Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
TUI recommend acceptance of new JC
Options
Comments
-
Ok I'm going to say this once and i'm logging off this thread again because i'm not getting into another tit for tat with you two. We do NOT KNOW what these assessments will be. How do you know they are going to be small? There isn't even syllabi written for most subjects. We CANNOT say that they will be small class based assessments when we don't know what they are. Heck we don't even have examples for the syllabi that are published.
There will be layers of additional assessment on top of what we have always done including two classroom-based assessments, an Assessment Task and Standardised Testing in Maths, English and Science. Two classroom based assessments and another assessment task is going to create one hell of a lot of paperwork and again I repeat: We do not know what these assessments will consist of apart from a generic sentence in the document. We are also to have "moderation meetings" and additional reporting to parents.
That document does not give me any confidence that the workload will be even remotely similar to the current junior cycle. On the contrary it reads like we will spend a ton of time in second and third year not only preparing students for these but documenting every step of the preparation and later the assessment of the two classroom based assessments.
We already have an very very high class contact time so removing one class period but lumping in a ton of paperwork in place of it is not any sort of a good thing in my opinion.
And on that I'm out. I'm voting against.0 -
But you have your mind made up that it's going to be onerous. Good one.mirrorwall14 wrote: »Ok I'm going to say this once and i'm logging off this thread again because i'm not getting into another tit for tat with you two. We do NOT KNOW what these assessments will be. How do you know they are going to be small? There isn't even syllabi written for most subjects. We CANNOT say that they will be small class based assessments when we don't know what they are. Heck we don't even have examples for the syllabi that are published.
There will be layers of additional assessment on top of what we have always done including two classroom-based assessments, an Assessment Task and Standardised Testing in Maths, English and Science. Two classroom based assessments and another assessment task is going to create one hell of a lot of paperwork and again I repeat: We do not know what these assessments will consist of apart from a generic sentence in the document. We are also to have "moderation meetings" and additional reporting to parents.
That document does not give me any confidence that the workload will be even remotely similar to the current junior cycle. On the contrary it reads like we will spend a ton of time in second and third year not only preparing students for these but documenting every step of the preparation and later the assessment of the two classroom based assessments.
We already have an very very high class contact time so removing one class period but lumping in a ton of paperwork in place of it is not any sort of a good thing in my opinion.
And on that I'm out. I'm voting against.0 -
mirrorwall14 wrote: »Theres absolutely no detail on how this is going to work though. This year I have two full JC classes in both 2nd and 3rd year (so within the CA years). Thats four classes. A colleague of mine has one third year group and no second years. I get the same one class period off? How is that supposed to work when I have FOUR times the students!
The Appendix clarifies some of these issues, it mentions double time for SLAR meetings etc. I understand your query but maybe you should ask the union for clarification of this issue. The CBA will replace your house exams so that eliminates some of your work load, and as this years Third Years are doing the old exam you've no worries there. The students also have to be prepared for a 2 hour exam now rather than the two papers they had previously, that too would surely help in May when exam angst is upon us all.0 -
English Teachers know what their assessments are. Other subjects need to get their union reps to demand at NCCA meetings that the tasks are doable within the timeframe. The paperwork is to be issued in template form and appears innocuous enough from what I've seen. It's new, it's different but it's still a hell of a long way from Ruairi Quinns proposals and I genuinely think the unions have achieved a tremendous amount to date. Yes I have reservations too but I think the Implementation Committee will play a huge role.mirrorwall14 wrote: »Ok I'm going to say this once and i'm logging off this thread again because i'm not getting into another tit for tat with you two. We do NOT KNOW what these assessments will be. How do you know they are going to be small? There isn't even syllabi written for most subjects. We CANNOT say that they will be small class based assessments when we don't know what they are. Heck we don't even have examples for the syllabi that are published.
There will be layers of additional assessment on top of what we have always done including two classroom-based assessments, an Assessment Task and Standardised Testing in Maths, English and Science. Two classroom based assessments and another assessment task is going to create one hell of a lot of paperwork and again I repeat: We do not know what these assessments will consist of apart from a generic sentence in the document. We are also to have "moderation meetings" and additional reporting to parents.
That document does not give me any confidence that the workload will be even remotely similar to the current junior cycle. On the contrary it reads like we will spend a ton of time in second and third year not only preparing students for these but documenting every step of the preparation and later the assessment of the two classroom based assessments.
We already have an very very high class contact time so removing one class period but lumping in a ton of paperwork in place of it is not any sort of a good thing in my opinion.
And on that I'm out. I'm voting against.0 -
The forty minute class time is going to make a big difference in some schools if it goes through. In my school, we have 35, 36 and 40 minute classes. Apart from it being easier to calculate and timetable, in my case it'll mean fewer classes per week.
To be honest, I'm amazed that the DES are proposing ceding 40 minutes per week and have agreed to something as commonsense as 40 minute classes.0 -
Advertisement
-
implausible wrote: »The forty minute class time is going to make a big difference in some schools if it goes through. In my school, we have 35, 36 and 40 minute classes. Apart from it being easier to calculate and timetable, in my case it'll mean fewer classes per week.
To be honest, I'm amazed that the DES are proposing ceding 40 minutes per week and have agreed to something as commonsense as 40 minute classes.
Think it's gonna be a huge issue for some schools. Practical subjects in my school are already very concerned and a few schools in our area now have one hour classes...that's madness in my opinion0 -
Education matters wrote: »Think it's gonna be a huge issue for some schools. Practical subjects in my school are already very concerned and a few schools in our area now have one hour classes...that's madness in my opinion
But don't you assess already on a regular basis?0 -
-
Education matters wrote: »Not sure what you mean, talking about 40 minute classes
I got the impression that you were saying that the length of the classes had some relevance to the difficulty of assessment.0 -
Not at all, I do know that as Implausible said 40 minutes may be a slight hurdle. We currently have say 5x35 minute classes for practicals and the feeling is at there might only be 4x40. Just complicates things further for some subject areas. Makes a time table very simple though, lands bang on 22 hours0
-
Advertisement
-
Education matters wrote: »Not at all, I do know that as Implausible said 40 minutes may be a slight hurdle. We currently have say 5x35 minute classes for practicals and the feeling is at there might only be 4x40. Just complicates things further for some subject areas. Makes a time table very simple though, lands bang on 22 hours
You just tailor your assessment to the time you have to carry it out.0 -
-
Education matters wrote: »No I'm not referring to assessment at all, just that some people might lose class contact time. others may gain it.
Ok.0 -
Education matters wrote: »deiseindublin wrote: »No surprise here then.
Be interesting to see what happens with ASTI with 2 exec members saying they recommending a NO.
TUI have campaigned steadily since Ruairi Quinns initial announcement to dilute these proposals By recommending acceptance are they not saying that finally after three years of intense negotiations this is a very different proposal? I certainly don't find it surprising that the union would recommend acceptance of a proposal they had massive input into. We have moved the goalposts considerably, from 100% internal assesment to 60 % now to 0%. Yes there are workload implications but any Union who can convince the Department to give every teacher of JC a class a week off has obviously done something right. Initially we were all told this was a cost saving exercise, now it's costing the Department money. In my view the precedent is set, teachers will receive time in lieu of future " initiatives", maybe not ideal but a step in the right direction, never the less
Are you talking about the same unions who have allowed working conditions to significantly deteriorate over the past years?
And yes they have campaigned and negotiated but is that not what union officials are [well] paid to do?
Ruari Quinn's 100% assessment was never going to get anywhere. Everyone knew that including Quinn himself. By starting from a ludicrously extreme position any concession looks good by comparison. Oldest trick in the book.
It may cost the DES money to get this up and running,but they will recoup it down the line with much smaller state exams. It also sets up the mechanism for more school based assessment down the line,perhaps even completely phasing out the state exams. With the new trend towards shrinking the state budget, a trend all over Europe, you would want to be a tad naive not to realise that that is ultimately what politicians of the right want.
For those who say the workload won't increase,I feel that's also naivete or at best wishful thinking. Compare your workload now with five years ago!
I'll be retired in a few years so personally it won't hugely affect me but I think a teacher would be crazy to vote for this. It's not even as if jobs are being threatened as was the case with HRA. We vote no,they have to go back to the drawing board. Make it an election issue. The unions should flat out refuse to implement anything new until an incoming Government pledges to make a proper commitment to investing in education. Such as reduce the PTR, reverse the cuts in guidance,restore parity of pay scales. When some or all of this has been achieved,then let's talk reform. It's not rocket science and meantime we continue to teach as before. There is absolutely no urgency to make sweeping changes to junior cycle and everyone knows that. But the spin sounds better as it always does.0 -
You know what I agree with a lot of what you've said and I understand your points but my point is we have been given time off to carry out this work only because we have vehemently campaigned against the assault on our profession. Where things go from here is any bodies guess, vote no and make it an election issue and continue the fight with another government who take these proposals on board. I'm certainly not advocating acquiescing to government dictat I was simply replying to the remark referring to the TUI s recommendation. Have people the energy for more strike action, can anyone afford another day's wages lost? I suppose the question is how far can we take it? What more can be achieved? We opposed this change by taking the moral stance, we would not assess our students...has that not been removed from the document? I know it's playing with words but the Junior Cert will now be marked totally by the SEC.Education matters wrote: »
Are you talking about the same unions who have allowed working conditions to significantly deteriorate over the past years?
And yes they have campaigned and negotiated but is that not what union officials are [well] paid to do?
Ruari Quinn's 100% assessment was never going to get anywhere. Everyone knew that including Quinn himself. By starting from a ludicrously extreme position any concession looks good by comparison. Oldest trick in the book.
It may cost the DES money to get this up and running,but they will recoup it down the line with much smaller state exams. It also sets up the mechanism for more school based assessment down the line,perhaps even completely phasing out the state exams. With the new trend towards shrinking the state budget, a trend all over Europe, you would want to be a tad naive not to realise that that is ultimately what politicians of the right want.
For those who say the workload won't increase,I feel that's also naivete or at best wishful thinking. Compare your workload now with five years ago!
I'll be retired in a few years so personally it won't hugely affect me but I think a teacher would be crazy to vote for this. It's not even as if jobs are being threatened as was the case with HRA. We vote no,they have to go back to the drawing board. Make it an election issue. The unions should flat out refuse to implement anything new until an incoming Government pledges to make a proper commitment to investing in education. Such as reduce the PTR, reverse the cuts in guidance,restore parity of pay scales. When some or all of this has been achieved,then let's talk reform. It's not rocket science and meantime we continue to teach as before. There is absolutely no urgency to make sweeping changes to junior cycle and everyone knows that. But the spin sounds better as it always does.0 -
Education matters wrote: »
It may have been a moral stance, but it undermined the status of our profession by your insistence that some teachers don't consider themselves professional enough to be objective and able to resist pressure.? We opposed this change by taking the moral stance, we would not assess our students...has that not been removed from the document? I know it's playing with words but the Junior Cert will now be marked totally by the SEC.0 -
Education matters wrote: »You know what I agree with a lot of what you've said and I understand your points but my point is we have been given time off to carry out this work only because we have vehemently campaigned against the assault on our profession. Where things go from here is any bodies guess, vote no and make it an election issue and continue the fight with another government who take these proposals on board. I'm certainly not advocating acquiescing to government dictat I was simply replying to the remark referring to the TUI s recommendation. Have people the energy for more strike action, can anyone afford another day's wages lost? I suppose the question is how far can we take it? What more can be achieved? We opposed this change by taking the moral stance, we would not assess our students...has that not been removed from the document? I know it's playing with words but the Junior Cert will now be marked totally by the SEC.
Interesting musings there but I detect a certain weariness /resignation in your tone which I feel is one of our problems. We give in too easily,we get defeatist,fatalistic and where has it got the profession? Morale is at an all time low and that's fact. The DES is inundated with unprecedented enquiries about retiring. At one end people are desperate to get out and at the other,clamouring to get in.All frantic. It shouldn't be like that. We have done a mere three strike days since the start of the recession,that is three strike days in six years against a tsunami of attacks! We can surely afford more than that when so much is at stake!
What more can be done,what more can be achieved? Well that's what we pay the unions for and that is their headache in the event of a no. I really believe that the unions should have insisted on stalling this when Jan O Sullivan came in and insisted too,as I said above, on the restoration of several cuts before entertaining reform talks. The unions are too soft,cynics would say they have their own agenda.I really don't know.
I also think the campaign was fought too narrowly. Teachers' objections were more complex than not marking their own students,though obviously that was a big part. So that now that that is off the table the unions have perhaps backed us into a corner. But is that a reason to vote yes?
It's too vague,too rushed,too bureaucratic and if it goes through it will fall squarely on our shoulders as everything does. Why take the risk? Vote no and let the unions sort it out.0 -
It may have been a moral stance, but it undermined the status of our profession by your insistence that some teachers don't consider themselves professional enough to be objective and able to resist pressure.
Im certain that at no point did any party in the negotiations insist that teachers were not professional enough to be objective. Maintaining the integrity of the exam was what was called for and parity of treatment due to anonymity.0 -
You have been insisting that you don't want to grade your students because you can't be objective and you might come under pressure from outside influences.Education matters wrote: »
Im certain that at no point did any party in the negotiations insist that teachers were not professional enough to be objective. Maintaining the integrity of the exam was what was called for and parity of treatment due to anonymity.
Your colleagues in FE and third level, and your counterparts in other countries manage to design and administer and grade. By saying you can't, you are undermining your own profession.0 -
Again, it's difficult to disagree. I just think people need to be aware what they are voting for ( I'm certainly not referring to you here). I just think the unions deserve a little bit of credit here, yes, they are paid officials but when one takes the initial document and compares it to what's on the table now it is beyond recognition. Personally, I'm going to attend the information meetings and weigh up the pros and cons and try lose the obviously detectable tone of weariness and resignation!,Education matters wrote: »
Interesting musings there but I detect a certain weariness /resignation in your tone which I feel is one of our problems. We give in too easily,we get defeatist,fatalistic and where has it got the profession? Morale is at an all time low and that's fact. The DES is inundated with unprecedented enquiries about retiring. At one end people are desperate to get out and at the other,clamouring to get in.All frantic. It shouldn't be like that. We have done a mere three strike days since the start of the recession,that is three strike days in six years against a tsunami of attacks! We can surely afford more than that when so much is at stake!
What more can be done,what more can be achieved? Well that's what we pay the unions for and that is their headache in the event of a no. I really believe that the unions should have insisted on stalling this when Jan O Sullivan came in and insisted too,as I said above, on the restoration of several cuts before entertaining reform talks. The unions are too soft,cynics would say they have their own agenda.I really don't know.
I also think the campaign was fought too narrowly. Teachers' objections were more complex than not marking their own students,though obviously that was a big part. So that now that that is off the table the unions have perhaps backed us into a corner. But is that a reason to vote yes?
It's too vague,too rushed,too bureaucratic and if it goes through it will fall squarely on our shoulders as everything does. Why take the risk? Vote no and let the unions sort it out.0 -
Advertisement
-
I have never insisted anything of the sort! As I said clearly in the post the maintainence of the integrity of the examinations was what was at stake. It was never said we " can't" nor did I say we can't , I presume the "you" you refer to in your post is some body you appear to believe I represent. I did not undermine my own profession, you are not aware which sector I'm involved in.You have been insisting that you don't want to grade your students because you can't be objective and you might come under pressure from outside influences.
Your colleagues in FE and third level, and your counterparts in other countries manage to design and administer and grade. By saying you can't, you are undermining your own profession.0 -
Education matters wrote: »I have never insisted anything of the sort! As I said clearly in the post the maintainence of the integrity of the examinations was what was at stake. It was never said we " can't" nor did I say we can't , I presume the "you" you refer to in your post is some body you appear to believe I represent. I did not undermine my own profession, you are not aware which sector I'm involved in.
I'm not talking about YOU personally. I'm talking about secondary teachers. The hub of their bjection has been those two issues.
If you are not in that sector, then clearly I used the wrong pronoun.
There is no problem with the integrity of the examinatioprofn, if the teachers involved have confidence in their professionalism.0 -
You have been insisting that you don't want to grade your students because you can't be objective and you might come under pressure from outside influences.
Your colleagues in FE and third level, and your counterparts in other countries manage to design and administer and grade. By saying you can't, you are undermining your own profession.
It's not a good comparison to make between grading FE and third level and grading 2nd level students. The outside influences are parents who will fight tooth and nail for their darling daughters and sons to get the grade they believe they are entitled to, not what they actually deserve. This does not happen at FE or third level, you never deal with parents there. I too correct FE and grading is never an issue but it just is not comparing like with like to link this with assessing our 2nd level students.0 -
I'm not talking about YOU personally. I'm talking about secondary teachers. The hub of their bjection has been those two issues.
If you are not in that sector, then clearly I used the wrong pronoun.
There is no problem with the integrity of the examinatioprofn, if the teachers involved have confidence in their professionalism.
Again the hub of the objection was the maintainence of the integrity of the exam, I agree. Teachers in FE and Third Level supported secondary teachers in their campaign, in fact some of the most vocal speakers on the issue were from the third level sector. Secondary teachers agreed not to assess their own students to preserve the integrity of the exam, not because they have no confidence in their profession.
There were also many other reasons to object to the document as initially produced, lack of consultation, over ruling the NCCA recommendations, lack of resources, inadequate CPD but I'm sure you're aware of all these. At no point was it ever secondary teachers lacking confidence in their profession in fact I believe it was secondary teachers fighting on behalf of their profession.0 -
Education matters wrote: »Again the hub of the objection was the maintainence of the integrity of the exam, I agree. Teachers in FE and Third Level supported secondary teachers in their campaign, in fact some of the most vocal speakers on the issue were from the third level sector. Secondary teachers agreed not to assess their own students to preserve the integrity of the exam, not because they have no confidence in their profession.
There were also many other reasons to object to the document as initially produced, lack of consultation, over ruling the NCCA recommendations, lack of resources, inadequate CPD but I'm sure you're aware of all these. At no point was it ever secondary teachers lacking confidence in their profession in fact I believe it was secondary teachers fighting on behalf of their profession.
SOME individual FE or third level teacher supported them. Other didn't. I know in my workplace, when this discussed, there was little support or understanding of their position. There was sympathy for the extra work involved, but not for a stance which undermines us.
If you say you don't trust yourself to be objective or to withstand pressure, then you ARE saying you lack confidence in your own professionalism. A professional teacher will structure their assessments so the marking scheme is above board and cannot be questioned. It happens every day in other sectors.
There certainly are other issues, but they were not highlighted. If you read any of the threads here, you will see this repeatedly.0 -
SOME individual FE or third level teacher supported them. Other didn't. I know in my workplace, when this discussed, there was little support or understanding of their position. There was sympathy for the extra work involved, but not for a stance which undermines us.
If you say you don't trust yourself to be objective or to withstand pressure, then you ARE saying you lack confidence in your own professionalism. A professional teacher will structure their assessments so the marking scheme is above board and cannot be questioned. It happens every day in other sectors.
There certainly are other issues, but they were not highlighted. If you read any of the threads here, you will see this repeatedly.
These issues were repeatedly highlighted maybe not on threads here, so it's great they are now I suppose before any ballot.
Really no point in rehashing the same point but I'll say again preserving the integrity of the exam was the point not lacking confidence in teachers professionalism. And agreed, a professional teacher will structure their exams and their marking scheme will not be questionable, that ship has however sailed, so why labour the point. There is no longer any suggestion of external moderation nor assesment for state exams.
I believe I pointed out that the secondary teachers were supported by their colleagues, I didn't mean it to sound as though ALL FE and Third Level t and l supported them, however i was lucky enough to hear speakers from all sectors discuss the proposals and I commend the speakers from all sectors who rejected the initial proposals and engaged in industrial action.0 -
By questioning their ability to be objective and to withstand pressure, teachers were not only questioning the integrity of the exam but also their own professionalism; if they trust themselves to be objective and to withstand pressure, where is the integrity of the exam threatened?Education matters wrote: »These issues were repeatedly highlighted maybe not on threads here, so it's great they are now I suppose before any ballot.
Really no point in rehashing the same point but I'll say again preserving the integrity of the exam was the point not lacking confidence in teachers professionalism. And agreed, a professional teacher will structure their exams and their marking scheme will not be questionable, that ship has however sailed, so why labour the point. There is no longer any suggestion of external moderation nor assesment for state exams.
I believe I pointed out that the secondary teachers were supported by their colleagues, I didn't mean it to sound as though ALL FE and Third Level t and l supported them, however i was lucky enough to hear speakers from all sectors discuss the proposals and I commend the speakers from all sectors who rejected the initial proposals and engaged in industrial action.
No, there is no longer question of external moderation or assessment for state exams on the table now, and that is a terrible shame. We had an opportunity to open up the exam system to take the pressure off the few days in June, and the teachers rejected it, and undermined their own profession into the bargain.
All I'm saying is that it's a shame - and more than a shame. An insult to those of us who do this kind of work and maintain our professionalism and integrity.0 -
It may cost the DES money to get this up and running,but they will recoup it down the line with much smaller state exams. It also sets up the mechanism for more school based assessment down the line,perhaps even completely phasing out the state exams.
The fact that there the number of students who leave school after the Junior Cert means that the Junior Cert in its present format is no longer necessary.
If the DES plans to get rid of the State exams it would be violating the deal and then the unions could re-ballot for industrial action.0 -
I don't believe teachers are necessarily questioning how they will be objective but more thar questions will be asked. We all grade exams and have marking schemes we follow but parents would consider a junior cert exam as more important than regular class exams. Even with the perfect marking scheme parents will question the grade. How much of our time are we meant to try and spend explaining why the grade wasn't achieved? Secondary teaching can also be incredibly local, as opposed to FE. I don't think that anybody wants to be arguing a students grade with a parent when going to the local shop for a litre of milk. Teachers are trying to remain professional not questioning it.0
-
Advertisement
-
Sure people will question the grade. And you, as a professional, will stand over it. You will have your marking schemes and all documentation watertight, in the consciousness of external moderation and possible queries.neverfinished wrote: »I don't believe teachers are necessarily questioning how they will be objective but more thar questions will be asked. We all grade exams and have marking schemes we follow but parents would consider a junior cert exam as more important than regular class exams. Even with the perfect marking scheme parents will question the grade. How much of our time are we meant to try and spend explaining why the grade wasn't achieved? Secondary teaching can also be incredibly local, as opposed to FE. I don't think that anybody wants to be arguing a students grade with a parent when going to the local shop for a litre of milk. Teachers are trying to remain professional not questioning it.
You don't spend any time explaining anything to anyone, other than the feedback you give to the student when you return their marked assignment to them. If a parent has a query, you tell them that they are free to submit the assignment for re-checking at the end of the process.
Anyone who stands at a shop counter justifying to a member of the public how they do their job is behaving extremely unprofessionally, in my opinion. Once all teachers make it quite clear that there is a process and that they are not able to or willing to discuss the matter outside the process, a line is drawn, and people won't ask. Do people pester doctors at the checkout?0
Advertisement