New English JC-help!!

I'm pretty much teaching the same stuff, using that book too. I still look at theme and character and do intervention questions on the novel, the same for poetry and introducing drama. I'm still covering letters, reviews etc. The main differences I'm implementing are more oral work and getting them to talk in class and some more ICT. I've drawn the line at filling in the portfolio though.

acequion wrote: »

Whatever about asking questions,it certainly is a breach of the union directive to log on to the JCT website!

Every teacher should have a copy of the old & new syllabus and by following that the students should be prepared to be assessed whatever happens.

acequion wrote: »

I very much disagree. Putting the students first "whatever happens" is merely rhetoric pure and simple. In order to teach them effectively teachers need to believe in the validity of the syllabus,or "subject specification" to quote the new buzz term. The majority of teachers don't believe in the validity of the new course for all the already well publicised reasons. Also assessment is not the be all and end all of education.



Well at our branch meeting during the week [ASTI] we were very much advised to stay away from the website. Merely logging on is being heralded as capitulation by O Sullivan and her cronies and their cheerleaders in the media. The reality,according to ASTI findings,is that an extremely tiny minority of teachers have availed of this training.

My own view is that you can't talk out of the two sides of your mouth. Engaging in lunchtime protests against the new JC on the one hand but logging onto that website on the other,is doing just that.

I was referring to the concerns of the OP who is unsure what to cover in preparation for the exam. Surely the syllabus whichever one is our main reference point in teaching the curriculum. I wouldn't go into my 5th years and say we're doing Hamlet when it's not on the course. I understand your position and hopefully things will be clarified one way or the other before 2nd years come back in Sept.

acequion wrote: »

Regarding the OP's concerns,we were also told at our branch meeting that the new syllabus is not in contention,what is in contention is the assessment part. So the new list of prescribed texts, as in plays and novels, will be on the new course,so anyone concerned can gear themselves towards that.

Yes, the new syllabus is not in contention. And on the website are resources to help teach the new syllabus. I'm guessing that what they were referring to at your ASTI meeting was signing up to a mailing list or signing up to online training, not visiting the website.

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Jan said in a few interviews those who visited the website are obviously in support of the CPD and therefore teacher certification for state exams! And we know how the newspapers like to use numbers.

Maybe somebody could glean the kosher resources and put them on another site!

Never heard her say that but it seems daft to not even look at what it's about as it's been changed a lot since last year.

acequion wrote: »

You're guessing completely wrong.They were very clear that we shouldn't go near the website which is obvious if you read the rest of that post.

Well, that's just nuts then. Are they going to issue a directive to not visit a website? If they do, it'll have to be a new one as it isn't covered under the current directive.

English teachers have been completely shafted, expected to start a new course that was poorly thought out and not ready to go. The unions failed to stop its implementation. They then failed to get it stalled, so we're heading into year 2 of a course which we are obliged to teach, but yet we have no idea of the form of assessment. And now they are telling us not to visit a website that might actually help us do our job because of the (false) claims the minister might make - preposterous!

I would be a hell of a lot angrier with the Minister who is being incredibly belligerent. While I think both unions let down their members on HR,I think they've run a good campaign on this. The blame lays squarely with O Sullivan who like her predecessor and this Government in general,won't listen to the people on the ground,in this case the teachers. Shame on her for bulldozing ahead despite widespread opposition!!

However I don't understand what you guys are being so frustrated about. Why can't you just stick with your union and continue to fight this one out? We are all in this together and together we must all point the finger of blame at the Minister. What can she do if everybody flat out refuses to cooperate? As indeed they must. If this isn't resolved by September just go into your new second years and start teaching one of the prescribed texts.It might do everyone good not to be so exam obsessed,which ironically was meant to be one of the raisons d'etre of the new course!

And I wouldn't be in any great hurry for a solution either. The solution has to be as close to what we want as possible for it to have our good will. And to get to that stage it's a waiting, and perhaps more striking, game. And that takes patience.

No one is going to fire you guys so relax!

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Its kind of ironic that because of the stalemate teachers won't be 'teaching to an exam' in September.

My knowledge of the English course isnt the best, but can't teachers just pick from the new prescribed list and start teaching the way theyve always done (with due consideration for new teaching methods etc). Only thing to leave out is marking exams for certification.

Like I know pupils will want to know if next Tuesday's assessment will be part of their final JC grade, but if you just say ' No its part of school exam' then wouldnt that cover both outcomes?

The exam at the end of 3rd year will be set, held and marked for state certification by the SEC. The info is online if anyone wants to read it and at least know what they're objecting to. If you are to choose texts from the prescribed list you do need to have the list & guidelines which may be difficult to do if you don't go online.

acequion wrote: »

True.The unions will have to put the list of texts up on their websites for English teachers to access.

Regarding what we're objecting to,anyone who doesn't know that at this stage must have been living in some parallel universe.

By the way,is Science definitely stalled?

Good idea. Well the Travers proposals are different than what we voted on. That's not saying there aren't a lot of outstanding issues but the unions should encourage members to read them carefully. I've heard many colleagues still going on about objecting to correcting exams for state certification when that isn't proposed anymore. Travers deferred science for another year. Looks like English is flying solo.

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Well then its just a case of carry on as per this year's junior certs then if there's no teacher certification! Maybe the unions will put up the guidelines on their sites (I doubt it), or maybe the dept. will post around the guidelines (which if they do is an acceptance that a piece-meal Junior cert is in play and thus Travers II is gone).

Thats my reading of how itll play out (or not!) so Id be interested to know what people think will happen in the next few weeks (or after september).

Can anyone honestly surmise that this is going to be put to a vote before June?I think that the earliest any ballot could happen would be october... then what , roll out all the CPD to be done before christmas?

I suppose Im veering away from the 'what do we do for english' but the above is based on my own understanding of my school's approach. I.e. take material from new list but assume nothing will change until they hear that it has.

The Department have posted all the info and CPD online so can't see them posting anything my mail. The latest ASTIR says the unions are supporting teachers of English by blocking CPD until there's agreement. Regardless of what happens the JC English syllabus is gonna change and the state exam will probably be v different as it's based on learning outcomes.

Gebgbegb wrote: »

But 'it probably being v different' is predicated on the prerequisite CPD taking place. Do you think they could hold that CPD whilst maintaining the stalemate within travers II ! Maybe they can, but it would want to be starting the early side of 2nd year to be in line for June 2017. That's my assessment of it anyway. time is a factor.

I suppose your position is that it's all a go (apart from in school certification) whereas I would think that because this issue hasn't been resolved (plus the other concerns) then everything must be on hold. Because it is on hold then there is a limiting time factor which I would pitch at about December. After that it would be a bit dubious to be rolling out CPD mid to late 2nd year! I'd be open to correction though.

So back to my original comment. What exam are teachers definitely teaching towards? New or old? can you give a 100% assurance to other English teachers that nothing will deviate from the dept. proposals in terms of the June 2017 exam.

CPD doesn't have to take place in centres. The Minister said it's going online and then offered it in centres which subsequently were picketed. Number of teachers on here clearly don't want DES CPD anyway and will sort themselves and students out. The school based assessment is in school anyway and next year only involves a 3 min pres so hardly rocket science to figure out if it does go ahead.

Gebgbegb wrote: »

There's a lot of loaded language there... but the substantive question still stands..

What exam are teachers teaching towards for June 2017. Can you give English teachers a 100% assurance that the exam is exactly what the department has proposed.... no matter what the outcome of any ballot or continued stalemate.

Well as the exam is state certified by SEC it isn't really up for discussion unlike the school based assessments. What we were told last year and what's in the specification is that the final exam is based on certain learning outcomes and will be 2 hrs long for both higher and ordinary. I can't see it changing from that but anything is possible.