TheValeyard wrote: » Department last April/May Department this April/May again I'd say
micks_address wrote: » The principal had zero involvement in how the grades were awarded last year and the union deals meant no minutes of the grading meetings were kept
Wombatman wrote: » Never said exams were a bad solution. I'm just saying predicted grades can work and shouldn't ruled out as being completely unworkable. The main issue I have with changing exam papers is that students have already done a lot of revision. I think we all agree that students need to be put in a position where they can eliminate some of the material, the stuff they couldn't cover due to lost time. This could mean that some of their revision may have been in vain. They may have spent Christmas, for example, preparing for 4 poets in English, and might be told they only need three now. They could have worked on other material while they were working on that poet they didn't need. But no perfect solution. The options and alternatives will have flaws but we need to prepare them none the less. Could offer the students one or more options but for everyone's sake decisions need to be made pretty soon.
Wombatman wrote: » We are already discussing some ways to do it. We will have error free standardization software for a start. Could involve principle staff a bit more, maybe take into account a wider set of results from the students previous years. I'm sure if you weren't so against it you could easily think of ways to improve it. Essentially the school are assigning CAO currency based on perceived performance. Standardization will do the rest. I won't be perfect but nothing will be for the 6th years of 2021. If you believe school staff will behave on a fair and objective manner, I can't see a problem with it.
Bobtheman wrote: » Reducing the course down can only be a benefit. Take the poets. If it goes from 4 to 3 then they have more choice. Most teachers, have not completely finished their courses. And even if such a teacher existed - that doesn't mean that the kids know it all.
mirrorwall14 wrote: » There should have been a set of exam paper changes ready to go the minute we locked down. The fact they didn’t or don’t appear to have contingency plans ready for this is absolutely incompetent They should have sat down in September and said ok adjustments made assuming they’re in school now Then organised a set of adjustments if schools were closed for two more weeks, four more weeks, six more weeks and eight more weeks. With contingency plans for all practicals or orals. That should have been published so that teachers could organise their yearly plans appropriately and work around potential changes. Instead here we are. With adjustments that are not sufficient in some subjects. With no clear plan for practicals. No further adjustments to papers ready? It is total incompetence
Treppen wrote: » If all students get more choice there a danger that the percentage getting full marks goes up. There's only so much you can simplify before affecting the bell curve.
deiseindublin wrote: » Nobody has said it but surely if the bell curve does what it's supposed it's less relevant how much is cut from the syllabus, or how much choice is given. I've an LC in the house this year so I'm hanging on to that anyway. Would prefer for my child, and my students, that the exams went ahead. Yes, it's tough for them, but it's fair.
Treppen wrote: » You ll get a skewed bell curve by simplifying. There will be basically no way to apply a proper bell curve once you over simplify or add too much choice. If questions are over simplified or given extra choices you can't mark those H1s down , once they're 100% correct you can't take it away. As much as I give out about the dept. I think the SEC really know their stuff when it comes to tweeking the bell curve with questions and marking schemes. They've been fine tuning for decades by adjusting one or two points in the marking scheme to get the curve right.
Treppen wrote: » You ll get a skewed bell curve by simplifying.
Wombatman wrote: » The flip side of that is the experience in the exam for the student. They know when an exam is going poorly. This could be due to inadequate material coverage because of Covid and closures. They won't be thinking, at that point in time, that the bell curve is going to turn their 60% into a 75%, for example, because everyone is likely to underperform. At that point in time, they are going to have a sick feeling in their gut and are likely to panic. Wouldn't like to see this happening.
rainbowtrout wrote: » That happens students every year in the exam without a pandemic in the background. The Leaving Cert has always been stressful. This year's crew are going to get some shock in college when they have to sit exams and the college won't care if they've missed time or not.
Wombatman wrote: » Maybe so, but we are talking about the students who haven't have the opportunity to complete their two year LC course because THERE IS A PANDEMIC IN THE BACKGROUND. We are discussing how this exceptional situation should be dealt with. Any ideas?
rainbowtrout wrote: » ya, and they are ALL in that position. Let's look at this illogically...... Leaving Cert students roaring for a cancellation on Twitter all day today. Let's say Norma gives them what they want. Well, so no student can try and influence their teachers, we would have to down tools now in the middle of January. What are the Leaving Cert students going to do between January and June? And what are teachers going to grade them on? Last year they finished attending school in March. There was online teaching for 7 or so weeks with variable engagement until the Leaving Cert was cancelled on May 8th, one month before it was due to start. The bulk of the practical projects would have been completed at that stage, while orals and music practicals didn't take place the prep work would have been done at that stage as we only finished up school a few weeks before they were scheduled. Teachers had a lot of information to go on. This year what would they have??? The first seven months of fifth year and the first four months of Leaving Cert? Coupled with the fact that the predicted grades let to serious inflation of grades across the board. Do you honestly think they wouldn't go even higher this year? There are going to be attitudes out there like 'Jaysis, I chanced my arm at giving the two H1s in French last year, normally I'd be lucky to get one, and neither was downgraded, shure lookit, might as well stick down three this year and see what happens'. That will happen. You also have a situation where students want both predicted grades and a chance to sit the exams. Have their cake and eat it more like. It worked relatively well this year because they were more or less finished their courses last year, so were in a position to sit the exams in November. If they down tools now, with almost half an academic year left, how would they be in any position to sit exams in June?
micks_address wrote: » i know quite a few kids who didnt engage with schools at all last year once school from home started. Leaving cert kids.. school contacted parents who had no idea they weren't logging on... they had a discussion about it and the child felt they could revise/learn better on their own so that was agreed.. once calculated grades were announced they down tools and did nothing.. i think the issue for this years group is how to keep them engaged unless you hold the threat of physical exams over them till may and then go ah well.. we doing calculated grades anyway... the counter argument is you are needlessly stressing kids who are second guessing that decision is coming regardless. i think its quite easy to say exams can be held safely in june.. but its the whats been missed between this year and last that's the debate
rainbowtrout wrote: » It's the parent's responsibility to check what their child is up to. Teachers got a lot of flak last year for not engaging online. I know that there were some that didn't, but I would say most made an effort. Nothing was said about the students that just couldn't be arsed and gambled on the Leaving Cert being cancelled. The argument is, 'the poor students are stressed and can't sit a leaving cert when they missed 3 months of fifth year' The bell curve can be adjusted on the exam results to reflect this. That's actually the easy part. But the notion that it should all be cancelled because they missed 3 months last year, so they should not bother completing the last 5 months this year is madness. That would only be completing 1 year of 2 years of the Leaving Cert cycle. Cancelling now will impact their ability to keep up with their courses in college. Then they'll be whinging that they weren't taught properly in school. They need to buckle down and get on with it. There is a far better understanding of what can and can't be achieved now. We are coming up on a year of living with covid. The necessary logistical arrangements can be put in place for exams.
mirrorwall14 wrote: » Just to be clear, I am adamantly against predicted or calculated grades of any shape or form. Hell no. But I do think there need to be broader changes to the length of content etc needing to be finished for papers. At least both my subjects, can’t speak for others. And I feel in both those subjects the difficulty can still be easily done to keep a bell curve just without the students having quite so much content to revise. For example, composing could have had no upbeat in the melody question. The question can still be difficult, compound time, rests, dynamics etc but without the extra weeks of practise needed for upbeats Similarly in maths, be more explicit say there will be 6 short questions on 8 specific areas listed. Students and teachers can then actually skip one chapter. Is it ideal for maths in college? No. Does that matter for a pandemic year? No Is it a middle ground predictive grade nonsense and keeping almost exactly the same papers? Yes in my opinion
rainbowtrout wrote: » I think they just have to get on with it. If Norma capitulates and gives them what they want, all they learn from that is if they whinge enough they'll get what they want even if it's not the right course of action. Also a valuable lesson for them to learn would be that not everything in life is easy or fair, and in the situation they are responsible for themselves and should try to do the best they can in that situation.
Treppen wrote: » Phrasing is the one great divide between the H1H2 and H3H4H5. If they got rid of the upbeat and put in a minor+6/8 I think you'll open the fence too wide for more to get into the top tier. And as we know from many many rants it's the Melody question the generally divides the H1's and H2's. It was a little bit sneaky but they've cunningly made the harmony question a little bit more difficult in terms of limiting the starting line to Max 3 bars, thus again making it a phrasing exercise to see if they can follow down the cadences, whereas before with 4 bars on the opening line it was a dead cert that there was a cadence at the end of every line. Maybe they wont put an upbeat into the Melody question in the end (just to keep teachers happy), but bump it into the Harmony questions. Now that would be cruel :pac:
mirrorwall14 wrote: » That’s true but I think if they put in a rest or mid phrase break they’d get away with narrowing the field a bit even without the upbeat. Don’t give anyone from the SEC who reads boards that suggestion Jesus..... lol I think the harmony question at least Q5 has gotten substantially harder over the years to be honest. Some of the chord progressions are just outright odd. I’m still considering moving question.