am_zarathustra wrote: » Anyone got their letter yet? I don't really mind I guess, I know the conference dates at least but it's very late, I wonder how different that payments are?
Random sample wrote: » Ive heard that there will be an extra payment equivalent to the admin fee (roughly €220) for the inconvenience of the change of routine this year. I think that’s to make up for the lack of an overnight. I don’t think there’ll be an advance this year either, since it usually covers expenses for the conference.
am_zarathustra wrote: » Interesting the lack of an advance, usually it's so long til you get paid the advance is the only thing that keeps me going, feels at least a bit like I've earned something given the months before the actual money hits your account They've been improving on payments though I guess and the lack of a JC might make them faster!
Treppen wrote: » One of the reasons I don't do marking anymore is the crazy delay in payment. I've never known any regular job where you slave away solid for 1 month & give up your weekends & be on call 24/7... Only to be paid over 2 months later. Fiver says they won't be earlier with final payment.
Random sample wrote: » Flip side of that is that the work is long forgotten when the money comes in… it’s like a bonus!
am_zarathustra wrote: » End of September in 2019...... it is a bit mad for a job you start at the end of June. I actually shouldn't have checked, I've forgotten how much the tax is and how much real cash you actually end up with! :rolleyes: And I'd never bet against the incompetence of payments from any facet of the Department of Education. :pac:
rainbowtrout wrote: » Ya I never looked at it as covering conference fees, more like an incentive to keep the bag of exam papers and not throw it at the door of the SEC on a high speed drive by
History Queen wrote: » Did ye see the controversy over the marking of the oral exams? Absolutely newsworthy but I wish the journalists had waited until after exams to publish.
am_zarathustra wrote: » Rough enough given the exam is yet to happen. Inevitable really though, not everyone wants to correct or examine, best people know that about themselves. Younger teachers were definitely put under pressure to do it.
Random sample wrote: » I’m shocked by it tbh. I would find anything unusual that comes up in a script I’m told to put it in my report, I’m surprised at attempts to hush this. It sound more to me like the examiner who leaked it was expecting a song and dance but was told to mark what was in front of them. I don’t understand how a teacher would leave sections out either. I mean, we drill the elements and order of the exam into our students. If a teacher left an element out of the exam there’s a good chance that element wasn’t covered in class. With language exams all happening this week it wasn’t for the good of the truth or the students that story was published today.
History Queen wrote: » I'm not a language teacher so I wouldn't have a clue about the ins and outs of it but that examiner made a protected disclosure to the SEC so they must have felt strongly about it. It playing out in the media isn't good enough though.
rainbowtrout wrote: » There’s always gonna be a weakness in the chain somewhere even when you’ve got experienced people involved and it isn’t always apparent under normal circumstances, it’s only when something really unusual happens that it arises. They should have dealt with it. They were probably correct in saying the examiner could only mark what was in front of them but incorrect in saying not to flag the school or put it in the report. It’s impossible to know if this was an issue that was reported by multiple examiners and it was decided to ignore it or just the one advisor acting alone. In terms of the untrained teachers. They could have been trained on zoom and should have been. But also, there are teachers out there no matter what training they are given who decide they are going to do their own thing and have the attitude that they’ll choose not to examine a component and assume that the SEC will just have to work with what they’ve got. We see it on this forum from time to time, some teachers are just unprofessional.
Random sample wrote: » The instructions document was very clear, it would have been no harm to have a zoom, but it would have been a meeting that could have been an email. Principals should be aware of which teachers would go rogue and not asked them to do the interviews. It was written in those instructions that any mistakes made in carrying out the orals were on the candidate, the sec would not be making up for them. There is a whistleblowing system within the sec, I think this examiner should have used it rather than going to the papers. They have no idea how the sec is dealing with the issue.
History Queen wrote: » The original examiner did use the whistleblowing system. It seems several examiners spoke to the Irish Times. The language teachers in my school didn't think the instructions document was very clear, as I said previously, it was brought up at a union meeting such was the level of concern.
Random sample wrote: » The oral marking hasn’t been finished for long, there hasn’t been any time for the sec to deal with a concern yet. I think if someone found that document difficult to understand, and they didn’t know the procedure, they should not have offered their services to carry out the interviews.
Random sample wrote: » https://www.thejournal.ie/leaving-certificate-oral-exams-marking-ongoing-5466632-Jun2021/ I think it’s appalling that Sinn Fein are trying to politicise this. Normally in July the orals are reviewed by examiners for quality assurance and I’ve heard issues with how occasional examiners have carried out the work, but it’s never made the papers. I know I keep harping back to it, but if teachers don’t understand the exam structure, how well would they have prepared their classes for the exam? They would probably be down the larks anyway, just for different reasons. In my large school there are a lot more language teachers than we would have needed as interviewers, so the principal had a choice of who to use.
rainbowtrout wrote: » It did say in the times report that the examiner made a protected disclosure to the SEC. Hard to know what the chain of events was after that. Hard to predict for a principal if a teacher would go rogue too if they’ve never examined before. I think it might be a lesson learned for the SEC. Put examiners in place.
