janes1234 wrote: » We all striked so much last year. Is this the end of the fight? Will we all just accept the new reforms?
Icsics wrote: » For sure a sense of inevitability has set in, but there is no way I am voting to up my workload after all the cuts in pay & condition we've had
acequion wrote: » That's exactly how I feel. How in the name of god could teachers forget the savaging of pay and conditions and now vote this in?? No other sector of the public sectors has had to endure so much! Maybe I'm being naive but I really am hoping that a majority feel the same and will vote no. But I'm not holding my breath!
Gebgbegb wrote: » Imposing a teaching method on every teacher isn't healthy.
Gebgbegb wrote: » I assume that the majority of teachers have been suitably worn down now and thus predict an acceptance of whatever happens to be rehashed and thrown on the table.
acequion wrote: » And guess what,everyone will still be focused on THE EXAM. Even more so when the students will then go on to do a traditional LC..
katydid wrote: » And why is that? Because the second level teachers refused to agree to state certification for continuous assessment. It's your fault that all the focus is still on the end of cycle exam.
acequion wrote: » Must you hog this thread too katydid?? You are not teaching second level so this whole thing does not concern you. You've already told us numerous times how wonderful you think continuous assessment is. Fine.Some people agree with you,most don't seem to,in any case I don't think the op set up this thread for yet another series of tit for tat on issues which have already been debated to death. Many of the second level teachers directly involved are seriously worried and it would be nice to have a thread where it could be discussed,where people could air their worries and where the yes side could also have their say and let debate ensue. As it is there are very few posters even bothering to comment on this issue any more,which in itself is worrying. So I will not be dragged into the same old arguments by the same people just for the sake of it.
katydid wrote: » I'm sorry that you don't like being reminded that second level teachers have brought about this situation.
Gebgbegb wrote: » This situation was well and truly brought about by RQ and RQ alone, not teachers.
katydid wrote: » It wasn't RQ who questioned teachers' professionalism
Gebgbegb wrote: » By which I assume you are promoting RQ's question to the TUI "“It begs the question: does your union have less faith in the professional capacity of you as teachers, than I do”... which of course he had enough sense not to read out at the ASTI conference for obvious reasons. And here again we have the line being spun about being un-professional because we are afraid stand over our grades. For me anyway it's just bad pedagogy... let the teachers use their own professional judgement of what methods work best. Same as the project maths inservices; teachers were shown different approaches and encouraged to consult each other as to what works best for the students AND teachers. The outcome in our school is that we are keen to find and try out new methodologies, we collaborate more than ever. With this, it's just going to be a tick box exercise. Sure it'll work for some students and teachers, but the intrinsic motivation has greatly diminished.
katydid wrote: » So I'm a bad teacher because I am comfortable marking my own students, and do not give in to pressure...
katydid wrote: » It's not about using their professional judgement about which method works the best;.
katydid wrote: » the method of assessment is not the issue, according to many teachers, but the very concept of assessing one's own students for state certification.
katydid wrote: » There certainly are questions to be answered about assessment methodology, and it's important that teachers feel comfortable with methods that are unambiguous and clear.
katydid wrote: » But that is not what was argued. What was argued was that teachers did not feel they would be able to withstand pressure from parents, management etc.
Gebgbegb wrote: » No, not at all. We've all marked our own students at some stage. Bad pedagogy is in relation to imposing a certain teaching/learning method on ALL teachers and students. If you think the model as handed down by the dept works for you, then great, you could be doing that yourself anyway, no? I think that teaching is about this, you gauge your own class, their needs and what methods you use (that you have a rationale for) to respond to this. No method works best, we all know the classes where we have taught 2 similar years the same thing in the same way with totally different outcomes. Well there is that state certification thing (which I'd be opposed to, and i think most teachers). The same 'method of assessment' across all teaching is something I would disagree with.. but don't forget that I might adopt it myself at some stage (and have done) to suit MY own teaching. Sure, as I said, just like the project maths, methods of teaching and assessing were presented to teachers and they could take them/leave them or modify them if they liked. Remember, there is no such thing as 'best practice', any 'expert' who proclaims that method x,y or z practice is 'the best' is a fool. The teaching and learning takes place in the interaction between teacher and pupil, each interaction is organic and unique and not prescriptive. Yes some teachers did feel that, and why wouldn't some teachers feel that when they are being strung along on low hours contracts... so why would any teacher be feeling pressure to change results?... (as has been witnessed in the UK.) Can you say that individual school results will not be published? (FG say they want this) Can you say that grades will not be linked to performance reviews (The DES Inspectorate want this). Can you say that this extra 'thing' won't add any extra workload on to teachers? Looking at the JC reform as just being a few minor changes in assessment is blinkered. There is a seachange going on in Irish education, you have to look at the bigger picture. Have a look at the CH4 Dispatches documentary (June 15th): Available HERE* 500 primary schools were investigated by the Department for Education in 2013, with 37 primary schools having their marks annulled for “maladministration”. *Case study: a leaked internal email sent by the Department for Education to King’s Farm primary school in Kent reveals serious failings in the way the tests were conducted. A whistleblower spoke to Dispatches about how the school “helped” pupils in a SATs exam – including allowing a child to re-write answers after the exam had finished *A survey suggests that one in ten secondary schools include GCSE resits in their own overall figures. This is despite the Department for Education banning the practice in its own official statistics. *Detail of how some secondary schools may boost their headline exam results by signing off poor performing students from the school register. A parent of one of the pupils interviewed in the programme said it meant her daughter had not got the grades she deserved Is it so far fetched to say it can't or wont happen here?
duffyp wrote: » Instead of saying what you won't accept perhaps make some suggestions of what you will? The terminal exam is remaining, there are 2 in house tests to do in 2nd and 3rd year, anyone who has done science has done the coursework which is already in place so it won't be that much different except for the moderation. Yes this will be different, it won't be that much work extra if you currently assess your students regularly and it takes a bit of pressure off the student to just perform on one day in June. I'll be voting yes.
katydid wrote: » I mark my students for state certification.
katydid wrote: » I am a professional, and not afraid to stand up to anyone, student, parent or principal, who might put pressure on me, because I carry out my assessments transparently and objectively.
katydid wrote: » My teaching methods are not imposed on me by anyone. I devise my teaching method, I devise my assessment, in line with the guidelines supplied, and I carry it out.
katydid wrote: » Certainly, proscribed methodologies are to be opposed, and indeed, there is extra work, but these were not what was being opposed by the second level teachers. What was opposed what the very concept of assessing for state certification, in any form, on the basis of supposed inability to be objective and to resist pressure from parents.
katydid wrote: » The examples from the UK are irrelevant and scare mongering. The system in the UK is entirely different, in that funding for schools is in part results based, so it suits them to massage figures. Also, the methodologies of assessment are not tight and objective, and definitely open to abuse. This does not have to be the case, and is not the case where such assessment is done in this country. All is needed for a proper assessment system is a well structured and supported system with internal and external verification, and an expectation of transparency in all documentation and assessment. It's not rocket science.
Gebgbegb wrote: » Is this in the established LC or JC system? This is afterall what we are talking about. FE or 3rd Level is no-more akin to this than saying "I referee for under-12 football therefore teachers should trust their professional judgement". Are you permanent? Same here, but with this 'reform' we very much do not have control over the assessment. I think there was more to it than that alone. But anyway, that was always a central tenant of teaching/assessing in Ireland... independence and integrity within the system (hence why e-voting crumbled). Once there is a doubt or exploitation then it will all fall back on guess who??? Maybe address these previous points to allay my fears: Can you say that individual school results will not be published? (FG say they want this) Can you say that grades will not be linked to performance reviews (The DES Inspectorate want this). Can you say that this extra 'thing' won't add any extra workload on to teachers?
katydid wrote: » In the FETAC/QQI system. It doesn't matter what level this assessment takes place at; the principle is the same. You do the assessment in a format that is transparent and objective, and you have no questions to answer to anyone. You simply show them the marking sheet and the evidence, and that is that. If they are not happy, there is an appeals procedure. The only difference is that I am directly answerable to my students, once they are over 18. Yes, I am permanent. But that's neither here nor there. If your marking scheme is watertight and objective, nobody can query it in anyway. You are the instrument; the marks are achieved by the student themselves. All teachers, be they part time or permanent, have their work cross-moderated, internally and externally verified. I agree that some of the proposed reforms and assessment methods did not allow you the freedom I have - that, not the concept of assessment for state certification per se, is what you should be opposing. Yes, the culture of independence and integrity on the basis of anonymity is a feature of the education system, but the fact that independence and integrity is not incompatible with continuous assessment by a teacher has been proven by the FE system. Sometimes a culture has to change, so we can move on. In this case, move from a system that favours certain types of learners over others. The issues you ask about - publication of results etc. can happen anyway, CA or no CA.
History Queen wrote: » Comparisons between second level and further education are not useful in relation to the new JC as it is like comparing apples and oranges... yes they are both fruit but entirely different in composition. Being permanent is relevant as you cannot relate to the current practice of principals pressurising NQTs and non permanent members of staff through implied hints at their chances of more/less hours next year or indeed a position at all. While I appreciate there was always an element of this- the new neccessity of re-interviewing for a position after year one as per the ward report has added extra pressure. I see your logic but feel it is too idealistic and does not apply in the staffrooms, classrooms and schools that I have experienced anyway. And by the way I speak as someone who has taught fetac/QQI and second level.
Mrwhite1970 wrote: » I think Jc will pass . I was wrong about HR so hopefully I will be wrong about this. To be fair to ASTI a lot was achieved but without at least two posts per school for this-it will be a ton of work. Dont fool yourselves. Took me three solid days to do a second year plan for English.
History Queen wrote: » Also Katydid we are just going to have to agree to disagree I am afraid. Assessment is different depending on who -what and how you are assessing so I still contend that your outlook isn't realistic in the vast majority of cases though obviously it is working very well where you are.
