The way forward for LC2021

Rosita wrote: »

Still don't know what he said but it's very easy come up with a solution if you assume certainty on getting back at a particular time. But with one of the variants now showing resistance to vaccines things maybe are not so certain.

He basically said CG in 2020 didn't work, and exams should go ahead at all costs. Listen here, his intro starts 3 mins in.
https://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/html5/#/radio1/21905531

deiseindublin wrote: »

He basically said CG in 2020 didn't work, and exams should go ahead at all costs. Listen here, his intro starts 3 mins in.
https://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/html5/#/radio1/21905531

Thanks very much for taking the bother to put the link there.

What he says is fine but it's very ideological. Like, "let's get back to school and do the orals and practicals" ignores the fact that the recruitment process for examiners has not even begun. It could well be that the Dept or Ed and the SEC already regard these as dead in the water, and quite possibly have for some time. It's hard to imagine otherwise why they would defer the recruitment process. With respect to O'Rourke and those interviewing him, it's really only when you look at this sort of detail that you really realise the challenges ahead and the aspirational fantasy his comments represent. I suspect we are already too far down the road for normal service.

He's also falling into the trap of talking about "numbers falling" but my sense is that this is an outdated view. It seems to me that fear of variant strains is driving much of the policy at the moment, and that they just cannot countenance a fourth wave happening in May/June by opening up too soon. It also seems more accurate to say that numbers have plateaued rather than continued to fall.

And (I wouldn't say this often) in fairness to the Dept I imagine when they declare their "full intention" to hold the traditional LC they actually mean it but would not get away with making assumptions about infection rates in the way that O'Rourke can. They also have everybody looking for "certainty" and "clarity" as distinct from just an opinion. If O'Rourke was answering questions in that environment things might be less straightforward.

And as for Calculated Grades 'not working' - I'm not sure how that is judged. Would the state really would worry unduly about some high court challenges, especially if the alternative was literally no LC and no alternative results of any kind for people leaving the education system entirely, and third-level colleges without an alterative option for deciding entry for those who were continuing?

The likelihood is that 99%+ accepted what they got without quibble even if it was because they wouldn't have the resources to mount a challenge. What's happening in the high court is a story but in the broader scheme of things probably not significant enough to jettison the calculated grades. The sad reality is that what's happening in the high court is primarily the problem of those mounting the challenge. Those defending the Dept of Ed's position won't have to worry about legal bills or potential pay-outs, or their lives being put on hold for a year. In fact, depending on how the court finds they might well find their calculated grades decision upheld and vindicated as quite fair and reasonable in the broader context.

The Dept might well feel that with the necessary adjustments they are a viable runner in a crisis, and that they did indeed work in that they served a purpose when they lacked an alternative. (I realise that many including O'Rourke still hold to the mantra that the LC should have happened, but the reality is it didn't) As for the lack of data for calculated grades, yes, that might be a problem, but in a few weeks we might find that there is no option other than to find a way around that. I too "agree" with him if he means that calculated grades are problematic and undesirable for teachers but the question of whether they 'worked' is another matter. It really depends how that is judged and maybe more importantly who is judging it.

More concerning to an objective observer might be O'Rourke's claim that teachers would jump from 92% to 96%/97% this time around to ensure a student got a H1 rather than being downgraded to a H2. Based on that comment it looks like he thinks "data" is irrelevant anyway and 5 or 6 per cent can be thrown around like snuff at a wake. Downgrading might not have suited people but there was always an understanding that school-awarded grades were susceptible to alteration. What O'Rourke says brings the integrity of the teachers' judgement into disrepute, even if I am sure it's unintentional.

Smacruairi wrote: »

But you're neglecting that fact that no one knew how the algorithm worked the first time, indeed the changed it last minute after seeing the mess Britain. Secondly z by removing school history from the calculation, the algorithm is similarly throwing around percent willy nilly.

The integrity of teacher's judgement was brought into disrepute already by mass adjustments based on faulty algorithms and bad logic.

Maybe so, but you never had a Principal on the National airwaves suggesting that figures would be plucked from thin air by teachers if necessary.

Smacruairi wrote: »

But you're neglecting that fact that no one knew how the algorithm worked the first time, indeed the changed it last minute after seeing the mess Britain. Secondly z by removing school history from the calculation, the algorithm is similarly throwing around percent willy nilly.

The integrity of teacher's judgement was brought into disrepute already by mass adjustments based on faulty algorithms and bad logic.

The algorithm, as it was supposed to work, was known.

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/2fc71-a-short-guide-to-the-calculated-grades-data-collection-national-standardisation-and-quality-assurance-processes/

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/2ed9b-leaving-certificate-2020-calculated-grades-technical-reports/

Every year grades are adjusted by the standardisation process. Last year, in 80% of cases, there was no change of grade between the school estimate and final result. I never got the impression that the integrity of teacher's judgement was brought into question.

There were always going to be outliers and the balls up with the software development didn't help, but for the most part, students and parents were satisfied with the process. The whole thing had to be put together under extreme time pressure. Not a bad effort all things considered.

With the experience of last year, under our belt, I expect the process will be smoother tis year, although I'm concerned that teachers my not have enough objective information to enable them to accurately pass judgment.

Smacruairi wrote: »

Depends on your interpretation, I'd see it as teachers doing their best to see their professional judgement listened to, and in their role as advocates, and not being naive, they're taking measures to not leave it up to the gods like St Kilians and their German fiasco.

This is why CA doesn't work. Teachers are not supposed to be advocates during the process. It is this mentality that led to ridiculously inflated grades.

shesty wrote: »

Interesting - and totally anecdotal - conversation with a co-worker today where he told me his 1st year college student son has deferred his course. He did the first term and it just didn't work for him at all - sounded mainly as though it was forced by the transition to online learning thing as a first year, among other factors. He is considering changing to something else.


In the course of conversation with the secretary for the school he is in, she told my co-worker they had a drop out rate of approx 50% across the whole of first year by the end of November. This is one of the big Dublin ITs.


Absolutely anecdotal of course, and I do acknowledge that.I really wonder though, what the drop-out rates as a whole will be by year end, and what the fall-out of all this will be - the predicted grades, the online learning - all touted as a great solution, but I don't think they are myself.

You appear to be connecting predicted grades with college dropout. I would have assumed that the same type of students (in academic standard terms) got into the same type of courses as traditionally anyway. Not sure why predicted grades should promote college dropout.

I'm sure college online might have been challenging but that's a different matter entirely.

deiseindublin wrote: »

Why hasn't NF started the LC2020 review that she announced back in October? You'd think that is relevant to how 2021 goes, no?

I think CG is easier all round for them, and reviewing it might jeopardise just shoving teacher grades through an algorithm again.

I doubt they'll have a review where the outcome is not preordained anyway.

But yes, there is no doubt that predicted grades is easier this year since it's already been done. And she can always say that she tried to get LCs back in the classroom weeks ago but teachers objected.

shesty wrote: »

Interesting - and totally anecdotal - conversation with a co-worker today where he told me his 1st year college student son has deferred his course. He did the first term and it just didn't work for him at all - sounded mainly as though it was forced by the transition to online learning thing as a first year, among other factors. He is considering changing to something else.


In the course of conversation with the secretary for the school he is in, she told my co-worker they had a drop out rate of approx 50% across the whole of first year by the end of November. This is one of the big Dublin ITs.


Absolutely anecdotal of course, and I do acknowledge that.I really wonder though, what the drop-out rates as a whole will be by year end, and what the fall-out of all this will be - the predicted grades, the online learning - all touted as a great solution, but I don't think they are myself.

To me that's not surprising at all

When you see the complete lack of work ethic among a fairly significant cohort of students (and their willngness to carp/moan/bitch and blame everything but their own lack of application - second level seems to have bevome an increasingly arcane exercise in runn8ng around after them with a nappy and excessively time consuming game of giving them no option of learning something - it's the cart before the horse. They were never let fail and had to shoulder the blame for being just plain lazy and unwilling to put in even a reasonable effort, the same horse**** doesnt happen at 3rd level I suspect....its show up when you should show up, do what you should do, get work done by a deadline and work for understanding, don't expect your hand held and develop some responsibility for yourself and your actions - what's going on at second level is the opposite of that as teachers are increasingly put under pressure from all angles ...even by the new courses which claim to help foster students taking responability for their own learning but achieve 5he exact opposite effect imo....no wonder such large numbers of them can't hack it, they just got a dose of a reality that was absent from their lives to that point....id suspect the dropout rates are large before Covid too......

Covid aside and the difficulties of that situation, so many of them are completely lacking in anything approaching the type of time and effort you have to put into leaving cert to gain even a basic understanding of a subject.....its how little can I get away with from day 1 of 5th year ....no wonder they can't hack college, it's surprising there wasnt the same drop out rate pre covid tbh


Although maybe not so much given universities /3rd level depend on heads staying in courses for fees....

That's the problem with everyone goes to third level and no one is properly vetted for suitability in terms of their aptitude at course specific subjects...you have to factor in the my Johnnie is going to college effect too...regardless of his aptitude or desire...sure he'll happily go along if he's not paying for it and is beung provided drinking money for the year

It's also the problem with basing college revenue on numbers through and the fees they pay rather than the quality and work ethic of the graduate and also the quality of the instruction given

Grade inflation is a major problem at third level imo and if the new JC reforms are anything to go by the watering down of standards at 2nd level is well underway too

It will eventually swing back the other way when we actually need some standards and stop chasing around after them leaving everything on a plate and hold firm and expect them to do something or live with the consequences....

Treppen wrote: »

Maybe because it's still subject of legal proceedings.

Similarly, the algorithm/code 'if published' would be picked over.

That's true. It's the first place I'd go if I was hired as a solicitor or barrister though.

I'd be reasonably sure the downgrading happened based on a conglomerate score of JC applied to ranking. Kid with dyslexia one of the two downgraded in my class, excellent maths grade, crappy english grade. Kid next to him in the HL class didn't even sit HL at JC but was just fine apparently and kept his grade.

I think it should be published but I'd imagine it would cause war

deiseindublin wrote: »

It didn't apply to individuals a_z , it was schools that were ranked as such , or so we were told.

I'm not convinced by this either. Really I'd just like to see the code. I don't trust anything they say regarding the process to be honest

deiseindublin wrote: »

But surely you should have to publish your system for distributing grades?

There is a 205 page report on the system.

The report isn't the algorithm, just publish it and be done with it.