Junior Cycle Examination papers

maynooth_rules

Is there anything, anything, us teachers can do about this at this stage? I'm a history teacher, and I actually don't mind the course at all for history (it has to be a bit rushed but manageable). CBAs are an utter waste of time for the most part, but even that can be overlooked.

The exam paper the students are expected to sit is an abomination though. For history they have gone from an old JC paper where they had picture questions, document question, short answer is, people in history essay style Q's, long document and long questions. Every element of their knowledge was tested and all the skills of a budding historian were needed. Good choice offered within questions also.

Now the exam is 10 questions, mainly document questions. Most of the questions are basic regurgitation from the document. So essentially a kid on his first day in first hear history could answer it and comfortably pass it.

3 years spend teaching them over 30 topics and they don't get tested on a large majority of the topics

It's a scandalous scandalous paper and there is no logic whatsoever to its layout. It benefits nobody and is an utter sell out to our students. Students are left complelty unprepared for Leaving Cert History, and now the answer to the shambles of JC reform seems to be let's reform the LC.....rather than acknowledge the absolute failures within the JC reform.

I adore my subject, but I hate what has been done to the examination method. Speaking to other teachers in my school and they all feel the same about their junior Cycle exam. Are we really just going to have to grin and accept it and carry on with this mess?

Random sample

I wonder did teachers who taught inter cert have similar feelings about the junior cert when it came in? I feel like jct are gaslighting us with stories of it all coming together for students in third year and them feeling empowered by their self directed learning.

I totally agree with you. There has been very little change in content in junior history, but the sample exam (assuming June follows that pattern) is a different story altogether. It won’t be long til they realise there’s no point learning the content because it’s not needed to gain marks.

I think the exam will be marked in such a way as to prove teachers wrong about the junior cycle. It will show that students have gained valuable skills and that teachers are just anti progress. I don’t think there will be a row back until all of the damage is done. And then we will get the blame for not implementing their innovative methods.

Treppen

Same with music exam.

It's gone from a clearly defined exam paper where students can show discrete examples of learning, to an English comprehension exam with no format.

gaiscioch

And my God the problems facing a history teacher with a 5th-year history class in the September of 5th year. Telling them they are now going to have to write 5-7 pages of clear, chronologically ordered, fact-filled essays in 40 minutes is cruel. Never mind three of them together in the LC exam.

But watch the clowns in the Dept of Education target LC History as the problem and reduce its standard rather than increase the standard of the Mickey Mouse assessment known as Junior Cycle history.

Oh, and this may be unpopular but I don't actually care: a lot of the younger teachers who are products of these bullshít "reforms" are staggeringly weak with their subject knowledge. They'll have all the reform buzzwords on the top of their tongues but the kids are drowning in their fact-light classes where the teachers themselves don't have the ability to teach them good essay-writing skills, never mind the details of how and why a historical issue evolved as it did. So, "reforming" the LC by dumbing it down will be a godsend to this army of vacuous buzzword-addicted wafflers who are out of their depth in the existing LC.

gaiscioch

am_zarathustra

You'd wonder if they ever read relevant research in the Dept. The JCT people they send out certainly don't. Reform for reforms sake doesn't serve anyone. I read the 7 myths of Education a few years ago, I wouldn't agree with everything in it but instinctively I know that general knowledge and literacy are linked and that you can't teach critical thinking to students without them having some understanding of how the world works and facts imbedded in their long term memory. I've excellent literacy but an articles about formula 1 would be nonsense to me, I don't have the a priori knowledge to understand the context the words are being used in. The same issue arises with the new JCT. English tests reading comprehension, for kids under 14/15 facts in other subjects are still the most effective way to learn. It's like when people thought times tables were a waste of time in primary until it became obvious you couldn't do any maths proficiently without the basics of the patterns numbers form. And that this needed to be actually learned. Why would you be trying to get kids to "discover" calculas........it took some of the worlds greatest minds decades to make it a useful and usable construct. We aren't reimagining cars every time we make one, or building it ourselves.

Appeasement in the modern context is understood through WW2. We are wary of propaganda demonizing minorities because of the knowledge we acquire around the rise of Nazism. We are distrustful of positions people takes in first person narratives because we learn people are fundamentally partisan. The order of things matters, history does repeat, cultures are embedded and not all eurocentric, progress is not always linear and we must always be alert to threats to democracy. Reading an article and answering 5 questions about it won't teach any of this. Facts aren't always exciting but the story they tell usually is.

amacca

Same with JC science....disaster imo.

The amount of people/charlatans that have made hay ushering in this tripe must be quite something.

There was and never will be any substitute for making an effort and more and more that's what's missing...you have to work at it, things worth learning aren't always easy.....you sometimes have to do things you don't want to do but more and more reform makes excuses for what imo at least is laziness....students are less willing to make a fair effort and worryingly it seems some parents aren't really on board....you would swear there was something wrong with learning definitions (many of which are absolutely necessary as a base to further understanding in a topic) but people seem to think its just not necessary like somehow you can understand a relatively complex topic from first principles without a base to work from.......and if you don't its the teachers fault....not yours for not doing a tap either in or outside of class....people will latch on to any excuses for their own unwillingness to put in the hard yards at something that is perceived as being mundane and requires actual effort (especially given all the things out there to turn your head nowadays)

Learning styles is a good example, when I was at it I lost count of the times a kid told me they had a particular learning style or even more laughable their parents or even worse the numerous paid speakers extolling their virultues (handsomely paid in most cases) wasting your time and adding additional burden ...your gut tells you its bullshit, but when its coming at you from all angles you start to think maybe there's something to it.... .thing is when you look into it you find out there's almost no peer reviewed research backing it, the guy who came up with it (an inspector I think? Which backs up my opinion of inspectors) has to resort to using the word magic to justify it and ......the kid usually tells you his/her preferred learning style when the going gets tough and no homework/prep is being done btw and probably not even a proper effort to participate/follow instructions in class.....A lot of what is necessary is practice retrieval....if you feel you retrieve things better with your hands then then knock yourself out....handcraft a set of numbers from mahogany to practice manipulating a simple algebraic equation/formula or make a set of scales and assign masses proportional to the numbers and then do the same thing to both sides to show you how it works but might I suggest you practice the skill in the same way its examined ie: with a pen and paper and then compare your answer to the solution and might I further suggest the most appropriate place to do that is in the hours available during class....and you are best placed to understand the intricacies of your "learning style" and implement that as a study technique.

A lot of the current "reform" is a mixture of taking the easy way out and yellow packing imo....I'm not sure what the split is either .......the latter moreso than the former I suspect as there must be some intelligent people at the helm that know this is just window dressing for cost saving?

Just a read of the new JC syllabus makes it plainly obvious what a sham it is.....their colorful wall chart/ dictionary/glossary of terms where each verb is defined and the definitions refers to other verbs in the chart on numerous occasions making the whole thing circular and more or less meaningless is quite hilarious too if any of you have a chance....

I spotted a JC ord maths paper recently....the first question asked you to add two hundred and something and three hundred and something .....bear in mind you are allowed bring a calculator into the exam....and I'm sure a significant percentage won't bother

In a way I think its amusing, it's doomed to failure imo, the more you lower the bar expecting your bell curve to jump over it the lower the overall standard will get and there will still be lots finding a way to limbo under it instead and then blame you/the system........but that's probably part of the plan too....they want glorified childminders and they want to drive down pay and benefits too and they will get it in the end and then have to spend as much money on shiny recruitment campaigns as the standard and numbers of graduates wanting to work at it slowly declines.

Treppen

It comes from the top i.e. the NCCA. The Department can barely tie their shoelaces when it comes to curriculum.

And the top is 'literally' toxic :

https://www.fiannafail.ie/blog/investigation-needed-into-bullying-complaints-at-ncca-byrne

“The current and former staff members have alleged that the current culture in the organisation is toxic and that this has had a negative impact on what is being taught in schools. Those working in the NCCA do not feel empowered and find it difficult to complete the tasks that have been assigned to them. They have alleged that there is a skills mismatch which has come about as a result of management failures. The end result is that staff do not feel confident in standing over the work that the NCCA does."

joebloggs32

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058232744/junior-cycle-examination-papers

I gave a few sample History questions to my 10 year old daughter recently. She is an avid reader, so has good comprehension skills. She sailed through any of the parts that were based on documents. I reckon she could already pass a full paper.

Random sample

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118629107#Comment_118629107

I did similar last year. Only caught her out on the longer questions, she didn’t write enough. She got a merit. What had she to aspire to over the next 5 years of education?

am_zarathustra

Oh god, like for a good student who reads and has some instinct for maths what are they actually at in Junior Cycle? Learning quadratics they might not be asked?

Is a joke, everyone knows it's a joke! The largest complaint we get now is the language in the papers from kids with literacy issues or EAL.....so good jobs extending the scope of the damage their addictional needs not being met will do to their future opertuinities....

What was the actual impetuous even for change other than a figarie by our last illustrious labour minister for education? We under fund education and it over performs internationally ....leave it alone or just spend more money

Treppen

' What was the impetus ' you ask?

If you recall the strikes against Ruairi's Junior Cycle , it was against teachers certifying the students for this exam..

Basically it was to kill off exams at junior cert and save money.

People often moan about Unions and how they don't actually care about our kids' education (see letter in this weekends letters to editor in Sunday times lol!).

Could you imagine the total Shitshow we would have had, had it not been for our Union mobilising , and hammering out a compromise of the madness with the Travers negotiations .

amacca

Yep....ruairi "legacy" quinn was probably one of the worst disasters ever to happen to education in this country.

I'd say he was dreaming of a d o malley style legacy and if there's any justice it should be the opposite he receives for his arrogance and hubris....I'd have some grudging respect for him if it was a sneaky plan he came up with rather than delusions of competence.....another champagne socialist.

TheValeyard

Can I have a marking scheme please?

Maybe later

ONE YEAR LATER

Can I have a marking scheme now

Not just yet.

TWO YEARS LATER

Can I have a marking scheme please or at least see how to mark or grade the sample papers? 

No. You dont need it. Dont teach to the exam. Teach the key skills, bla, bla, bla

EXAMS ARE A DISASTER

Dept of Ed: [shocked Pikachu face]

rainbowtrout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118629107#Comment_118629107

Exact same in science. Students shocked when they get to fifth year and they actually have to know stuff.

am_zarathustra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118631791#Comment_118631791

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118631791#Comment_118631791

They aren't interested in listening to teachers at all. It would almost be comical if it wasn't so damaging to students mental health. If they gave a damn about stress they'd bin the CBAs now. But they can't admit the whole thing is a disaster so we will just have to keep trying to find some meaning in the course. Until the inevitable row back in a decade and a new run of reforms based on nothing in particular.

joebloggs32

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118634282#Comment_118634282

One thing for sure, my students wont be stressed by a CBA. As soon as i mention it to them I pivot straight away to calling it a project.

The real problem is the loss of 6 weeks tuition time to complete two projects. As mentioned earlier, there is a lot to cover now in JC history, and not enough time to do it.

Treppen

Couldn't.

Be.

Arsed.

cmssjone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118634980#Comment_118634980

Same problem in maths. They’ve taken the cone and theorem proofs off the course and added the CBAs to our workload. It works out as a net loss of 5 weeks to teach pretty much the same course as before.

rainbowtrout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118636738#Comment_118636738

And then they wonder why LC students answer geometry questions so poorly....

am_zarathustra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118638508#Comment_118638508

I mean do they wonder? I've never heard anyone from the illustrious JCT seem even mildly bothered by the glaring gaps and generalism on the courses. They read their script and drink their koolaid and refer to papers they've never read on PowerPoints they didn't make.

spurious

Examining this year should be fun.

The bell curve will be getting a right whack to avoid the huge failure rate the common level papers will bring as the previously OL candidates struggle with the papers (as many of them did in the old days too).

Treppen

I'd encourage everyone here to say it to colleagues today to really push for exam sample papers and marking schemes at all upcoming cluster days.

The JC is like any other state course which has to pass the rigours of the QQI if it is to be certified.

Maybe a complaint in that direction is in order. If this were a 3rd level course module where students weren't told what topics were examinable and the structure of the paper then the students' Union would be on it pretty quick.

amacca

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118650572#Comment_118650572

In my experience, a large proportion of those that "struggled" were more than capable of passing if they did what they were told in class and made even the most basic of efforts.

In the past I've had students with genuine difficulties pass the old course and/or do better than the cohort that spend the three years causing hassle/chaos for everyone with seemingly F all anyone can do with them except endlessly "talk" to them

In my opinion this "reform" is at least in part a response to this issue and the systems/powers that be unwillingness/perhaps inability at this stage to tackle this............

maynooth_rules

Just spend the last two weeks correcting Mocks for Junior and my worry and concern for what has happened to the examination method at JC level is much higher now.

I have students who I know put no work in whatsoever, but they have passed as probably 60% of history exam is basic regurgitation from a document.

There is no marks on any question. What on god's name is the logic to that. Why do that to students.

We've had years at this stage of mainly pointless inservices about this. Most of that time was spent talking about the CBAs, which students can see through. Perhaps there needed to be less dotmocracy and mentimeters are these inservices and more discussion about the actual layout of the exam papers as they are bloody shambolic.

It's a scandal that our junior Cycle assesment has been allowed to be degraded to this.

gaiscioch

Agree thoroughly, maynooth_rules. JC history is a travesty of ineffable proportions.

Not letting students know the marks per question is just another wtf moment in years of wtf moments thought of by some wishy-washy airhead on some nether region of educational theory. Gone are the crazy days of students learning facts and dates, developing a chronology and working out the evolution of cause and consequence and then looking for historical patterns.

It's devoid of challenge, and we're producing dimmed-down students at JC level.

spurious

The old Group and Inter. were degree level compared to this.

Inter. Cert. 1979: https://dublin1850.com/oldexams/oldpapers.html

Group Cert 1978: https://dublin1850.com/oldexams/oldpapers2.html

Not having marks on the questions would allow for 'adjustments' in the marking phase.