katydid wrote: » You're right, it's not down to FETAC monitoring. FETAC have more or less abdicated responsibility for it; they don't care, they just award the cert.
katydid wrote: » That is why my first point was not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. CA in itself is not bad, but it has to be done in the right circumstances. Even though it would limit the kind of CA that can be done, a start could be made by having external teachers marking a student's work - it's still extra work for teachers, and if fairness to them they aren't complaining about that - but it would take away the fear of lack of objectivity. I just see how some students thrive on CA. They learn as they go along and improve after getting feedback, and even unpromising ones come out with good results at the end of the year because they can focus on one thing at a time instead of cramming everything into one week. It would be a shame if the whole notion was dismissed.
acequion wrote: » But,have you looked around you amongst teachers? Have you read the threads here and on other sites about teachers who are at breaking point? Who cannot afford to buy a home or even go on a holiday for that matter? And who are worn out with never ending days of classes,copies,CP hours,lunch time meetings and extra curriculars? Do you seriously think they don't mind the extra on top of extra that this reform would entail?? Make no mistake about it, teachers are bitter and resent the constant Dept impositions and disregard for what is feasible and humane.
rainbowtrout wrote: » Which is exactly what the DES want to do. That was initial JCSA proposal 'teachers do all the work' then it changed to 'ok you do all the work and we'll award a certificate.' Why are you so in favour of introducing this for junior cert when you know this is how it works for Fetac just like you have stated above?
acequion wrote: » Listen now katydid,teachers are not complaining about the extra work publically,for fear it might jeopardise the cause. Teachers have been unfairly reviled by the public for many years now and any public protest about being forced to do extra work for free,though entirely justifiable in any context from any group,would gain no sympathy from the teacher hating public.So that's why you aren't hearing too many loud complaints about the extra work. But,have you looked around you amongst teachers? Have you read the threads here and on other sites about teachers who are at breaking point? Who cannot afford to buy a home or even go on a holiday for that matter? And who are worn out with never ending days of classes,copies,CP hours,lunch time meetings and extra curriculars? Do you seriously think they don't mind the extra on top of extra that this reform would entail?? Make no mistake about it, teachers are bitter and resent the constant Dept impositions and disregard for what is feasible and humane. But,of course this is also about the students and what teachers think is best for them.Even the most bitter and demoralised teachers are still very committed to their students and still like the teaching part of the job. In fact thank heavens for being able to go into a classroom,shut the door on the big bad world and engage in the wonderful process of teaching and learning.So,teachers do want what is best for their students and this is the most public part of this dispute. I am quite frankly fed up of all the gobbledygook,pie in the sky horseshyte being flung about which is obscuring the realities which I have painted above.
katydid wrote: » Of course I know about the pressure on teachers! I am one. I'm more fortunate being longer serving and higher up on the scale, so things are a bit easier for me, but I work in a sector where a large proportion of the staff are part time or on CID's of varying hours. I know how hard it is. AND I know about the pressure of paperwork involved in CA - I have to do all that as well as all the other stuff we have to do, including the "teachers' detention" and pointless meetings.
endakenny wrote: » Surely, secondary teachers (ASTI members especially) knew what voting for HRA would mean. As far as I know, HRA didn't say that they have to have meetings at lunchtime. I would have thought that denying teachers a proper break during the day would beach health and safety rules, i.e. if you don't eat then you'll faint. Furthermore, I doubt that inspectors don't care about the non-academic aspects of school life, e.g. fighting against bullying. The Department has no motive to prevent teachers from treating students humanely. PS: It's not my intention to antagonise you. I'm simply disagreeing with a point that you have made.
katydid wrote: » HRA said you have to have meetings outside school hours. Many schools, including mine, interpret that strictly as AFTER school hours, which means we have to have our detention hour at half past four. Some schools are more lenient in their interpretation and tolerate lunch hour meetings. One way or the other, we have to do the detention. But it is actually a breach of H&S if having a lunch time meeting involves teachers working more than four hours, but a blind eye is turned by sympathetic management to make it a bit easier for people who would otherwise have to stay and waste time for an hour after work. The vast majority will be doing work at home too, and the day is long enough.
endakenny wrote: » Surely, there have always been things to do with work that teachers have to discuss and the Croke Park hours formalise that. I'm aware that principals still have discretion over the agendas for Croke Park meetings.
katydid wrote: » The Croke Park hours are just detention for teachers. Most of them have to be "whole school meetings" so that everyone has to be in the building at the same time. Anyone who wants to do individual CPD has to still do that in their own time, or smaller groups who could meet at other times can't. Some principals are more flexible but that's how it is in my workplace, and it has caused massive resentment. We are forced to stay and have meetings at a time when everyone is tired after the day, and no account is taken of all the other time we take to meet or train.
acequion wrote: » If you read my post properly you would see that I am talking about what is humane to teachers,not students. And the Dept are not humane towards teachers, imposing a constant stream of extras that are impossible to cope with.Maybe on the surface everyone seems to be coping,but if you look closely enough you'll see the many cracks. And yes,the inspectors want to see "surface" proof that all is brilliant in x school and that everyone is delighted with life there.That way they can tick their box and go on their merry way to the next school. It's all surface and all window dressing as are these reform proposals and as is the way you read my post!
Benicetomonty wrote: » Don Myers really struggling on Pat Kenny show, Gerry Quinn v articulate
[Deleted User] wrote: » As a parent (not a teacher) who listened to this car crash, I'd be interested to know who Don Myers is and what gives him the authority to speak for me on this subject. Surely a "National Parent's Council" should be arguing against a system almost designed to introduce corruption into state examinations? And shouldn't they spend their time fighting for more resources for education rather than cheering on the government's austerity measures? Anyone know what his background is? With the best will in the world his performance made me think 'political appointment'.
endakenny wrote: » I was aware of that. One of the conditions of the benchmarking process was also holding meetings outside school hours. Surely, starting the hour at 4 p.m. is strictly outside school hours.
endakenny wrote: » So why did many teachers vote for HRA? They could have voted to continue the industrial action instead. It is possible that some subjects involve more CPD than others. Therefore, it might not be practical to include CPD in Croke Park hours. Is it actually the case that there never were any issues that necessitated whole school meetings? I'll hazard a guess as to what some of those issues are: discipline, literacy, numeracy, health and safety.
endakenny wrote: » Then union members should ask the unions to lobby for change next year, when HRA runs out. Surely, Jan O'Sullivan (or whoever succeeds her) would be sympathetic if these concerns were conveyed to her. Ministers get things wrong but that doesn't mean that they're heartless.
katydid wrote: » I certainly didn't. I know, however, that we were told by your union that if we voted for it, many people would lose their jobs. The union didn't make a recommendation one way or the other, but the FEMPI legislation would have resulted in the loss of jobs for both permanant and part time teachers. I think many teachers didn't want to have that on their conscience.
katydid wrote: » Of course it would make sense to use Croke Park hours for CPT. But the problem is that Croke Park hours are supposed to be "whole school activities", which precludes an individual doing CPD that suits their subject at a time that suits them. Since people want to and need to do CPD, they have to do it in their own time, which makes them really resentful at having to waste time in "teachers' detention" instead of using the time usefully. Of course some whole school discussion is necessary, but it's ridiculous to force whole school meetings every week, even when they are not needed. I know in our school we make up topics for meetings to try to use the time, which is ridiculous.
katydid wrote: » Of course I know about the pressure on teachers! I am one. I'm more fortunate being longer serving and higher up on the scale, so things are a bit easier for me, but I work in a sector where a large proportion of the staff are part time or on CID's of varying hours. I know how hard it is. AND I know about the pressure of paperwork involved in CA - I have to do all that as well as all the other stuff we have to do, including the "teachers' detention" and pointless meetings. The one comfort I have is that I do get paid for the extra work involved in marking FETAC; it certainly is more demanding than the ordinary assessments I'm doing anyway on a continuous basis, because of the interminable paperwork regarding the different levels of moderation. I get paid for it, and teachers at second level should get paid for it. Either for the extra work involved in processing their own students, or, if they really feel uncomfortable doing this, assessing other students. My point is that this is being portrayed as for or against CA. It's not. It's about being against the present proposals.
ustazjoseph wrote: » those of us who do the same work but at levels 3 and four don't get paid for FETAC marking. I've worked in the UK system. I've seen the benefits of coursework /CA. I see the advantages to staff and students as a mode of teaching and learning but.... FETAC has become QQI. More time , money paper and systems.Quality across the country and across the levels is scratchy at best. There isnt enough time or money. To have perfect FETAC systems takes more paperwork than my colleagues in third level require. like much in our country, a potentially good idea " lets have more coursework " turned into an ostrich on ice.
gaiscioch wrote: » This article by Joe Humphreys in this morning's Irish Times is astonishing, with its claims that language teachers, in fact, assess their own students' oral exams in the JC: "A weakness in the unions’ stance is that teachers already assess their own students for certain elements of State exams, specifically in oral language tests and the Leaving Cert Applied programme. Arguably, the Rubicon has already been crossed and the only issue for debate is the degree of adjustment."Now the teachers’ phoney war is over talks can really begin: Hawks in the teaching unions have the upper hand but compromise is possible
Marshall Some Second wrote: » There is no teacher assessment of student work in LCA. Teachers verify work is completed and it is stressed at every inservice that we are not there to grade work. Student tasks are assessed by an outside examiner following an individual interview. This is probably the gold standard in assessment, but it's obviously expensive so the government wouldn't like that. Sounds like the writer has no clue what they are on about.
Representatives from the TUI and ASTI attended talks today on the Framework for Junior Cycle chaired by Dr Pauric Travers. The talks, which began this morning, have been adjourned until Monday, February 2nd.
deiseindublin wrote: » Just read this on TUI site: Wonder what exactly that means? The talks fell apart? They made some progress and are meeting again on Monday? Please God they don't cave on this, 1% teacher assessment is too much.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bc8c60b40d617ee953d0955850979f43.svg)
