students. External examiners come in to assess projects and conduct interviews on various tasks. Students have a terminal exam in June like all other Leaving Cert students. Project work and orals and interviews are all externally assessed by external examiners appointed by State Exams commission. The role of the classroom teacher is to guide students, ensure they complete assignments and tasks and submit records to say they have completed or not competed assignments. We never grade or give marks. It's a completely externally assessed exam. Maybe your former students were under the impression that they got a grade from the teacher. This is simply not the case. I have taught three LCA subjects for over 15 years.

katydid wrote: »

I can do a hell of a lot more than speculate. I have worked in the German system, in the UK system and in the Irish system at second level, and now I work at FE level. I have used the CA system in Germany and in the UK and here at FE level.

The difference in ability is not a factor in the integrity of the assessment system. The school I taught in in Germany was a Realschule, the middle ranking of the three tier system. I know from relations who went to Gymnasium that the level of assessment was different, because the level of the subject was different. But the principle is the same; weekly or fortnightly tests are carried out, marked and the notes kept over the length of the year, and the length of the cycle. For the Abitur, the equivalent of the LC, two thirds of the grade is calculated on these tests and one third on end of cycle exam, of which a couple can be orals, where the mark is given by a panel of teachers.

I don't like the German system for many reasons, the three tier system being one of them, because young people are consigned to a certain level of expectation at the age of 10. But their continuous assessment system works well, and has done so for years. It's not a fancy or airy fairy system, it's a series of Klassenarbeit, or class tests, which are transparent and objective. The motivation amongst students is very high, not just at Gymnasium level. In my first few weeks, I was astonished that the kids were asking me when the next Klassenarbeit was - they were anxious to keep up their grades, and had no trepidation about it, as the tests were so regular, they were well used to them, and knew that if one lot didn't go too well, they had time to catch up.

I have also taught in the UK and there, CA is an unmitigated disaster, because it is far too airy fairy, and is basically a box ticking exercise, with students given chance after chance to come back and resit the same assessment to get a better mark.

We don't have to slavishly follow any system. The German one is very rigid, the UK one is the opposite. I don't have direct experience of others at second level, but I know that it is perfectly possible to set up a system that is easy to administer as well as fair and objective.

I may not be actually working in the current system at second level, but I am working in the same education system with learners just out of second level. Many of them have come through LCA, where they have been assessed for state certification by their teachers without any hullaballoo. As I said before, assessment is assessment, whether a student is twelve or twenty two. You set the assessment, you mark it, you give it back, you explain where marks were awarded or lost. If someone queries your marks, you have the documentation to back them up. End of story.

All this stuff about not being able to be objective or to resist pressure is nonsense; your colleagues teaching LCA and QQI can do it. There are many reasons to oppose the proposed reforms, but to focus on those is ridiculous.

Inspector Coptoor

I find it worrying that when your ideas are challenged, you cannot accept that you may be wrong.

FYI, I have worked in 2 other European countries and been involved in marking using CA and I don't like it and don't want it imposed here.

However, the CA issue is just one part f the new JC reforms I disagree with.
As a science teacher it irks me greatly that my subject is to be downgraded from 240 hours of tuition to only 200 hours with a much dumbed down syllabus.

I resent the Croke Park Agreement, the Haddington Road Agreement and the Lansdowne Road Agreement.
I'm done with my job changing negatively year on year.

You arent in the same position as us and, while you are welcome to contribute to the discussion, I would appreciate if you could add something, ANYTHING else to the thread bar the same old clap trap.

deiseindublin

I've added a poll to see what way people feel overall, for whatever reason.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057492124

acequion

And I worry that somebody could be a teacher,with enormous power to influence, and is so incredibly stubborn and intransigent.

This same poster,in addition to an almost hysterical repetition of one particular point, is also patronising and insulting everybody who challenges this point by casting snide aspersions at their professionalism. To the extent that threads have been virtually abandoned.

Such conduct is unacceptable!

katydid

acequion wrote: »

And I worry that somebody could be a teacher,with enormous power to influence, and is so incredibly stubborn and intransigent.

This same poster,in addition to an almost hysterical repetition of one particular point, is also patronising and insulting everybody who challenges this point by casting snide aspersions at their professionalism. To the extent that threads have been virtually abandoned.

Such conduct is unacceptable!

Stubborn and intransigent because I refuse to accept what I know from experience to be wrong? Now if I lacked integrity, I would just admit that something I know to be wrong was right....

Funny how your repeating the same point isn't insulting, but my repeating the same point is "insulting".

katydid

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

I find it worrying that when your ideas are challenged, you cannot accept that you may be wrong.

FYI, I have worked in 2 other European countries and been involved in marking using CA and I don't like it and don't want it imposed here.

However, the CA issue is just one part f the new JC reforms I disagree with.
As a science teacher it irks me greatly that my subject is to be downgraded from 240 hours of tuition to only 200 hours with a much dumbed down syllabus.

I resent the Croke Park Agreement, the Haddington Road Agreement and the Lansdowne Road Agreement.
I'm done with my job changing negatively year on year.

You arent in the same position as us and, while you are welcome to contribute to the discussion, I would appreciate if you could add something, ANYTHING else to the thread bar the same old clap trap.

Why would I accept something as wrong when I know it's not wrong? CA can be a disaster, or it can work very well. In this country, where it is used in QQI, it works well. Do you actually expect me to say that I am unprofessional and have no integrity when it comes to doing my job, when I know that is not true?

CP, Lansdowne Rd. etc. have nothing to do with this. The reality is that Irish students deserve better than the system they have now, and that instead of trying to make it better, their teachers are digging their heels and refusing to even contemplate change. There are, as you say, huge issues such the downgrading of subjects, that need to be tackled.
Instead of standing up to the Dept. and demanding a better system, they have just refused to do it at all.

I AM in the same position as you - I am a teacher, I stand in front of students and I mark their work. That is what you do. The age profile doesn't matter, the principle is the same