rainbowtrout wrote: » As it should be, and as it was when it was announced on Good Friday. Now if the Indo and the Times could stop printing shite about predicted grades the world would be a much better place.
Rosita wrote: » Why wouldn't numbers be dropping with most people staying at home most of the time, widespread social distancing, and an inability to do the level of testing that they've promised? If levels weren't dropping it'd be astonishing. In fact the slowness of the drop is difficult to explain. But people saying that 29 July is the only show in town is quite another matter. There are still lots of opinions and this is still well up for grabs I reckon.
Mardy Bum wrote: » The principals in the RTE article who came out in support of predictive grading on the basis that there are lots of results in schools from previous exams should be made do an M.Ed in Assessment. The utter ignorance of those with the most power in schools in relation to assessment as well as teaching and learning in general is telling.
km79 wrote: » Less hassle for them trying to arrange exam centres for large numbers whilst social distancing etc It was telling when Colm o Rourke came out in support of dual option so quickly
Dylan94 wrote: » This is what I am worried about. I give students very difficult exams and often mark quite harshly. We also were not nearly finished the course when they done their mocks. Many of my students failed the mock exam (that I corrected). But I know that they would have done much better in the real exam. There is one student that I would be very confident that they would achieve an H1, who if we were to use the data already held would result in him getting maybe H5
Treppen wrote: » Joe Duffy today was 100% predictive grading.
joe40 wrote: » I teach in the north and we are using predictive testing. The difference is most subjects have module results to work from. These are not mocks but actual exams set and examined by exam board's which form part of the final grade. For example for my GCSE students they have already completed exams last year which are worth 33% of their final mark. This is significant evidence to work from and much more reliable than class tests. Without module exam results I have no idea how predicting marks could be done with fairness and accuracy.
Rosita wrote: » The exit from the lockdown spoke of schools opening in September on a phased basis. There wasn't much reaction to that but it was in there. So this will be a start of year like no other anyway. I'd say if they could get the LC sat they'd happily take the hit on starting school back a few weeks later. Okay, maybe not 'happily' - you're obviously right that it'd be disruptive but still it could be done.
mtoutlemonde wrote: » Yeah there was an awful lot of waffle last night from Thomas Byrne last night on the Tonight Show - using previous results, predictive grading - I was embarrassed at his lack of intelligence. God help us if he is our Minister of Education. Thankfully, the ophthalmic surgeon put him in his place. I.
Shn99 wrote: » Now a video spreading like wildfire on twitter which shows an apparent stakeholders zoom meeting being leaked. Students will have 0 motivation
km79 wrote: » What’s the gist of it
Rosita wrote: » The surgeon said that an exam should be held - no more than that. Easy words, but no explanation of how it might work or what the state of play is likely to be in August. You make it sound like the surgeon won a debate using wonderfully fleshed out arguments. He didn't. He idealised it and said there should be an exam. Of course there should but things are a bit tricky. And if the exams can't happen you'll be grappling with predictive results whether you want to or not. Byrne called for the cancellation of the JC three weeks before it happened. You can expect him to double his money shortly.
randylonghorn wrote: » Another good argument against that option ... And even at that, Joe, achieved in the UK found only a 16% accuracy. I could easily see them trying to get the (new) 6th and 3rd years back as near to normal dates as possible, and maybe delaying the other years a couple of weeks, even if things are fairly under control C-19 wise. With a lot of teachers involved in correcting LC, assuming current plan sticks, it would ease the pressure a fair bit.
brighterspark wrote: » To use the Dr Gill Wyness report as evidence that predicted grades are inaccurate is not very applicable to our situation. It is important to understand the context of these predictions - they are used by third level institutes normally to give conditional (depends on final results) place offers. This therefore leaves teachers with the option of giving a precise prediction or the most optimistic one. I have worked in the UK system and most teachers will go with the predicted result that is the most optimistic yet still realistic as it will ensure the student gets at least a chance to strive for the course of their choice and ability level. Non-securing of a conditional offer could demotivate a student and result in a poorer performance. Considering what I have discussed above the report also states that the inaccuracies were usually in the range 1 or 2 points out of a possible total of 15 from 3 A level results – in other words not too far out! I therefore would contend that our system with 6 exams should also be able to produce predicted results that are fairly accurate. Interviews could be held to decide final places in high demand courses and the option to do a smaller scale leaving cert could also be put in place for the relatively small percentage that want to sit the exam.
mtoutlemonde wrote: » That't not his field and not his problem - he just gave a few 'wake up to reality' statements /QUOTE] Exactly. It's not his field. Easy to prescribe when you will never have an irate on-looker jawing you to explain how it'll happen. The surgeon's input was minimal, a couple of sentences at most, and nobody was put in their place.
mtoutlemonde wrote: » That't not his field and not his problem - he just gave a few 'wake up to reality' statements and there was no response from Thomas Byrne - it made him look weak in my opinion.
Shn99 wrote: » RTE 6 1 News are saying the TUI and ASTI are holding emergency meetings this evening
Rosita wrote: » They just need to calm down and wait until 29 July!!
Rosita wrote: » mtoutlemonde wrote: » That't not his field and not his problem - he just gave a few 'wake up to reality' statements /QUOTE] Exactly. It's not his field. Easy to prescribe when you will never gave an irate on-looker jawing you to explain how it'll happen. The surgeon's input was minimal, a couple of sentences at most, and nobody was put in their place. I agree - I just feel that he said more in two sentences than Thomas Byrne did in three/four minutes of ignorance. Maybe it was because I agree with him. I said earlier - this was my opinion which I am entitled to. Rosita wrote: » Just for the benefit of anyone who didn't see this - Byrne was in his house on a video call and sole fro five minutes is so under questioning. The surgeon (Ml O'Keeffe) spoke about two sentences at the end of the programme in answer to a "and by the way what do you think?" type of question. This poster is trying to imply there the was some kind of verbal interaction between them which is farcically inaccurate. I realise Byrne is a politician and therefore fair game in the eyes of many but at least let's be some way truthful. There was no verbal interaction and I felt that Thomas Byrne looked weak when he didn't get an opportunity to answer what the surgeon said - maybe that is Ivan Yates fault. Again this is my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Mr. Byrne is not a teacher so he does not know what he is talking about - like the majority of people who throw muck at teachers because they had a bad experience and that is why I agreed with the comments of the surgeon that some form of exam must happen.
mtoutlemonde wrote: » That't not his field and not his problem - he just gave a few 'wake up to reality' statements /QUOTE] Exactly. It's not his field. Easy to prescribe when you will never gave an irate on-looker jawing you to explain how it'll happen. The surgeon's input was minimal, a couple of sentences at most, and nobody was put in their place.
Rosita wrote: » Just for the benefit of anyone who didn't see this - Byrne was in his house on a video call and sole fro five minutes is so under questioning. The surgeon (Ml O'Keeffe) spoke about two sentences at the end of the programme in answer to a "and by the way what do you think?" type of question. This poster is trying to imply there the was some kind of verbal interaction between them which is farcically inaccurate. I realise Byrne is a politician and therefore fair game in the eyes of many but at least let's be some way truthful.
Comer1 wrote: » Surely you mean early June, you can't expect students to wait until the 29th of July to be told the LC is cancelled. That would be like a Monty Python sketch.
mtoutlemonde wrote: » Mr. Byrne is not a teacher so he does not know what he is talking about
