The way forward for LC2021

Treppen · 20-05-2021 11:58PM

Alex86Eire wrote: »

Oh I thought you had to have different percentages for a particular subject. What would happen if a school had 3 6th years (in 3 different classes) getting 92% in HL maths for example? How would the SEC decide between them if one was being brought down to a H2?

Nobody knows how the SEC are going to moderate the teacher's grades.

Bobtheman · 21-05-2021 05:13PM

I had a few sleepless nights over these grades but realised that the department I will **** it up. Last year they downgraded our grades which were fair and then post outcry went back to our grades. They now their rough bands ie 60-70
I'm being as transparent to the kids as I can. Show them their test results. Showing them the relevant sections from the booklet on accredited grades.
Then I'm telling them we ain't in kansas anymore toto when it comes to the exam with all its modifications

Bobtheman · 21-05-2021 06:00PM

Random sample wrote: »

If an exam is unfairly downgraded it will go back up on appeal. That process isn’t there for accredited grades.

See my previous post. Last year downgrades occurred even in Deis schools. Then they reversed that.
Thus kids just have to complain and the entire government gives in. In
Thus there was a defacto national appeal

Let's ignore the collapse of thousands of livelihoods and cancer services. Thousands of people will never work again.
But God forbid one leaving cert pupil will be put out. God forbid. They have more back door routes to college than the vietcong had to saigon

Bobtheman · 22-05-2021 08:58AM

I applied for supervision. Late application date May 7th.
Anybody heard back yet?

gaiscioch · 22-05-2021 01:21PM

Bobtheman wrote: »

I applied for supervision. Late application date May 7th.
Anybody heard back yet?

I got my 'Appointment letter' for superintendent on 12 April.

The Examiner section said I could be called but as things stand they've a surplus of examiners in most subjects.

Bobtheman · 22-05-2021 02:12PM

They sent an email looking for extra supervisors not examiners in late April. In certain counties

Proferoxa · 22-05-2021 04:40PM

gaiscioch wrote: »

The Examiner section said I could be called but as things stand they've a surplus of examiners in most subjects.

I find it strange that the written examiner recruitment is still open if this is the case, given that it was due to close over a month ago? They usually have difficulties finding people to mark for MFLs, do you know if this is the case this year?

Leftwaffe · 22-05-2021 05:02PM

Do superintendents arrive the day before to set up centres or what does that work? Done superintendent myself before but can’t remember

rainbowtrout · 22-05-2021 08:47PM

Proferoxa wrote: »

I find it strange that the written examiner recruitment is still open if this is the case, given that it was due to close over a month ago? They usually have difficulties finding people to mark for MFLs, do you know if this is the case this year?

Well with some students opting for predicted grades, there will be less sitting the exams so I'd say less examiners are needed this year.

Bobtheman · 23-05-2021 10:40AM

Leftwaffe wrote: »

Do superintendents arrive the day before to set up centres or what does that work? Done superintendent myself before but can’t remember

They will provide details in a letter but usually you drop papers to them the day before. The school. Collect and drop. Usually the exam secretary sets it up.

Leftwaffe · 23-05-2021 12:11PM

Bobtheman wrote: »

They will provide details in a letter but usually you drop papers to them the day before. The school. Collect and drop. Usually the exam secretary sets it up.

That’s right actually I collected papers and dropped them in the day before. Exam sec had room basically set up but I had to put labels on tables, signage, etc. So I should expect them on Tuesday the 8th then. Thanks.

derb12 · 23-05-2021 05:30PM

Leftwaffe wrote: »

That’s right actually I collected papers and dropped them in the day before. Exam sec had room basically set up but I had to put labels on tables, signage, etc. So I should expect them on Tuesday the 8th then. Thanks.

When you say exam secretary do you mean the person from the school who is paid by the dept specifically for state exams? I think it’s called examinations aide?

Leftwaffe · 24-05-2021 10:45AM

derb12 wrote: »

When you say exam secretary do you mean the person from the school who is paid by the dept specifically for state exams? I think it’s called examinations aide?

Yeah the exam aide.

Bobtheman · 27-05-2021 08:00PM

Nothing from the SEC about exam supervision.
I applied late for the May 7th date.

Bobtheman · 28-05-2021 07:10AM

What I mean is there was late applications allowed and I applied by May 7. The closing date

gaiscioch · 01-06-2021 12:11AM

Anybody get called back into school to fill in new forms for an OL student who decided to tick the Ardleibhéal box for all his subjects for accredited grades?

One of my students had a permanent seat in an OL class and was adamant he would not be sitting the subject. So, he did nothing. I marked him accordingly at OL. Then, I get phoned to say he put HL down for all his subjects, even though he was mostly in OL classes.

And we therefore have to give him a mark at his nominated level, no matter how unlikely it is. Incredible that this is the situation. So, I obviously failed him at HL, until somebody told me a grade of 30% or more at HL is worth 37 points! So I gave him a grade in the 20s, where he gets zero points. He's probably banking on the SEC looking at his JC result and deciding to raise his result due to Covid. Either way, he's trying to game the system.

maynooth_rules · 01-06-2021 07:30AM

He probably isn't alone in that. Must say giving points to 30-40 at higher level seems a really bad move in my opinion. It's made it very difficult to encourage students who simply are not able for Higher level to drop down.

jimmytwotimes 2013 · 01-06-2021 08:05AM

maynooth_rules wrote: »

He probably isn't alone in that. Must say giving points to 30-40 at higher level seems a really bad move in my opinion. It's made it very difficult to encourage students who simply are not able for Higher level to drop down.

Never under stood the drop to 30% for pts.

Understand less than a 1/3 of what's going on?

Well done, here's some pts for college.

rainbowtrout · 01-06-2021 09:23AM

gaiscioch wrote: »

Anybody get called back into school to fill in new forms for an OL student who decided to tick the Ardleibhéal box for all his subjects for accredited grades?

One of my students had a permanent seat in an OL class and was adamant he would not be sitting the subject. So, he did nothing. I marked him accordingly at OL. Then, I get phoned to say he put HL down for all his subjects, even though he was mostly in OL classes.

And we therefore have to give him a mark at his nominated level, no matter how unlikely it is. Incredible that this is the situation. So, I obviously failed him at HL, until somebody told me a grade of 30% or more at HL is worth 37 points! So I gave him a grade in the 20s, where he gets zero points. He's probably banking on the SEC looking at his JC result and deciding to raise his result due to Covid. Either way, he's trying to game the system.

No but a student from another school that I teach outside school was telling me that there was a student in her year who had moved to OL maths in fifth year, wasn’t able for HL and when this whole accredited grades thing kicked off wanted to move back to the HL class and the school said no. The student was getting grinds in OL maths outside school and then registered for Applied Maths for HL. I’m going to assume that there won’t be valid evidence to prove the student is capable of a high grade in AM given that they were getting grinds at OL, and also weren’t studying applied maths up to that point. It’s also disappointing to hear of teachers who are willing to sign off on stuff like this in a private capacity.

rainbowtrout · 01-06-2021 09:27AM

jimmytwotimes 2013 wrote: »

Never under stood the drop to 30% for pts.

Understand less than a 1/3 of what's going on?

Well done, here's some pts for college.

I think the thinking behind it was that a person who scored between 30-39 would have passed the OL paper so were given points equivalent to that so they could move on and not have to repeat the year. I don’t think it’s had the desired effect. Students who are not capable of HL and would score in the low to mid 20s are now aiming for 30 to ‘pass HL’ and then don’t pass it.

Treppen · 01-06-2021 10:00AM

rainbowtrout wrote: »

No but a student from another school that I teach outside school was telling me that there was a student in her year who had moved to OL maths in fifth year, wasn’t able for HL and when this whole accredited grades thing kicked off wanted to move back to the HL class and the school said no. The student was getting grinds in OL maths outside school and then registered for Applied Maths for HL. I’m going to assume that there won’t be valid evidence to prove the student is capable of a high grade in AM given that they were getting grinds at OL, and also weren’t studying applied maths up to that point. It’s also disappointing to hear of teachers who are willing to sign off on stuff like this in a private capacity.

Once teachers are willing to sign off then it's game over.

I didn't think a school could refuse a student to sit in a higher level class though, parent as primary educator would have final say . Unless issues with class size or timetable!

RealJohn · 01-06-2021 12:36PM

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I think the thinking behind it was that a person who scored between 30-39 would have passed the OL paper so were given points equivalent to that so they could move on and not have to repeat the year. I don’t think it’s had the desired effect. Students who are not capable of HL and would score in the low to mid 20s are now aiming for 30 to ‘pass HL’ and then don’t pass it.

This is it, and once again, it’s a decent idea, very badly implemented. I think it’s fair enough to give them some points for attempting higher level and falling a bit short, but the fact that the student did fail should also be reflected in the points they receive. A pass (H6) gets you the same points as an O2, and a fail (H7) then gets you the same points as an O3, sending the message “failing higher level is equivalent to 70%+ at ordinary level”. Of course they don’t drop down.
I’m for giving them some points for 30%+ at higher level, but it should be more like the equivalent of an O5 or an O6, not an O3.

rainbowtrout · 01-06-2021 01:07PM

Treppen wrote: »

Once teachers are willing to sign off then it's game over.

I didn't think a school could refuse a student to sit in a higher level class though, parent as primary educator would have final say . Unless issues with class size or timetable!

It’s not. The panel formed by the school make the final decision on the mark assigned to the student for the accredited grade and can ask for evidence as to how this grade was arrived at. Any school principal with an ounce of cop on wouldn’t sign off on a high grade in HL Applied Maths for a student who is struggling with OL maths. The panel also make the final decision on the mark awarded not the teacher who submitted the grade.

The school can’t stop the student from registering from HL, but the student can’t stop the class teacher from giving a H8 to a student who is doing OL and can’t pass HL class tests.

noplacehere · 01-06-2021 01:35PM

RealJohn wrote: »

This is it, and once again, it’s a decent idea, very badly implemented. I think it’s fair enough to give them some points for attempting higher level and falling a bit short, but the fact that the student did fail should also be reflected in the points they receive. A pass (H6) gets you the same points as an O2, and a fail (H7) then gets you the same points as an O3, sending the message “failing higher level is equivalent to 70%+ at ordinary level”. Of course they don’t drop down.
I’m for giving them some points for 30%+ at higher level, but it should be more like the equivalent of an O5 or an O6, not an O3.

It should be ranked. 5 makes extra up to 25 marks for the H1. Not a blanket application. It’s completely crazy and these kids will fail any maths based course in college

rainbowtrout · 01-06-2021 03:06PM

noplacehere wrote: »

It should be ranked. 5 makes extra up to 25 marks for the H1. Not a blanket application. It’s completely crazy and these kids will fail any maths based course in college

UL and DCU used to do this in the 90s. Bonus points for maths on a sliding scale. A1 got 40 points bonus down to C3 which got 5. Points only applied to CAO courses in those colleges.

I still wouldn’t give bonus points for a D/H6 in maths. It doesn’t show any great aptitude for the subject.

RealJohn · 01-06-2021 04:51PM

I don’t agree with the sliding scale but I do think that the bonus points shouldn’t apply from 40% up. It should really be 60% up (the traditional “honours” cut off), or at least 50% (since 55% isn’t an option anymore).
Getting 40-50% isn’t getting “honours”. It’s getting a pass at higher level.
I get that there’s a rationale to changing the way things are stated but every time there’s a move from something like “honours” to something like “higher level”, some of the meaning is lost, in my opinion.

In fact, as I grow older, I’m starting to think that the old system (which I never experienced - I’m not quite that old) where you got x honours and x passes and you got to third level based on that wasn’t actually a bad system. No points race, pressure greatly reduced, and if you weren’t good enough at third level, you failed.
There’s a case of going back to that, in my opinion, and let the universities set more specific requirements if they like.

sue97 · 01-06-2021 05:16PM

RealJohn wrote: »

I don’t agree with the sliding scale but I do think that the bonus points shouldn’t apply from 40% up. It should really be 60% up (the traditional “honours” cut off), or at least 50% (since 55% isn’t an option anymore).
Getting 40-50% isn’t getting “honours”. It’s getting a pass at higher level.
I get that there’s a rationale to changing the way things are stated but every time there’s a move from something like “honours” to something like “higher level”, some of the meaning is lost, in my opinion.

In fact, as I grow older, I’m starting to think that the old system (which I never experienced - I’m not quite that old) where you got x honours and x passes and you got to third level based on that wasn’t actually a bad system. No points race, pressure greatly reduced, and if you weren’t good enough at third level, you failed.
There’s a case of going back to that, in my opinion, and let the universities set more specific requirements if they like.

I like the idea of a general year in college, you get into a certain college and you learn a little bit of lots of subjects and prove yourself to specialise in a subject. e.g. you want business you have to do well in appropriate subjects, not get in based on H1's in Music, Art, PE, etc.

RealJohn · 01-06-2021 05:58PM

Oh I absolutely think that relevant subjects should count more too. Subjects like Irish, English and maths should always count for points because they benefit most if not all courses (to some extent at least), but then, relevant subjects should score more than ones that are less relevant.

Choochtown · 01-06-2021 06:08PM

RealJohn wrote: »

Oh I absolutely think that relevant subjects should count more too. Subjects like Irish, English and maths should always count for points because they benefit most if not all courses (to some extent at least), but then, relevant subjects should score more than ones that are less relevant.

Have to disagree regarding your opinion that Irish should always count.
What is your reasoning for it benefitting "most if not all courses" ?
Gaelscoil students already get a big advantage with Irish being a core subject.
It's also notoriously difficult for students with dyslexia.

RealJohn · 01-06-2021 09:54PM

Choochtown wrote: »

Have to disagree regarding your opinion that Irish should always count.
What is your reasoning for it benefitting "most if not all courses" ?
Gaelscoil students already get a big advantage with Irish being a core subject.
It's also notoriously difficult for students with dyslexia.

Irish is as relevant to communication in this country as English is. Also, Gaelscoil students don’t have an undeserved advantage. Nothing stopping people from sending their kids to Gaelscoil and they’re all over the country these days. Most importantly though, it’s a core subject (and rightly so) so it should always count for points just for that reason.

And I’d love to see evidence that students have trouble with Irish because the language is difficult, rather than that it’s badly taught.

The way forward for LC2021

Comments