The way forward for LC2021

PoolDude wrote: »

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

So there's no 'guarantee' about next year then at all? Just a word - 'guarantee' - thrown in the move things on? Just LC reform which everybody outside anyone with direct experience of Post-Primary schools believe is needed.

You are right about one thing; it is indeed a separate topic. So it should be left separate.

PoolDude wrote: »

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

The ISSU position is clear, they want their members to have a choice between predicted grades or exams.

The ASTI position is clear, you cannot magic up a Leaving Cert grade without evidence. Some teachers can because they know the students so well. But Some teachers cannot.

Everyone went to the talks with the clear understanding that everything would be considered and discussed. When they got there the department would only discuss predicted grades and nothing else. If there is no movement on that then the only option was to leave because the agenda of the meeting had changed.

What the ISSU is asking their teachers to do is unethical and illogical, but hey, if everyone wants H1s then that shouldn't cause any problems right!

Maybe they're right though, just assign random grades and let the CAO, Joe Duffy and the courts sort it out.

Rosita wrote: »

Just putting this up here for the record as some would pretend it was never said. Link is below.


Nphet: Not yet the time to consider reopening schools


THU, 11 FEB, 2021 - 20:51
NIAMH GRIFFIN, HEALTH CORRESPONDENT

It is not yet time to consider reopening schools and encouraging movement, Nphet warned even as they cautiously welcomed decreasing case numbers.

New modelling data shows that, while the daily case numbers dipped below 1,000 for the third time this week, the 14-day rate of infection is still four times what it was in early December, and about 100 times what it was in July.

Although the reopening of schools remains a priority, deputy chief medical officer Dr Ronan Glynn sounded a note of caution.

Asked why the caution, he said: “because we still have more people in hospital than at any point last year, still more people in critical care … We are still seeing a level of disease transmission in the community that is far too high for a million people to go back.”

Looking forward, he said if the reproduction-number stays low, Ireland is on track to have between 200 and 400 daily cases by the end of the month.

There is a 50% reduction in mobility rates linked to workplaces compared to a normal week.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40225289.html

So the key here is the timeline - he is referring to now and then talks about the rate at the end of the month. The question is do they feel that it is then safe at the end of the month if those rates are attained? I think that clarity is needed to enable planning of any phased return.

Rosita wrote: »

Just putting this up here for the record as some would pretend it was never said. Link is below.


Nphet: Not yet the time to consider reopening schools


THU, 11 FEB, 2021 - 20:51
NIAMH GRIFFIN, HEALTH CORRESPONDENT

It is not yet time to consider reopening schools and encouraging movement, Nphet warned even as they cautiously welcomed decreasing case numbers.

New modelling data shows that, while the daily case numbers dipped below 1,000 for the third time this week, the 14-day rate of infection is still four times what it was in early December, and about 100 times what it was in July.

Although the reopening of schools remains a priority, deputy chief medical officer Dr Ronan Glynn sounded a note of caution.

Asked why the caution, he said: “because we still have more people in hospital than at any point last year, still more people in critical care … We are still seeing a level of disease transmission in the community that is far too high for a million people to go back.”

Looking forward, he said if the reproduction-number stays low, Ireland is on track to have between 200 and 400 daily cases by the end of the month.

There is a 50% reduction in mobility rates linked to workplaces compared to a normal week.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40225289.html

Asked why the caution, he said: “because we still have more people in hospital than at any point last year, still more people in critical care … We are still seeing a level of disease transmission in the community that is far too high for a million people to go back.”

Is Glynn making a general statement here or a statement on schools specifically?

Rosita wrote: »

But there is no divergence. The TUI saying they are okay to go back "the week of the 22nd or whenever is deemed safe" is meaningless. It really just means that "we actually agree with the ASTI that schools and the general community spread should be considered safe before schools are open, which is what the second part of the statement is in fact saying but we'll throw in the first part with the date because that's what people will remember and we'll appear reasonable".

Well no, he was saying they have already agreed the requirements needed to go back and to the plan as part of the talks they've already had and that he wouldn't comment on the ASTI who have said the plan is not acceptable to them.

Rosita wrote: »

This is either absolute pointless drivel - a cyber equivalent of a paper never refusing ink and you are just typing stuff that comes into your head or it's really significant.

If it's the latter the TUI needs to publish details of this assessment right now. Maybe the ASTI teachers, and those real hardliners who are in no union, could adopt those independently examined assessments. Obviously all teachers assess students as a matter of routine but wouldn't consider short-term routine in-class testing to have longer-term significance.

But if TUI members are engaging in assessment practices that are long and thorough enough to be cited on radio as somehow relevant to the calculated grades debate it should be openly discussed and shared. Might be a solution to the lack of credible data many teachers suffer from.

And maybe the Minister might, at the same time, tell us who instructed the SEC to not advertise for Orals and Practicals examiners, when and why. Might give us some indication as to how long the government have known the LC was dust. Would be interesting to juxtapose the timeline of that with the Minister's determination to "hold the traditional LC".

This same drivel was spouted last year by principals in print and on the radio: "This is all fine sure the teachers will have no bother". At the time this was lapped up, there was a desire to calm any nerves about a system that was the equivalent of drunken darts. Teachers are assessment experts seemed to be taken as fact.

I think the question of expertise is routinely cast aside in education. Some teachers through experience and advanced study may become expert educators in their subject. Lots will be proficient and a small handful will be sub-par. The focus on facilitation and "generic skills" has led to this anti intellectual approach.

From a quick perusal, there are no MSc. degrees in Assessment in Ireland. One in Cambridge and a few others across the UK. It is a small but highly complex and technical field, no PME would ever really gain the knowledge necessary when one considers all of the pointless modules involved (Hist of Ed) and experience alone is not enough either (it can serve only to confirm assumptions). The odd inservice provides advice on formative feedback but I have yet to attend inservice that has explained any of the science of summative assessment.

If I was taking guidance from someone which would have a huge impact on my future I would expect that they would be able to explain the basic science of the subject. I would suggest the vast majority of teachers are illiterate when it comes to this. It is no fault of the teacher either.

Personally, a lot of the literature regarding summative assessment is Latin to me. I much prefer feedback and advice and would never consider myself to be knowledgeable enough to provide a summative mark relating to 2 years of learning in 10% increments.

It is the work of the shaman not the teacher.

Rosita wrote: »

This is either absolute pointless drivel - a cyber equivalent of a paper never refusing ink and you are just typing stuff that comes into your head or it's really significant.

If it's the latter the TUI needs to publish details of this assessment right now. Maybe the ASTI teachers, and those real hardliners who are in no union, could adopt those independently examined assessments. Obviously all teachers assess students as a matter of routine but wouldn't consider short-term routine in-class testing to have longer-term significance.

But if TUI members are engaging in assessment practices that are long and thorough enough to be cited on radio as somehow relevant to the calculated grades debate it should be openly discussed and shared. Might be a solution to the lack of credible data many teachers suffer from.

And maybe the Minister might, at the same time, tell us who instructed the SEC to not advertise for Orals and Practicals examiners, when and why. Might give us some indication as to how long the government have known the LC was dust. Would be interesting to juxtapose the timeline of that with the Minister's determination to "hold the traditional LC".

Please don't accuse me of 'just typing stuff that comes into your head'. I've been respectful of you, others and the discussion. Yes, I have expressed disappointment at the Unions and the Minister but not at posters or the Teachers or the students impacted. MODS - you can decide

This is what I believe he said on Newstalk - Pat Kenny show. It's likely on podcast if you want to listen and share your perspective if you think differently feel free to do so. Again as I posted, he was clear that TUI only see CG as the fall back with written exams the preference.

Rosita wrote: »

This is either absolute pointless drivel - a cyber equivalent of a paper never refusing ink and you are just typing stuff that comes into your head or it's really significant.

If it's the latter the TUI needs to publish details of this assessment right now. Maybe the ASTI teachers, and those real hardliners who are in no union, could adopt those independently examined assessments. Obviously all teachers assess students as a matter of routine but wouldn't consider short-term routine in-class testing to have longer-term significance.

But if TUI members are engaging in assessment practices that are long and thorough enough to be cited on radio as somehow relevant to the calculated grades debate it should be openly discussed and shared. Might be a solution to the lack of credible data many teachers suffer from.

It has been argued here that the department should have been prepared for all eventualities and were feckless not to have done so. Students were considering the possibility of calculated grades since September. I expect the teachers who have the required data considered the obvious likelihood of PGs and acted accordingly.

PoolDude wrote: »

Look, I'm trying to be balanced here. My earlier comment on ASTI lady not being very good on Prime Time is clear to anyone who watches it in my opinion (and its only that). Equally, its not clear why they wouldn't at least respond to the ISSU and clearly state their position and listen to that union but then maybe its a practice to not engage any other union - I genuinely don't know but it looks like they aren't talking to the TUI here either where it might benefit putting a collective viewpoint together. I agree with your point on the Minister, equally disappointing - where was the advance planning when it was not something that hadn't happened before.

The TUI were just on Newstalk. He said they have the information and it is about how it is pieced together to provide the alternative solution. There teachers have been assessing the students.

That said he also said there position is that this solution is a back up if exams can't go ahead and they need it as a contingency for that scenario.

Net, that ultimately means both unions are effectively aligned to some extent and at odds with the Minister's narrative of giving options - todays meeting will be interesting then!

One area they are diverging is going back to school - TUI again said they are ok to go back the week of the 22nd or whenever is deemed safe and have already negotiated what is needed as part of getting the cohort coming in on the 22nd.

That's a cop out, as usual they are letting the ASTI make the hard decisions and state it as it is.
The department's position ,as relayed to everyone yesterday by the ASTI is that the exams are NOT going ahead... no "if".

The department refused to discuss anything other than predicted grades.

PoolDude wrote: »

Again as I posted, he was clear that TUI only see CG as the fall back with written exams the preference.

This doesn't make any sense.

According to the ASTI the only way forward the Minister and her department would discuss was predicted grades.

This is 100% backed up by the fact that zero recruitment for exams has taken place... you can't do this in one or two weeks.

We know exams are the "preference", but that's neither here nor there, me winning the lotto is my preference , even though Ive never bought a ticket.