clunked wrote: » Propaganda in full flow from Jan on the News at 1. Its obvious that she is the puppet and the strings are being controlled elsewhere.
rainbowtrout wrote: » An extremely naive way of looking at how politics works. Senior civil servants are in place for years and years. Ministers come and go, they are often appointed to a department in which they have no experience. Of course they are going to take their lead from senior civil servants.
Armelodie wrote: » Today FM newsheadlines this morning 8:30 am started off with "teachers will be urged to reach a consensus with the minister as they are set to strike tomorrow..." No mention of Who has urged them to reach a consensus! INM maybe! Of course parents council are coming out predicting the ruination of students education because of the strike day. Maybe if they considered that its about decades of childrens education to come that we're protesting for. After this strike, the 'assessment initiative' will be let die like the short-courses idea has. Minister exit stage left after the election, incoming minister will scrap the idea (like Leo did to O' Reilly).
katydid wrote: » They can follow the lead from civil servants in matters of procedure, where the civil servants are more experiences in that department, but they are coming to the job with policies to implement, and they would be pretty weak if they allowed policy to be dictated by civil servants.
Armelodie wrote: » So what policies did Jan come with under her arm? Make no mistake, its a retirement post till the next election. She's quite happy to do the merry dance with the unions as it shows her throwing a few shapes.
clunked wrote: » You don't mind a grossly increased workload so or less holidays so. nice one:(. I don't see much of a baby in the bath water tbh.
acequion wrote: » Totally agree with clunked. The whole issue is being fudged by ideologies which would necessitate a much healthier structure than our thread bare one. The real issues should be huge class sizes,escalating discipline problems,low teacher morale,the casualisation of the profession,unsustainable workload etc etc. Forcing teachers to start marking their own students at this point, after years of austerity, would serve no purpose for anyone. And as for whether CA is better than terminal exams and general reform of the JC,let's start with what I've listed above first.
katydid wrote: » It would serve the purpose of students being marked by those who know them and see how they work, and would would be able to match their teaching techniques to their assessment techniques. Giving students more options to reflect different learning and assessment styles doesn't mean NOT tackling the other aspects.
katydid wrote: » I already correct my own students' work. It does mean a lot of paperwork, but I'd be assessing them anyway. And it doesn't mean less holidays.
katydid wrote: » I hope they don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. As I've said before, I don't agree with my colleagues on this issue, and I think they are wrong to worry about the independence of properly devised and moderated assessment, but if that is the sticking point, I hope that the issue of continuous assessment per se is not abandoned, even if it would have to be marked externally. It is already practiced in some areas, to great success. It can't be as good (in my view) as being corrected by the teacher themselves, but to have a large element of CA, at least 50%, would be highly desirable for so many students, who need the chance to thrive under a different assessment style.
Benicetomonty wrote: » Don Myers really struggling on Pat Kenny show, Gerry Quinn v articulate
Armelodie wrote: » You can continuously assess your own students regardless of govt. initiative... and thats our own professional perogative to do so thank god.. well it used to be until this nonsense. Katydid.. we know well this is aping the failed UK system, (nevermind Finland and their small class sizes).the Irish inspectorate have explicitly stated that that is their wish. Furthermore, they have explicitly stated that they wish the results to be tied to ' performance ' related pay , And furthermore they want every schools results to be published. Do what you wish and teach to the style that you prefer. But foisting wishy washy 'best practice' on every single teacher in the country will sound the death knell of the autonomy that our profession and students deserve.
man_no_plan wrote: » Definition of Continuous Assessment. Keep doing the same piece of work until it gets the grade we want it to get.
rainbowtrout wrote: » In the long run the DES want us to correct the exams as well as the continuous assessment component, even if they do continue to set the exams. To make that workable students will still have to do the exams to a national timetable. When do you think this will happen? We are contracted to give 167 days of teaching time over the school year, exams will happen in June. Do you want to be supervising your third years in June and correcting exams at the end of June and then meeting with the other teachers of your subject area at the end of June/ early July to ensure that the grades fit the curve etc? I don't.
katydid wrote: » It doesn't have to ape the failed UK system. I've seen at first hand how CA can work properly in this country - and I've worked and used it in the UK, so I know what I'm comparing it with. In the UK, it's a box ticking exercise, and far too much leeway is given to the students. When it's used here, in FETAC, for example, it is properly devised and properly moderated and it is a totally different kettle of fish. It is certainly not wishy washy to devise, administer and moderate a well structured and transparent assessment system.
Marshall Some Second wrote: » Teaching FETAC is exactly what has shown me that teacher devised assessment and correction with token moderation is a recipe for wildly varying standards. I have little confidence in FETAC standards. It can be great but I have seen so much evidence of it being a sham. Imo much of the FETAC process is box-ticking smoke and mirrors that can cover a multitude. I also don't feel I or my students gain anything from my correction of student work for certification process that isn't gained from correction and feedback given anyway as part of normal teaching and learning.
acequion wrote: » katydid nothing has to be bad and many ideas are great in theory. But practise is an entirely different ballgame. Remember that the second union objection is the capacity of schools [and by implication,teachers] to cope with the reform.In practise, foisting this upon weary,demoralised,overworked and underpaid teachers at this point in time and upon a system which is barely coping after years of savage cutbacks,is a non runner. Anyone who cannot see that is living in cloud cuckoo land. The only sensible solution is to scrap the whole idea and go back to the drawing board, this time with everyone on board for the good of all.
Armelodie wrote: » Comparing FETAC and junior cert students is ludicrous. You might as well make the analogy that because the private sector uses continuous performance reviews then it should work for 14 year olds. All this money being spent devising, administering,moderating,reviewing,appealing,measuring etc.. Why not just reduce the class sizes instead of trying to force one particular teaching method ( and all the 'measurement' that comes with it) onto teachers. If it is so great why didn't they start with the Leaving Cert?
katydid wrote: » The FETAC work carried out in PLC's and properly run Dept. of Ed centres is and should be properly devised and monitored. It is indeed a disgrace that private suppliers can tick boxes and provide the same certification as these centres, and that is something that should be addressed with stringent inspection and moderation. There is no reason why second level schools, whose business is education, not profit, should not be able to devise a proper, watertight and fair system. But moderation and inspection of these systems is essential and, having seen how FETAC have pulled back from this and put more on the individual schools, that part would worry me slightly. However, the standards in Dept. of Ed. centres are light years away from the private sector, and in the case of the JC, there is no private sector to offer shoddy service. Surely feedback and correction of assignments enable the student to know what they need to focus on for future assignments, in order to aim for certain grades?
Marshall Some Second wrote: » My experience is in DES and PLC centres, not the private sector. And from what I see FETAC moderation and inspection has always been inadequate to ensure proper standards are upheld. Of course many centres are excellent and provide quality education, but from what I have seen it's certainly not down to FETAC monitoring. I just don't think it's good enough.
