NCCA Jc Suggestions

whiteandlight

http://www.ncca.ie/en/Curriculum_and_Assessment/Post-Primary_Education/Junior_Cycle/Junior_cycle_developments/

Not sure if anyone else has read this. Prompted by an rte news report today I decided to. The problem I see with this report is that it would be outrageously expensive to implement or so it seems to me.
First choosing the core subjects will take forever, lots of lobbying and the costs of reports will spiral. Even when they are chosen I can't see any of the interest groups being happy.
Second, once these have been chosen what do you do with the permanent teachers in schools whose subjects e.g. History/geography which used to be compulsory but have now become optional or combined over night. Do you train them? Fire them? Hope that they'll be able to teach combinations even though theyre only Qualified in one area?
Third designing a syllabus usually takes years. How are they going to design syllabi for these subjects and modules in a short time frame? And if they manage it will they be fit for purpose?

It all just seems ridiculously pie in the sky to me at the moment. What does everyone else think?

Boober Fraggle

Surely the surplus history/geography teachers could teach other subjects instead... maybe maths

I'm guessing what they'll do is modularise the situation, rather than requiring more teachers of specific subjects. So let's say there are 6 2nd year groups, 2 of them will do a history strand for the first 11 weeks, while another 2 are doing geography and the last 2 are doing CSPE (or whatever). In this way, they wouldn't have the headache of redeploying/making teachers redundant.

As to how they will reduce the subjects in such a short space of time, I've no idea, again, I'm guessing, but I'd say it'll be an ad hoc job, in which we will notice lots of errors in the first few years, which will be fixed in an ad hoc manner and all subsequent problems will be blamed on the teachers' lack of cooperation with the scheme.

happywithlife

Boober Fraggle wrote: »

Surely the surplus history/geography teachers could teach other subjects instead... maybe maths

I'm guessing what they'll do is modularise the situation, rather than requiring more teachers of specific subjects. So let's say there are 6 2nd year groups, 2 of them will do a history strand for the first 11 weeks, while another 2 are doing geography and the last 2 are doing CSPE (or whatever). In this way, they wouldn't have the headache of redeploying/making teachers redundant.

As to how they will reduce the subjects in such a short space of time, I've no idea, again, I'm guessing, but I'd say it'll be an ad hoc job, in which we will notice lots of errors in the first few years, which will be fixed in an ad hoc manner and all subsequent problems will be blamed on the teachers' lack of cooperation with the scheme.

+1
the only good thing from my entirely selfish point of view it promotes a greater inclusion of home ec, my key subject area

delta_bravo

If these are implemented it will be the beginning of the end of the Junior Cert.

Then if it happens I can't wait for calls into liveline from parents bemoaning the fact that their poor little one cocked up their leaving exam because they weren't used to it.

I saw some other thing on the news yesterday that you would get marks in the Junior for doing project work like organising a school musical. Apparently it was signed off by the unions and whichever body proposed it. How the hell will that work? I just don't know anymore. We don't seem to be able to make slight transitions here, its either keep things the same or completely scrap everything and start again. The junior cert needs tweaking but I really think the road its going down now is going to be a disaster

whiteandlight

Thats my worry delta. Like how is that going to be assessed? What about schools That can't afford to do one?

I'm not sure I made myself clear on employment either. If they modularise history for example a teacher who would normally teach 3-4 classes of history per class group a week per year is now down to 3-4 classes for a shorter period meaning they haven't got full hours anymore

spurious

I'd be happy if they just implemented the JC as it was supposed to be.

rainbowtrout

Musicmental85 wrote: »

Thats my worry delta. Like how is that going to be assessed? What about schools That can't afford to do one?

I'm not sure I made myself clear on employment either. If they modularise history for example a teacher who would normally teach 3-4 classes of history per class group a week per year is now down to 3-4 classes for a shorter period meaning they haven't got full hours anymore

Not necessarily. I haven't read the report yet but the proposal made during the summer was to reduce the number of subjects for JC to eight. If a student had 8 subjects on their timetable instead of 11 or 12 (ignoring the fact that religion, PE, computers etc would remain the way they are), then ideally each of the 8 subjects should get more time allocated to them per week rather than the shorter time frame which they now have because the time is divided between 11 subjects on average.

So a history teacher who might have had a first, second and third year group each three times a week, might have a first and second year group four times a week instead. There will be some anomalies in the system, but I imagine more contact time per subject will alleviate some of the problem of surplus teachers for subjects. There are a few subjects that might get hit badly I suppose if they were traditionally compulsory subjects and now will be made choice subjects.

Delphi91

rainbowtrout wrote: »

So a history teacher who might have had a first, second and third year group each three times a week, might have a first and second year group four times a week instead. There will be some anomalies in the system, but I imagine more contact time per subject will alleviate some of the problem of surplus teachers for subjects. There are a few subjects that might get hit badly I suppose if they were traditionally compulsory subjects and now will be made choice subjects.

I have heard it suggested from someone who was at a presentation from the NCCA, that the students wouldn't have to pick their 8 subjects until 3rd year. This is going to make things interesting in second year as pupils start to say "sure why do I have to do any work in this subject, I'm not going to be studying it for my JC?".

If picking the 8 subjects in 3rd year is correct, then as a timetabler, I seriously hope that students are asked to pick BEFORE they start third year. Can you imagine if they pick at Christmas time, you'll end up with some students in classes not doing that subject as one of their 8! Imagine the problems that will create.

It looks like we're starting to go down the road of the A-level system in the UK (where students focus on a limited number of subjects) which I recently read has not turned out to be as good as expected. I also wonder what it will do for subject choices if people are given the option to drop subjects even earlier?

rainbowtrout

Delphi91 wrote: »

I have heard it suggested from someone who was at a presentation from the NCCA, that the students wouldn't have to pick their 8 subjects until 3rd year. This is going to make things interesting in second year as pupils start to say "sure why do I have to do any work in this subject, I'm not going to be studying it for my JC?".

If picking the 8 subjects in 3rd year is correct, then as a timetabler, I seriously hope that students are asked to pick BEFORE they start third year. Can you imagine if they pick at Christmas time, you'll end up with some students in classes not doing that subject as one of their 8! Imagine the problems that will create.

It looks like we're starting to go down the road of the A-level system in the UK (where students focus on a limited number of subjects) which I recently read has not turned out to be as good as expected. I also wonder what it will do for subject choices if people are given the option to drop subjects even earlier?

That sort of scenario would create a huge headache in classrooms.

Although less subjects isn't necessarily a bad idea. It was completely normal to only do 8 or 9 subjects for Junior Cert when it first came in the early 90s. I did 9 subjects for mine in 1994, everyone in my class did 9, but in the lower streams many students only did 7 or 8.

evolving_doors

Wow this is going to be a real mess,, here's the problem for teachers as I see it though...

The majority of respondents in the 2010 consultation report were teachers (40%) (next were parents at 20%)

As an aside..just wondering if any of the posters here partook in the survey, and what ye thought, I did and found it to be a very open ended carte blanche offering,,,,

So basically the findings - if the NCCA can extrapolate anything concrete !! - from the survey are a hotchpotch of everything we would love to have in an ideal/apple pie world for our students.

So in heel of the hunt Rory Quinn can pick any of the many elements of this survey 'findings' and say "well that's what teachers and parents wanted",, that's all well and good but to radically change a whole system for 2017 is ambitious to say the least...
i.e.....
1. Change Written Exams (with new sample papers!!!)
2. Change Practical Exams
3. Teachers do own assessment, leaving the anonymity of the exam process open to corruption (personally all my students will be getting A's)
4. Implement new curricula
5. Organise new training for every subject
6. Keep the leaving certificate system unchanged!!!
7. Redeploy teachers if subjects are cut.
8. Get all schools up to date with IT.

Just look at how arduous the implementation of the new Project Maths scheme has been and that's just tinkering around with one subject..

Although i'm all for change and moving away from 'working the exam system' (which is a key skill in itself), I can just see the uproar during staff meetings with teachers loosing their marbles being left to figure things out themselves. In a way i'm kind of looking forward to watching some teachers who have to move outside their comfort zone of exam papers and notes

Come to think of it though it should be an interesting experiment, so ya I'm all for it now (whatever the hell it is),

Bring it on Rory
(as long as I don't loose my job!!)

rebel10

http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/revamped-junior-cert--less-about-final-exam-168699.html

http://www.independent.ie/education/latest-news/quinn-facing-tough-battle-over-plans-to-shake-up-junior-cert-2887139.html

As a teacher, I am absolutely dreading the changes that are about to come into play by the NCCA. Not so much for the implications it has on my job, but the education of generations of young people to come.:(
So, English, Irish & Maths will become the core subjects. All other subjects will be optional. 240 hours given to each core subject over a 2 year period. More than what is currently given, which is a good thing for many. However, every other subject becomes optional. So, the students study every subject in 2nd and 3rd year afaik and then come March of 3rd year they select 5 subjects from the optional ones.
So, as a teacher of an optional, practical subject, I must teach students for 2 years that have absolutely no interest in taking it for the exam. Does that mean the student who intends on doing well in the exam must suffer because of the amount of students in the subject who are doing it just because they have to?
There will only be higher & ordinary levels in the core subjects. All others have one level. Special allowances will be made for students with learning disabilities, but for those students who find the subject difficult, sod them, so say the NCCA.
Then comes to marking. I give John 35% in his final exam. His parents are irate, they know me, they know I gave him the marks, they know where to find me to abuse me.:(
Then comes the 'Special topics.' The school can create subjects worth half the marks of other subjects. So again, they can choose to do two of these topics instead of 1 subject. One suggested theme for the topics was "The School Play". Basically the student gets marked on participation.
1st year is to become more or less a T.Y. year, with students becoming more involved in outdoor pursuits, the school play etc. Who exactly is to pay for all these activities? Parents?
The question I keep asking myself is how the hell do the NCCA think this is going to help students prepare themselves for the L.C. and then 3rd level?
Does anyone else see this as 'dumbing down' (hate that phrase) rather than actually tackling the problems in the junior cycle regarding numeracy and literacy?
I cannot understand how every teacher in the country is going to be trained for the new syllabus, new marking schemes, and on top of that, the required I.T. for each subject as they will all become computer based.

How do you all feel?

Toto Wolfcastle

Threads merged.

dambarude

Holistic education need not necessarily be non-academic, or 'dumbed down'.

But it seems to me that the proposed system is neither fully rounded nor is it academically driven. The idea of school plays being used as credit for half a subject sounds loopy.

I genuinely can't understand how they come up with these decisions.

Boober Fraggle

rebel10 wrote: »

Then comes to marking. I give John 35% in his final exam. His parents are irate, they know me, they know I gave him the marks, they know where to find me to abuse me.:(

Never mind John down the road, what about those of us who are teaching our own kids or our colleagues kids? Can't give them full marks because it's favouritism, can't give them poor marks because they are excellent students... How do you assign a mark in a State Exam to your own child?

I'm hoping the unions will stand firm here, ASTI especially have a very strong policy on grading your own students. I don't see any reason for this to change.

rebel10

Boober Fraggle wrote: »

Never mind John down the road, what about those of us who are teaching our own kids or our colleagues kids? Can't give them full marks because it's favouritism, can't give them poor marks because they are excellent students... How do you assign a mark in a State Exam to your own child?

I'm hoping the unions will stand firm here, ASTI especially have a very strong policy on grading your own students. I don't see any reason for this to change.

You're right. Although, my worries wouldn't be about the hassle I would get from co-workers if their son/daughter got poor marks from me, I would be more worried about the possible vindictive attacks towards teachers from both parents and students who were unhappy with their results.

Boober Fraggle

It's not a backlash from colleagues I would be worried about, more the fact that there would be issues outside of the student's performance that would determine their grade. I would be acutely aware of who I was marking, whereas with the way things stand at the minute, I could be correcting a government minister's child's paper and it would have no effect on the grade I give.

rebel10

Boober Fraggle wrote: »

It's not a backlash from colleagues I would be worried about, more the fact that there would be issues outside of the student's performance that would determine their grade. I would be acutely aware of who I was marking, whereas with the way things stand at the minute, I could be correcting a government minister's child's paper and it would have no effect on the grade I give.

Well totally agree with you. Just can't comprehend how they plan to devise a completely transparent marking system when they are aware of issues like these arising. Apparently IBEC were the only ones that agreed with the teachers unions on this stance.

spurious

There are already teachers marking their own class. A visiting monitor then applies the national standard. The sky hasn't fallen in.

As one of these monitors, the problem is more often that teachers are too hard in marking their own students, rather than too lenient.

rebel10

spurious wrote: »

There are already teachers marking their own class. A visiting monitor then applies the national standard. The sky hasn't fallen in.

As one of these monitors, the problem is more often that teachers are too hard in marking their own students, rather than too lenient.

Well, our union has told us that the visiting monitor would mark about 4 out of every 100 like they do now. Do you believe the number of papers rechecked by the monitors would be higher if this were implemented? Certainly there is no suggestion that they plan on doing this. If there are inconsistencies in any marking, I would be of the opinion that the system is beyond flawed and therefore how can anyone take it seriously?

spurious

The 'inconsistencies' happen with inexperienced correctors, in much the same way some teachers who have never corrected the actual exams give their students marks that are way too low during the year only for them to 'suddenly' get an A or B in the actual exam.

Anyway, anything that costs money will not be implemented, we know that, so nothing will change.

mick kk

I would say the book companies cannot believe their luck. A whole new junior cert or whatever its called....all the old books into the bin and every single book will have to be new...even with project maths, because of the way its bought in, the book this years leaving certs use will be out of date next June. Parents better be ready to dig deep.

evolving_doors

spurious wrote: »

Anyway, anything that costs money will not be implemented, we know that, so nothing will change.

I think that's it in a nutshell really... all this waffle about change is just for show, the extent of change to which they're proposing will cost a bomb ....IF IT'S TO BE DONE PROPERLY!!!

doc_17

Looks like change is on the way.....

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1103/juniorcert.html

"
Minister approves plans to abolish Junior Cert"


Wonder how they propose to have teachers marking their own students? Must have a wee read of it.

sullanefc

Looks like they are going to award marks to students if they participate in book club or debating. Does that mean that things like this will become part of the timetable, or will students get marks for something that teachers do voluntarily outside of school time. Doesn't sound right does it??

Toto Wolfcastle

I like the idea of continuous assessment but I would like to see more about how it will be done.

doc_17

No...they only get credit for debating etc if it is extra-curricular so from that reading it won't be timetabled. but yes it appears students will need teachers to be involved in order to get these marks.

We have a musical every two years so students who are good at music and do their JC in the "off" years will probably be looking for a musical every year

Toto Wolfcastle

The idea of giving marks to students for extra-curricular activities which should be for fun seems wrong to me. What about the kids who have no interest in them? Obviously ideally all kids would be involved in something after school but there will be added pressure on kids who don't want to do extra-curricular activities to do them. It will turn them into a chore for some students.

sullanefc

Bobblehead Panda wrote: »

The idea of giving marks to students for extra-curricular activities which should be for fun seems wrong to me. What about the kids who have no interest in them? Obviously ideally all kids would be involved in something after school but there will be added pressure on kids who don't want to do extra-curricular activities to do them. It will turn them into a chore for some students.

Agree with this. But is there going to be pressure put on Teachers now as well to take part in extra curricular duties?

Toto Wolfcastle

Yes, there will be. I don't have a problem with teachers voluntarily helping with extra-curricular activities. It's vital that this continues. However, what happens when a student approaches a teacher asking him/her to organise a debating club so that the students can get marks? Can a teacher refuse to help a student gain marks? There certainly will be pressure.

rainbowtrout

Here's the document:

http://ncca.ie/framework/doc/NCCA-Junior-Cycle.pdf

Cutting to the chase I had a quick glance through the assessment bit. Regular JC subjects will be 40% continuous assessment and 60% exam. Assessment to be carried out by teachers and externally moderated by SEC.

Students must complete one of the following combinations for Junior Cert - there is no mention of an upper limit on number of subjects:

• 8 regular subjects
• 7 regular subjects and two short courses
• 6 regular subjects and four short courses

Students must do English, Irish and Maths, each of which will be examined at two levels (so I assume foundation level will be scrapped) and all other subjects at common level.

Short courses can be from a list which has been prepared by Dept of Ed or school can devise their own short course. Short courses are 100% Portfolio and assessed by the school, no external moderation.


The potential short course list in this document lists:

• Cultural studies
• Sustainable living and resource management
• Debating/public speaking
• Write a book
• Development Education
• Leadership
• Book club
• Making choices
• Personal finance
• School musical/drama performance
• Coaching in the community
• Being innovative -Product design
• Web design
• Creating an e-portfolio
• Chinese language and culture
• Mathematics for living and work

EDIT: While the news report mentioned marks for extra-curricular subjects, in the document regular subjects should be timetabled for 250 hours over three years while it's recommended that short courses get 100 hours, so I'd imagine they would have to be timetabled in some respects. If they weren't offering short courses is ultimately dependent on teachers doing so in their spare time. Also if students are going to gain certification for doing short courses and teachers have to assess them ( and again I assume get paid for assessment) then surely there has to be a more rigorous approach than just something that can be done after school? Otherwise what's to stop a school getting students to throw together portfolios over a weekend, especially if it's internal assessment only? Considering all the paperwork we have to produce now I can't see why these subjects wouldn't be given time on the timetable if nothing but to prove that the 100 hours was completed.

Some short courses lend themselves to timetabling (computer related courses) far more than others. Many schools have computers timetabled already. This could easily be turned into a short course.

spurious

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Regular JC subjects will be 40% continuous assessment and 60% exam.

So finally they will implement the Junior Cert. as intended.
You'd have to laugh really. I wonder how much it cost to come up with such an astonishing idea, twenty years too late.

rainbowtrout

I bet some bright spark looked up the old documentation from twenty years ago and realised no one would know where they got the idea from!

My own subject JC Science is already 35% portfolio, which granted consists of 10% for experiments completed over the three years and 25% for two experiments completed by the student and graded by SEC examiners so I don't envisage massive changes in science, except perhaps in the grading of it.

I'm more curious about the short course aspect of it, will some schools be more/less likely to offer these courses as compulsory/optional subjects or offer them alongside the traditional subjects and allow students to choose their final subject list closer to the end. Will some schools see less value in the short courses and peg themselves as academic only and only offer the traditional set of subjects?

And the other thing is the knock on effect on the Leaving Cert. Will the LC change to reflect the new JC curriculum? How will a student who does the 6 regular subjects and four short courses fare out at LC level with seven subjects and higher and ordinary in each subject?

It's just occurred to me that CSPE is not listed as compulsory under the new curriculum proposals. Will it go by the wayside in favour of short courses?

Caraville

rainbowtrout wrote: »

It's just occurred to me that CSPE is not listed as compulsory under the new curriculum proposals. Will it go by the wayside in favour of short courses?

I was wondering the same myself. Some of the "short courses" topics cover some of the stuff on the CSPE course so I'd say that'll be the end of CSPE as we know it. That'll impact on some teachers jobs- although most teachers currently teaching CSPE have absolutely no qualifications in it whatsoever so it's probably not a bad thing.

Actually, speaking of which- what qualifies someone to teach these "short courses"? Where will the Teaching Council stand in all this?

rainbowtrout

Caraville wrote: »

I was wondering the same myself. Some of the "short courses" topics cover some of the stuff on the CSPE course so I'd say that'll be the end of CSPE as we know it. That'll impact on some teachers jobs- although most teachers currently teaching CSPE have absolutely no qualifications in it whatsoever so it's probably not a bad thing.

Actually, speaking of which- what qualifies someone to teach these "short courses"? Where will the Teaching Council stand in all this?

Who knows? And considering it says that schools may devise courses themselves, who regulates the standard of self devised courses?

doc_17

The whole things is full of holes already.

Caraville

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Who knows? And considering it says that schools may devise courses themselves, who regulates the standard of self devised courses?

Yeah. Like somebody doing a one-act play will need far less resources than someone putting on a musical. Could "debating" just mean a mini debate amongst your own students or do you have to compete with other schools or in a formal competition? Is a website you build only one or two pages or does it need to be more detailed than that? The whole thing is all over the place. I know it's not coming for a while yet, but the practicalities of it need massive amounts of ironing out.

evolving_doors

Caraville wrote: »

Actually, speaking of which- what qualifies someone to teach these "short courses"? Where will the Teaching Council stand in all this?

Good point, poor old teaching council , I feel sorry for them sometimes...
At this stage id say the teaching council s approach would be to to just not pick up the phones ...ever again..

Caraville

Armelodie wrote: »

Good point, poor old teaching council , I feel sorry for them sometimes...

Never. Never feel sorry for the Teaching Council.

:pac:

happywithlife

ok some good posts made already.
one other thing bothering me though is if you take my own subject for example - home ec - currently, at ord level, it is 60% coursework (made up of 15% for a project and the other 45% for the cookery practical) and 40% for the written paper....if this is brought back to 40% for coursework and 60% written then its a complete backwards step for the weaker students as its a complete 180 on the ratio of coursework to written assessment.
and another thing that always bothered me was the whole 8 subject thing - if you take english, irish, maths, a science subject, foreign language (both needed for college later on perhaps) then you are really only limiting students to 3 additional subjects. what happens in senior cycle when they then decide they want x career and need a particular subject for it. if they've limited themselves in JC are they limiting their college course and subsequent career choice? how on earth do you guide a student at maybe 14 years of age in second year to disregard their personal opinions over a particular teacher and pick a subject(s) with their end career choice in mind......even leaving certs struggle with their career/college choices for heaven's sake.

rainbowtrout

happywithlife wrote: »

ok some good posts made already.
one other thing bothering me though is if you take my own subject for example - home ec - currently, at ord level, it is 60% coursework (made up of 15% for a project and the other 45% for the cookery practical) and 40% for the written paper....if this is brought back to 40% for coursework and 60% written then its a complete backwards step for the weaker students as its a complete 180 on the ratio of coursework to written assessment.
and another thing that always bothered me was the whole 8 subject thing - if you take english, irish, maths, a science subject, foreign language (both needed for college later on perhaps) then you are really only limiting students to 3 additional subjects. what happens in senior cycle when they then decide they want x career and need a particular subject for it. if they've limited themselves in JC are they limiting their college course and subsequent career choice? how on earth do you guide a student at maybe 14 years of age in second year to disregard their personal opinions over a particular teacher and pick a subject(s) with their end career choice in mind......even leaving certs struggle with their career/college choices for heaven's sake.

Hard to know how it's going to pan out. It says in the document that subjects will be assessed at common level except English, Irish and Maths so I don't know where that leaves any of the subjects.

Personally I don't think the 8 subjects (if it is limited) is such a bad thing. It might allow students to spend more time on each subject instead of making a half arsed attempt at 11 or 12 subjects. Most students only did 8 or 9 subjects when the Junior Cert was introduced in the early 90s and the world didn't cave in.

If colleges remove requirements for science/language aside from the courses that actually need them then that makes subject choice a whole lot easier. There are thousands of students stuck doing French or German for LC, when they have no more interest in it only that it satisfies college entry requirements for a degree which does not require a foreign language. Total daftness.