JCT training day

mtoutlemonde

mtoutlemonde wrote: »

Maths, English and Irish have levels - all the rest are common level.

The SLAR meeting is to make sure that the marking is done fairly. What fun

Read my post above - I said there are levels for maths, English and Irish but I was corrected but I was correct seeing as you read the documents You're fight is not with me!!!

r93kaey5p2izun

Two levels is completely inadequate in Maths. How will OL cater for current FL students, many of whom are heading for LCA and will struggle hugely even with LCA Maths, or those who have severe dyscalculia? Two levels might just about be manageable for Irish, with exemptions available, and English, with reasonable accommodations such as spelling/grammar waivers and readers or text-to-voice technology to help those with dyslexia. But there is no exemption for Maths and no reasonable accommodation or assistive technology for dyscalculia.

thefasteriwalk

Presley Ashy Vigilante wrote: »

Two levels is completely inadequate in Maths. How will OL cater for current FL students, many of whom are heading for LCA and will struggle hugely even with LCA Maths, or those who have severe dyscalculia? Two levels might just about be manageable for Irish, with exemptions available, and English, with reasonable accommodations such as spelling/grammar waivers and readers or text-to-voice technology to help those with dyslexia. But there is no exemption for Maths and no reasonable accommodation or assistive technology for dyscalculia.

Isn't the new Level 2 aimed at what were traditionally FL students?

Shaungoater

thefasteriwalk wrote:

Isn't the new Level 2 aimed at what were traditionally FL students?

No its more aligned to those with learning disabilities AFAIK such as students operating in autistic units.

acequion

PureClareGold wrote: »

Incorrect information again. Framework document states that English Irish and Maths will have higher and ordinary. All other subjects at common level. Why don't we as teachers read documents that are so important?

Well at our day the facilitator said that it's very possible that we have levels in English, Irish and Maths because of the current emphasis on literacy and numeracy but that there is no guarantee that this won't change in the future. This was a guy who seemed to know his stuff and was excellent at diverting criticism of the framework as well as being very helpful when questioned.

acequion

I would completely agree that there's no point in attacking the JCT people. It's futile and also bad form and bad manners. Unfortunately the fight is now over and we're stuck with this JCT so we may as well get on with it.

As I've just said in my last post the facilitators who came to us did their best and were as helpful as they could be, however they couldn't cover up all the flaws and the whole day just showed the whole thing up for the farce it is. We were invited to fill in the feedback at the end of the day which we duly did and everybody's feedback was negative.

We are where we are.:(

r93kaey5p2izun

thefasteriwalk wrote: »

Isn't the new Level 2 aimed at what were traditionally FL students?

No. We have been advised that Level 2 would be aimed at students with moderate general learning disabilities. We have lots of students with mild GLD and advice is that they should be doing Level 3.

These students usually complete LCA and go on to PLC courses. The videos we watched of Level 2 modules were definitely not suitable.

Also many students with dyscalculia are sitting HL and OL in all other subjects no problem. But there is no accommodation for their specific difficulties with Maths.

amacca

Ive noticed a lot of people at inservices in the past seemed to think asking a direct question was equivalent to attacking a presenter

imo it does no harm for people to question and keep questioning ...the answers or lack of them can tell you a lot.......

acequion

amacca wrote: »

Ive noticed a lot of people at inservices in the past seemed to think asking a direct question was equivalent to attacking a presenter

imo it does no harm for people to question and keep questioning ...the answers or lack of them can tell you a lot.......

True amacca, but when it comes to this new JC there really is nothing to tell and little to be learned from the presenters. They basically toe the party line. As someone said earlier on this thread,they'd make great communists.

Unfortunately the time for questioning, arguing,probing is over. This campaign was the biggest casualty of the train wreck last June 10th.:(

Shaungoater

acequion wrote:

True amacca, but when it comes to this new JC there really is nothing to tell and little to be learned from the presenters. They basically toe the party line. As someone said earlier on this thread,they'd make great communists.

I ain't sure how it's toeing the party line? We asked our presenter about the CBAs and assessment in general and he said it wasn't their remit so had no idea yet. If they don't know I would rather they said that than not give the correct information and have a guess

rainbowtrout

Shaungoater wrote: »

I ain't sure how it's toeing the party line? We asked our presenter about the CBAs and assessment in general and he said it wasn't their remit so had no idea yet. If they don't know I would rather they said that than not give the correct information and have a guess

It’s more that if you criticise the new course in any way at an inservice that you will be shot down by the facilitator and be told that you’re the only one that has that problem and no one else has raised that problem and that the problem doesn’t exist.

Even if I was the only person that had an issue with Jc science they don’t even bother to try and address my issue. They just make out that I’m the problem and not the course.

evolving_doors

There's definitely a patter that's being trotted out which is a bit patronising (despite the fact that I thought our facilitator was good!).
It goes along the lines of

"Best practice says X [despite no sources ever provided].
And don't we want the best for our classes folks? [Awaits for audience nodding reply 'yes miss'].
Well then isn't this the way forward? [Yes miss.... groan]".

Then there's the bit about these NEW teaching methods which will be suitable for every teacher... (forget about having a unique teaching personality or differences between teachers, learners and schools).
Can anyone ever figure out Diamond 8! Its beyond useless.

And then there's the line about paperwork (not just related to JC but other new initiatives)... "..but there's nothing new... we've always being doing this... we're just doing it in a more formal way and keeping a record".

And another thing....If I see this one more time I'll have a meltdown.
Going around in cycles.... how apt.

Mardy Bum

evolving_doors wrote: »

There's definitely a patter that's being trotted out which is a bit patronising (despite the fact that I thought our facilitator was good!).
It goes along the lines of

"Best practice says X [despite no sources ever provided].
And don't we want the best for our classes folks? [Awaits for audience nodding reply 'yes miss'].
Well then isn't this the way forward? [Yes miss.... groan]".

Then there's the bit about these NEW teaching methods which will be suitable for every teacher... (forget about having a unique teaching personality or differences between teachers, learners and schools).
Can anyone ever figure out Diamond 8! Its beyond useless.

And then there's the line about paperwork (not just related to JC but other new initiatives)... "..but there's nothing new... we've always being doing this... we're just doing it in a more formal way and keeping a record".

And another thing....If I see this one more time I'll have a meltdown.
Going around in cycles.... how apt.

This is especially infuriating regarding their push for mobile phones in the classroom which has a negative effect according to most studies. They are woefully uninformed and that includes the "researchers" in the NCCA.

evolving_doors

Mardy Bum wrote: »

This is especially infuriating regarding their push for mobile phones in the classroom which has a negative effect according to most studies. They are woefully uninformed and that includes the "researchers" in the NCCA.

Going by media reports the stuff they were 'advised' to put out by seniors had little grounding in research.
'Advised' in the more persuasive sense of the word.

Chilli Con Kearney

rainbowtrout wrote: »

It’s more that if you criticise the new course in any way at an inservice that you will be shot down by the facilitator and be told that you’re the only one that has that problem and no one else has raised that problem and that the problem doesn’t exist.

Even if I was the only person that had an issue with Jc science they don’t even bother to try and address my issue. They just make out that I’m the problem and not the course.

You got this too! ðŸ˜

Apparently I was the first person to ever bring up my issue. Which I truly doubt. But, as you say, if you keep going around schools saying these things, people eventually start to believe.

acequion

evolving_doors wrote: »

There's definitely a patter that's being trotted out which is a bit patronising (despite the fact that I thought our facilitator was good!).
It goes along the lines of

"Best practice says X [despite no sources ever provided].
And don't we want the best for our classes folks? [Awaits for audience nodding reply 'yes miss'].
Well then isn't this the way forward? [Yes miss.... groan]".

Then there's the bit about these NEW teaching methods which will be suitable for every teacher... (forget about having a unique teaching personality or differences between teachers, learners and schools).
Can anyone ever figure out Diamond 8! Its beyond useless.

And then there's the line about paperwork (not just related to JC but other new initiatives)... "..but there's nothing new... we've always being doing this... we're just doing it in a more formal way and keeping a record".

And another thing....If I see this one more time I'll have a meltdown.
Going around in cycles.... how apt.

So very true and so very well put evolving_doors [love your witty posts,you should take up writing if you get sick of the day job :pac:] But ya it's micromanagement to within an inch of our lives. Forget unique teaching personalities as you say and heaven forbid there would be differences between learners,schools etc. "Difference" really is a dirty word. For all the jargon about "different"learning styles and adapting to the needs of the learner,this whole thing screams uniformity and standardisation. The perfect utilitarian world!

SligoBrewer

I'd love some standardisation in Science. It is literally as clear as mud.

maynooth_rules

Is anyone else driven demented by the amount of educational jargon that is contained within the new JCT?
Watched a webinar last night for the new History course and it just left me feeling worse about the course. They had a teacher on talking about planning for the year and while he was the best of the lot there, the amount of planning they seem to be expecting for every section of the course

Mardy Bum

SligoBrewer wrote: »

I'd love some standardisation in Science. It is literally as clear as mud.

The lack of standardisation will lower scientific literacy across the country inevitably.

Awful decision taken on ideological grounds.

SligoBrewer

maynooth_rules wrote: »

Is anyone else driven demented by the amount of educational jargon that is contained within the new JCT?
Watched a webinar last night for the new History course and it just left me feeling worse about the course. They had a teacher on talking about planning for the year and while he was the best of the lot there, the amount of planning they seem to be expecting for every section of the course

Yup. It's mental.

PureClareGold

SligoBrewer wrote: »

Yup. It's mental.

God Ya crazy that we have to plan for our work ourselves. You couldn't make it up like!

SligoBrewer

PureClareGold wrote: »

God Ya crazy that we have to plan for our work ourselves. You couldn't make it up like!

jfc. It is that we have been given so so little guidance as to what level of depth we have to cover scientific topics. I can spend 20 minutes teaching a topic and I could spend 20 classes teaching the same topic. The instructions we got as to the level of depth of material we have to cover are a set of banal, inadequate action verbs that the department have set unique definitions to.

I'm fresh out of college. I know what they want. And it's a joke.

Moody_mona

I agree sligobrewer. I had a chat with a Science teacher I met randomly and he commented that he loved the new course, that you can go off on a tangent, that there's more autonomy, you can go where the class leads you. It sounds lovely and idealistic, but we have a common terminal exam.

Now I'm not one for teaching to the test, I love the concept of scientific literacy, but so much is up to the individual teacher. I love chemistry, I delve into way more than chemistry than I should on the JC course because I can't help myself, but I'm sure to teach course to the students. When I'm given a vague topic in Biology, and I don't know the level of depth required, I will end up doing far less than I would if it was a chemistry topic. I'm rambling but I hope that makes sense.

rainbowtrout

Moody_mona wrote: »

I love chemistry, I delve into way more than chemistry than I should on the JC course because I can't help myself, but I'm sure to teach course to the students. When I'm given a vague topic in Biology, and I don't know the level of depth required, I will end up doing far less than I would if it was a chemistry topic. I'm rambling but I hope that makes sense.

And I'd be concerned for physics and chemistry in particular that they will suffer at LC level as a result as the majority of science teachers are biology teachers, so will cover the requirements (or whatever is in the textbook) for physics and chemistry and go into great detail for biology.

Not knocking biology teachers, but it would be a natural progression from what we have been presented with as a syllabus/sheet of paper.