The way forward for LC2021

PoolDude wrote: »

Well it might have been a reasonable assumption given the Taoiseach has said they were working on giving students choices and the minister said:

"two distinct process for Leaving Certificate 2021: planning for examinations and scoping out a corresponding measure, different to examinations that can also be offered to students"

Offered also implies choice but I doubt anyone is downing tools till they see the options

ASTI knew this going in and I think what they are saying is they need to be equally available options

And there-in you have the problem. The minister, third level minister, Tainiste and Taoiseach all went around giving random promises as to what way things were going to be and people believed everything. This was without any discussion with stakeholders.
Same as when they made the pronouncement that schools would open in January.

aratsarse101

I think I’m a reasonable teacher. I love my job; I really do, my subject and most importantly my students. I’ve been teaching nearly 20 years. But I wonder do people realise the realities of this issue. I have 330 students. The gang I have in my one 6th year class, I wouldn’t be able to name some of them if I saw them on the street. What do I do if we have an estimated grades scenario? Base it on Mickey Mouse assessments that I made with various pedagogical strategies behind them at the time? For the weeks that I saw them over the last year. Often students weren’t present or deliberately absented themselves. One student this year told me he hid in the the bathroom for two because he was afraid there would be calculated grades. All entirely non-standardised tests by the way. Base them on what will happen if I see them in the next couple of months? Or just pull them out of thin air?
Our learning (teachers and society) from the last calculated grades farce was that (a) the system can’t be trusted, (b) there was some awful injustices and (c) there’s more to this story...

Triangle wrote: »

This is the problem, they have their members interests at heart and not the people doing the LC. After all the stress these young folks have gone through this year - it's morally wrong to be playing games with their stress levels and emotions.
They should hang their heads in shame.

My eldest has gone through crap since Christmas and just wants to know what's going to happen. Its not the time to be playing games folks.

Predicting grades based on a few class tests is playing games. You have to ask yourself why teachers really care about this, they're not the ones depending on points, whatever decision is finally arrived at teachers will roll in, same as the new junior cycle, project maths, calculated grades last year. They have zero to loose .... So why are they taking this position?
If your son wants predictive grades then ask him if everyone gets H1s will everyone be happy?
Is he happy to compete with students who have been magically getting 100% in online tests since December?
Does he trust all his own teachers 100% to be fair to award a leaving cert grade based on.... Class tests after every chapter? And tank everyone in his class accordingly. Never mind the other teachers in the subjects who are tougher or easier graders.

Tell your youngfella to study as if there's going to be a leaving cert.
Not give up as if there isn't.

sue97

Predicted grades were not fair last year. Norma Foley removed schools historic data thereby causing teachers to see unexplainable (to them) correction of their results. Teachers who gave honest grades saw good students arrive to resit exams in Nov due to points inflation. Students spent hours with grind teachers working for November and only 40% increased (how?) They were focusing on one or two subjects instead of seven or eight. If you look at November results for Maths for example, the number of students who got higher grades has reduced compared to the last three years.

That's not to mention disclosing the students place in class after promising not to.

There should never have been discussions about predicted grades at this stage. Orals were done for college courses over Zoom, they could have been done over Zoom for Leaving Cert. Kids who do not have access to the technology could go into their school and use the technology there.

I don't blame the Unions on this. I think Norma is impulsive and does not think through her decisions.

sue97 wrote: »

Predicted grades were not fair last year. Norma Foley removed schools historic data thereby causing teachers to see unexplainable (to them) correction of their results. Teachers who gave honest grades saw good students arrive to resit exams in Nov due to points inflation. Students spent hours with grind teachers working for November and only 40% increased (how?) They were focusing on one or two subjects instead of seven or eight. If you look at November results for Maths for example, the number of students who got higher grades has reduced compared to the last three years.

That's not to mention disclosing the students place in class after promising not to.

There should never have been discussions about predicted grades at this stage. Orals were done for college courses over Zoom, they could have been done over Zoom for Leaving Cert. Kids who do not have access to the technology could go into their school and use the technology there.

I don't blame the Unions on this. I think Norma is impulsive and does not think through her decisions.

I reckon the department have zero intention of changing or enabling anything for the regular leaving cert exam.

The department's not fit for purpose. That's the real issue. The LC could be run if you out ten good principals and a few people from the SEC in a room, they are education in ireland. The department are dreadful, they don't read research, do research, implement obvious international research or understand how education works on the ground. They lack logistical ability full stop. Hence the SEC run the exams. Mix an incompetent department with an new TD with little experience or ability in a very trying time and you have a problem.........and it's not the Unions.

Bobtheman

It's a game of chicken now between the department and the Asti. I fully support the Asti position.

Pringles123

aratsarse101 wrote: »

I think I’m a reasonable teacher. I love my job; I really do, my subject and most importantly my students. I’ve been teaching nearly 20 years. But I wonder do people realise the realities of this issue. I have 330 students. The gang I have in my one 6th year class, I wouldn’t be able to name some of them if I saw them on the street. What do I do if we have an estimated grades scenario? Base it on Mickey Mouse assessments that I made with various pedagogical strategies behind them at the time? For the weeks that I saw them over the last year. Often students weren’t present or deliberately absented themselves. One student this year told me he hid in the the bathroom for two because he was afraid there would be calculated grades. All entirely non-standardised tests by the way. Base them on what will happen if I see them in the next couple of months? Or just pull them out of thin air?
Our learning (teachers and society) from the last calculated grades farce was that (a) the system can’t be trusted, (b) there was some awful injustices and (c) there’s more to this story...

Thank god somebody said it! I started in a new school myself this year. Over 300 students to learn about since September. I actually don't know my classes that well. I was only really getting to know them at Christmas. If the parents of the children in my 6th year class knew that I dont know their kids as well as they think, they wouldn't want me predicting their grades. I think some of my own students wouldn't want it.

I think we are damned if we go completely one way or the other. A leaving cert should go ahead with predicted grades as a backup plan. Students can opt for sole leaving cert results or a grade made up of analysing both actual test result and teacher's prediction.

Pringles123 wrote: »

Thank god somebody said it! I started in a new school myself this year. Over 300 students to learn about since September. I actually don't know my classes that well. I was only really getting to know them at Christmas. If the parents of the children in my 6th year class knew that I dont know their kids as well as they think, they wouldn't want me predicting their grades. I think some of my own students wouldn't want it.

I think we are damned if we go completely one way or the other. A leaving cert should go ahead with predicted grades as a backup plan. Students can opt for sole leaving cert results or a grade made up of analysing both actual test result and teacher's prediction.

I'd even be happy with 50/50 but I agree, take the exam grade in total or a 50/50 of teacher and exam. That seems fair. It's a bit like the interviews they do in colleges where someone has 69.1% and the external examiner can bring them up

Str8outtaWuhan

Triangle wrote: »

This is the problem, they have their members interests at heart and not the people doing the LC. After all the stress these young folks have gone through this year - it's morally wrong to be playing games with their stress levels and emotions.
They should hang their heads in shame.

My eldest has gone through crap since Christmas and just wants to know what's going to happen. Its not the time to be playing games folks.

A union putting their members first? that's a first :rolleyes:

Wombatman

For all intents and purposes predicted grades worked last year. Students moved on to college and what little furore there was, was short lived.

Civil servants hate doing things that haven't been done before. Precited grades has precedent. It's the devil you know and will be irresistible.

sue97 wrote: »

Predicted grades were not fair last year. Norma Foley removed schools historic data thereby causing teachers to see unexplainable (to them) correction of their results. Teachers who gave honest grades saw good students arrive to resit exams in Nov due to points inflation. Students spent hours with grind teachers working for November and only 40% increased (how?) They were focusing on one or two subjects instead of seven or eight. If you look at November results for Maths for example, the number of students who got higher grades has reduced compared to the last three years.

That's not to mention disclosing the students place in class after promising not to.

There should never have been discussions about predicted grades at this stage. Orals were done for college courses over Zoom, they could have been done over Zoom for Leaving Cert. Kids who do not have access to the technology could go into their school and use the technology there.

I don't blame the Unions on this. I think Norma is impulsive and does not think through her decisions.

The DES are happy for us to teach online for the last few weeks as well as last year. So why can't orals take place online? It's a 10-15 minute conversation. There is a capability of recording calls on Zoom/Teams etc. Why is this not even being discussed?

With regard to the November exams, I wouldn't place too much emphasis on the grades awarded in November v. a normal year. Students sat those exams for all sorts of reasons. Many only did 1 or 2 exams so had the time to study for them, some had no access to a teacher at all and studied by themselves. Some may have been downgraded in the calculated grades process and knew they could do better. Some may have been given a grade that they were more than happy with and took it and run.

The H1s in the predicted grades were not going to be sitting the exams and while the predicted grades caused inflation I would say a general trend within a school the better academic students got higher grades/points than the average or weaker students. So those at the top end of the scale already had their H1s and were not going to sit the exam. The only ones you'd have had in that category were people who got perhaps a H2 or H3 who felt they would have got a H1, most would have already been accounted for, so there was never going to be a high H1 rate in the November exams. The cohort would not have reflected the cohort of students across the country as a whole.

Pringles123 wrote: »

Thank god somebody said it! I started in a new school myself this year. Over 300 students to learn about since September. I actually don't know my classes that well. I was only really getting to know them at Christmas. If the parents of the children in my 6th year class knew that I dont know their kids as well as they think, they wouldn't want me predicting their grades. I think some of my own students wouldn't want it.

I think we are damned if we go completely one way or the other. A leaving cert should go ahead with predicted grades as a backup plan. Students can opt for sole leaving cert results or a grade made up of analysing both actual test result and teacher's prediction.

You wouldn't unique though. Plenty of teachers covering maternity and sick leaves would be stuck in this position too along with teachers new to a school. I'd imagine that Dec - May is possibly one of the most popular stretches for maternity leave (it is in my school anyway), there are plenty of people who had only started in jobs a few weeks when we went to lockdown. They can't even see the faces of their students let alone assess their abilities accurately.

Rosita

Examiner reporting that NPHET is saying it's not the time to open schools. Not the Minister's day.

Rosita

Triangle wrote: »

This is the problem, they have their members interests at heart and not the people doing the LC. After all the stress these young folks have gone through this year - it's morally wrong to be playing games with their stress levels and emotions.
They should hang their heads in shame.

My eldest has gone through crap since Christmas and just wants to know what's going to happen. Its not the time to be playing games folks.

Funny how you see no role for the Dept of Ed in this at all.

Rosita wrote: »

Examiner reporting that NPHET is saying it's not the time to open schools. Not the Minister's day.

Does any of this crew actually communicate with each other? What are we supposed to take from all of this?

Norma says schools reopening in January - has spoken to stakeholders - unions say 'No she hasn't'
She finally stops bleating the mantra of 'schools are safe'
Now she's got a plan to reopen, has largely got union support for reopening and now NPHET say 'Shouldn't be opening'

What is going on? Does the DES talk to only one group at a time? NPHET or unions but not both? Do they accept some advice and completely ignore it when it suits them? Are they just making it up as they go along?

amacca

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Does any of this crew actually communicate with each other? What are we supposed to take from all of this?

Norma says schools reopening in January - has spoken to stakeholders - unions say 'No she hasn't'
She finally stops bleating the mantra of 'schools are safe'
Now she's got a plan to reopen, has largely got union support for reopening and now NPHET say 'Shouldn't be opening'

What is going on? Does the DES talk to only one group at a time? NPHET or unions but not both? Do they accept some advice and completely ignore it when it suits them? Are they just making it up as they go along?

I know it's odd isn't it? ....it's like the only time they get to compare notes and find out what the other is thinking is after the press conference/press release/leak

It doesn't scream unity......

I wonder have the group's dealing with the minister/govt been so pissed off by their kite flying/jumping the gun/lack of spines/self interested PR spin related bungling - that has the potential to transfer blame off their shoulders to anyone that deals with them each group is taking steps to protect itself by stating their position out in the open in public so they can't be blamed and it's a matter of public record what they recommended etc

Let the govt shoulder their responsibility

They are hardly all working together to string it along long enough so thete is no option but to cancel exams :pac:

joebloggs32

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Does any of this crew actually communicate with each other? What are we supposed to take from all of this?

Norma says schools reopening in January - has spoken to stakeholders - unions say 'No she hasn't'
She finally stops bleating the mantra of 'schools are safe'
Now she's got a plan to reopen, has largely got union support for reopening and now NPHET say 'Shouldn't be opening'

What is going on? Does the DES talk to only one group at a time? NPHET or unions but not both? Do they accept some advice and completely ignore it when it suits them? Are they just making it up as they go along?

The union support was with a caveat.....that they would support the reopening if it was deemed safe to do so by public health advice.

km79

Carl o brien reporting that the asti are back in LC talks with Norma tomorrow

Wombatman

I chuckled...

https://twitter.com/MallowNews/status/1359937971265429517

And there you have it ASTI are worried about next year and future years. Are they worried about a precedent or is there something they might lose? Why aren’t they worried about solving this year - will a guarantee that the process will not be used again (unless there a pandemic) suffice

They also said there wasn’t enough data for CG which was why they don’t support it but then also they would not rule anything out at this stage.

Complete waffle on what numbers would suffice for a return to school when asked direct question on whether 200-400 range would be deemed safe. All she eventually got out was that that range was less than the 500 it was last week but not what was deemed acceptable

Not a great interview - I’m more confused now.

Icsics

The DES are quite happy to throw teachers under the bus again this year, easiest cheapest option for them. Why not reduce all exam papers & run in July? It’ll cost money that’s why. CAO applications way up this year, impacted by last years LCs & their inflated points, the CAO system will explode if we introduce another cohort with inflated points. NF meeting unions ‘in person’ tomorrow, where was she all week?

PoolDude wrote: »

And there you have it ASTI are worried about next year and future years. Are they worried about a precedent or is there something they might lose? Why aren’t they worried about solving this year - will a guarantee that the process will not be used again (unless there a pandemic) suffice

They also said there wasn’t enough data for CG which was why they don’t support it but then also they would not rule anything out at this stage.

Not a great interview - I’m more confused now.

It can't be used alone, as in the only viable option, given its so early in the year is CG. Why only discuss this option, the timing of the exams makes them more time sensitive. That's where you start, if you have even a vague intention of running them. 50/50 makes sense, a smaller, vaguer terminal exam based on the coursework with lots of choice and externally examined with CG based on teachers grading and assessment the other 50% combine and standardise from the exam curve.

CG puts little pressure on the DES or SEC, it's easy, that's why it's being pushed. It's not the fairest or best method by any metric

Rosita

PoolDude wrote: »

- will a guarantee that the process will not be used again suffice

.

How would that guarantee work?

am_zarathustra wrote: »

It can't be used alone, as in the only viable option, given its so early in the year is CG. Why only discuss this option, the timing of the exams makes them more time sensitive. That's where you start, if you have even a vague intention of running them. 50/50 makes sense, a smaller, vaguer terminal exam based on the coursework with lots of choice and externally examined with CG based on teachers grading and assessment the other 50% combine and standardise from the exam curve.

CG puts little pressure on the DES or SEC, it's easy, that's why it's being pushed. It's not the fairest or best method by any metric

You see there clarity and logic to that but the lady on TV provided none of that or any clarity on anything she was asked. I’d be very disappointed if she was representing me. Maybe it’s not her strength but then wheel someone who can answer questions out

Rosita wrote: »

How would that guarantee work?

You deleted the condition I included from what you quoted but essentially that would need to be negotiated if they are at the table but my question is why is the focus on not just next year but future years - are they protecting something they fear losing. Surely it’s a separate topic, I.e. leaving cert reform which government and academics have expressed is needed

PoolDude wrote: »

You see there clarity and logic to that but the lady on TV provided none of that or any clarity on anything she was asked. I’d be very disappointed if she was representing me. Maybe it’s not her strength but then wheel someone who can answer questions out

I think that's what they are plugging for or something similar. I think this makes sense, it would flag odd outlier too, say where a teacher gives a very high or very low grade that doesn't correspond to the exam. It would present its own issues but far fewer than either alone I feel. Last year I would have just ran the exams, they had the whole course covered in a lot of subjects but I was very comfortable with CG because I had so much consistent, clear and unbiased data. The kids didn't know they were being monitored, because they weren't, so cheating was non existent. The half and half would be a good catchall and would give a decent approximation.

Piggott is strong but I'm not always sure about her ability as an orator. I'm actually in a TUI school but I respect the fact ASTI have stuck to their guns far more in recent years.

Just reading ISSU statement and watching the video - ASTI are only stakeholder that has still not engaged directly with them or responded to their invitations

joebloggs32 wrote: »

The union support was with a caveat.....that they would support the reopening if it was deemed safe to do so by public health advice.

I get that, but why say there is a plan to open the schools after midterm and then have NPHET say 'nope, we didn't recommend this?'