Some good news

delta_bravo

Looks like the pressure from the unions and subject associations has worked for now anyway. So at least we have a glimmer of hope of finding work for the next while



From RTE website

Minister for Education Ruairi Quinn has rowed back on a controversial proposal to limit to eight the number of Junior Certificate subjects allowed for students from as early as next year.
The proposal, which would have affected next year's first years, was strongly criticised by teacher unions who said it would cause chaos in schools.
This afternoon, Minister Quinn told post primary school principals that there was no obligation on schools to limit the number of exam subjects next year or the year after.
However, the minister said he would encourage schools to do so.
Figures released by the Department show the number of Junior Cert students sitting exams in a large number of subjects has increased dramatically in recent years.
Since 1995, there has been a 20 fold increase in the number of students taking 11 or more subjects. In 1995, just over 1,100 students sat that many exams, but this year almost 24,000 did.
This year the vast majority of Junior Cert students sat exams in 10 or 11 subjects. However, in 1995 most students sat an exam in just nine subjects.
The Education Minister has argued that limiting the number of subjects to be examined would reduce the problem of curriculum overload and would make more time for the development of core skills, such as literacy and numeracy.
The ASTI teacher's union has welcomed the minister's statement.
The union says it agrees that the programme has become overloaded and needs reform.
However, it said the recent unexpected announcement limiting the number of subjects a student could take had caused major confusion in schools.
The union said teachers wanted their students to receive an education that was relevant and meaningful and which equipped them for life.
The proposal to limit the number of subjects was part of a wider package of Junior Cert reforms due to be implemented from 2014.

TheDriver

i was at the NAPD conference when he made that speech, it was about the only positive thing he could say and lots of vague negative things coming down the line...

RealJohn

I don't see anything positive there. They are doing too many subjects and while 8 might be too few (and I'm not sure it is), 10 is definitely too many, especially when they've mickey mouse subjects like CSPE in there distracting from proper subjects.

rebel10

RealJohn wrote: »

I don't see anything positive there. They are doing too many subjects and while 8 might be too few (and I'm not sure it is), 10 is definitely too many, especially when they've mickey mouse subjects like CSPE in there distracting from proper subjects.

Totally agree with you. I definitely don't believe 8 is too few. What irritates me is the amount of work the students have to put into subjects like CSPE when they are struggling to cope with subjects they will be able to actually continue studying after the Jnr. Cert.

andee

From education.ie - extract below, it is still on the horizon for 2014! as per the line I have highlighted and underlined below...



20 October, 2011- Minister Quinn clarifies position re introduction of a limit of eight subjects for examination purposes in the Junior Certificate


The Minister for Education and Skills, Ruairí Quinn T.D., has responded to concerns regarding the introduction of the limit of eight subjects for the Junior Certificate examination.
The new limit of eight subjects will be a requirement for students entering second level schools in 2014 and taking the examination in 2017. This will form part of major changes in the Junior Cycle which have been proposed by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. The reforms, which will be introduced on a phased basis, will mark a radical departure in the way we teach, the way students learn and the way in which they are assessed.
The Minister said he had listened to concerns about what might happen in the run up to these changes. He announced that there would be no obligation on schools to limit the number of subjects taken in the Junior Certificate examination for students enrolling in 2012 or 2013.
"But if schools can limit the number of exam subjects for students enrolling in next year or the year after, then I encourage them to do so," said Minister Quinn. "This will allow more time for literacy and numeracy and assist in the planning for the change that is coming anyway in 2014."
"I stress that there is no compulsion on them to limit the number of exam subjects for new entrants in 2012 or 2013.
"There is, however, nothing to stop any school moving to reduce the number of subjects for exam purposes in the run-up to the reformed Junior Cycle.
"Statistics show that some schools already have such an arrangement in place.
"The figures from the State Examination Commission show that about 2,000 students take eight subjects in the Junior Cert exam annually and a further 3,500 take seven or fewer. At the other end of the scale, 2,000 students take 12 subjects or more and 21,000 take 11 subjects which, I believe, is far too many for most students," he added.
He said the limit was proposed for good reasons. It will allow more time for literacy and numeracy, it will deal with the problem of curriculum overload and will make time and space for embedding of key skills and active learning
The Minister was addressing the National Conference of the National Association of Principals and Deputy Principals of second level schools, in the Malton Hotel, Killarney. He thanked the NAPD for the significant contribution it had made to Irish education since its foundation.

Lord TSC

RealJohn wrote: »

I don't see anything positive there. They are doing too many subjects and while 8 might be too few (and I'm not sure it is), 10 is definitely too many, especially when they've mickey mouse subjects like CSPE in there distracting from proper subjects.

Oh lordy.

CSPE is one of the few subjects students do that has immediate practical applications to them in the outside world. It really does freak me out when people are so insulting about it.

I'd accept arguements it should be moved from exam subject to non-exam, even though that would further perpetuate such notions of being a joke subject, but it's a shame when teachers themselves can't see the importance of actually learning about how the country works....

rebel10

^^^
Andee, I wish parents would find out for themselves what the new Jnr. Cert entails, I plan on telling every parent at the 1st yr p/t meeting coming up soon about the plans. If people outside of teaching were made aware of how this is going to impact on the education in Ireland for our future generations, I definitely don't believe people would accept the plans Quinn and the NCCA have put in place.

rebel10

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Oh lordy.

CSPE is one of the few subjects students do that has immediate practical applications to them in the outside world. It really does freak me out when people are so insulting about it.

I'd accept arguements it should be moved from exam subject to non-exam, even though that would further perpetuate such notions of being a joke subject, but it's a shame when teachers themselves can't see the importance of actually learning about how the country works....

I believe that SPHE has more relevance and importance than CSPE for any student in our schools. I taught CSPE for 3 years and while I don't have the view that it is a joke subject, I do believe it is completely unnecessary for the subject to be examined during the state exams.

implausible

I don't understand why they can't take a more phasing-in approach to this topic. Obviously, 11+ subjects is far too much and I personally think that 8 is too few. Why not place a limit of 11 Junior Cert subjects for those starting in 2012 or 2013, thereby eliminating the 13 subject madness? No sudden changes or loss in subjects and personnel.

As for the CSPE and SPHE debate, it's beyond me why they can't be rolled into one and environmental studies, social studies/sociology, careers, politics or religious studies modules factored in, depending on school choice. It could be called personal and social studies or something. There would probably be no need for a final exam in this subject either, just assignments or projects.

rebel10

implausible wrote: »

I don't understand why they can't take a more phasing-in approach to this topic. Obviously, 11+ subjects is far too much and I personally think that 8 is too few. Why not place a limit of 11 Junior Cert subjects for those starting in 2012 or 2013, thereby eliminating the 13 subject madness? No sudden changes or loss in subjects and personnel.

As for the CSPE and SPHE debate, it's beyond me why they can't be rolled into one and environmental studies, social studies/sociology, careers, politics or religious studies modules factored in, depending on school choice. It could be called personal and social studies or something. There would probably be no need for a final exam in this subject either, just assignments or projects.

SPHE= Social Personal Health Education
If you taught SPHE you would realise that so much is needed to be covered in such a short time frame. It gives the students the tools to be able to cope as adults. It is something that was neglected in past generations of education and I think if we lost this now, or integrated it into other subjects, we would be reverting back to a system which failed our teens. I was at an inservice last week which had us looking at how to teach LCA (specifically) students how to breastfeed, completely essential imo. Sex education would be taught in a general sense rather than the informative and lengthy classes that are dedicated to the topic. Coping with loss, mental health and physical health are essential and should not be regarded as something which can be shoved into some some subject like religion, where we know the topics won't be discussed informatively for obvious reasons!:rolleyes:

implausible

rebel10 wrote: »

SPHE= Social Personal Health Education
If you taught SPHE you would realise that so much is needed to be covered in such a short time frame.

I am aware of how much needs to be covered in a short space of time. Surely integrating it into a compulsory subject, which also encompasses other topics, would give teachers and students more time. In my school, it is taught once a week. If made part of an exam subject, teachers would get at least 4 classes to teach it, so even if SPHE were subsumed into another compulsory exam subject, you would get far more time to cover it and the subject would be taken more seriously than it is.

rebel10

implausible wrote: »

I am aware of how much needs to be covered in a short space of time. Surely integrating it into a compulsory subject, which also encompasses other topics, would give teachers and students more time. In my school, it is taught once a week. If made part of an exam subject, teachers would get at least 4 classes to teach it, so even if SPHE were subsumed into another compulsory exam subject, you would get far more time to cover it and the subject would be taken more seriously than it is.

This happens in some schools, especially at senior cycle. Most times religion is the chosen subject. I know that if I was teaching my main subject and was under pressure time wise, which I generally would be, and had SPHE integrated into the exam subject, it would not be given the same time and importance it is given now. It is essential that this subject isn't touched, I believe. We would be ignoring serious social and personal issues that are so important for the development of students.

implausible

rebel10 wrote: »

I know that if I was teaching my main subject and was under pressure time wise, which I generally would be, and had SPHE integrated into the exam subject, it would not be given the same time and importance it is given now. It is essential that this subject isn't touched, I believe. We would be ignoring serious social and personal issues that are so important for the development of students.

What I'm suggesting is having SPHE part of, and examinable (by project or certification) as part of, another subject. I'm not suggesting doing away with it or lessening its importance. The way it is being taught at the moment, in the schools that I'm familiar with, is lessening its importance. Teachers are not qualified and trained properly in it and it is seen as a timetable-filler and a nuisance one at that.

andee

Instead of reducing the Junior Cert curriculum to 8 subjects why not reduce the syllabus content of every subject? In this way teachers and students will be able to delve deeper into topics on the reduced syllabus and explore/study them in more depth - what the NCCA want to see happening! Why not do it this way?

It makes much more sense and will allow students to continue to flavour a multitude of subjects such as history, geography, business studies, Religion, Home Econ, Woodwork, German etc,etc as opposed to the all or nothing suggested (8 subjects) approach whereby they will just gain an indepth exposure to a limited range of subjects, thereby possibly denying them the opportunity of ever studying certain subjects and consequently limiting their future opportunities/choices

rebel10

andee wrote: »

Instead of reducing the Junior Cert curriculum to 8 subjects why not reduce the syllabus content of every subject? In this way teachers and students will be able to delve deeper into topics on the reduced syllabus and explore/study them in more depth - what the NCCA want to see happening! Why not do it this way?

It makes much more sense and will allow students to continue to flavour a multitude of subjects such as history, geography, business studies, Religion, Home Econ, Woodwork, German etc,etc as opposed to the all or nothing suggested (8 subjects) approach whereby they will just gain an indepth exposure to a limited range of subjects, thereby possibly denying them the opportunity of ever studying certain subjects and consequently limiting their future opportunities/choices

Well, what the NCCA are proposing is that each student will study every subject for 2 years, in March of 3rd yr they will choose the final 8 they will take for the state exams (3 compulsory being Irish, English & Maths). The main problems I see with this is the fact that students will be forced to study a subject/s they have no intention of keeping on, and therefore will know that they don't really have to make any effort in the subject and so the students that do want to do well in the subject are forced to share their teacher contact time with students who couldn't care less. I believe the system of choosing optional subjects after 1st year that we have is actually very good. Each student gets a sampler of all subjects in 1st year and then chooses after that.
Secondly, what kind of work is to be expected from practical subjects like MTW or Art in such a short time frame? They aren't subjects that can be examined in written form fully, so how is a teacher expected to have exam work carried out in less than 2 months (including the easter holidays in this)?

I just think this has been thrown together without little consultation from teachers and parents groups in an effort to find money in the speediest means necessary and disregarding the quality of education for our students altogether.:(

jonseyblub

rebel10 wrote: »

I just think this has been thrown together without little consultation from teachers and parents groups in an effort to find money in the speediest means necessary and disregarding the quality of education for our students altogether.:(

There was in fact plenty of consultation between all the partners in education. The findings can be found here.
http://www.ncca.ie/en/Curriculum_and_Assessment/Post-Primary_Education/Junior_Cycle/Junior_cycle_developments/

Anybody could have made a submission on the course.

In fairness to the minister from what I see the one thing he does want is improve the quality of the education for our students. He is trying to get away from the antiquated exam only based system which in fairness fails an awful lot of our students. He is trying to bring in a system where continuous assessment plays a big part in the exam system and while I totally agree with the ASTI stance that we should not be marking our own student's work, the whole idea of continuous assessment definitely needs to be looked at.

spurious

jonseyblub wrote: »

He is trying to bring in a system where continuous assessment plays a big part in the exam system and while I totally agree with the ASTI stance that we should not be marking our own student's work, the whole idea of continuous assessment definitely needs to be looked at.

This is what the JC was always supposed to be. It's why subjects are marked out of daft figures like 180 for History. It was supposed to be 180 for the exam and 120 for project/practical/continuous assessment.

The Junior Cert. is like Christianity - it was never given a proper go.

rebel10

jonseyblub wrote: »

There was in fact plenty of consultation between all the partners in education. The findings can be found here.
http://www.ncca.ie/en/Curriculum_and_Assessment/Post-Primary_Education/Junior_Cycle/Junior_cycle_developments/

Anybody could have made a submission on the course.

In fairness to the minister from what I see the one thing he does want is improve the quality of the education for our students. He is trying to get away from the antiquated exam only based system which in fairness fails an awful lot of our students. He is trying to bring in a system where continuous assessment plays a big part in the exam system and while I totally agree with the ASTI stance that we should not be marking our own student's work, the whole idea of continuous assessment definitely needs to be looked at.

Just after going through that for a second time, the last was after the announcement that it was going to be pushed through at my union branch meeting. An online questionnaire was filled out by various groups, 40% being second level teachers, they were asked about changes they would like to see implemented. Now, from what I have been told by my union, after that, very little consultation was carried out between teacher groups, unions and the NCCA. There are huge flaws in the proposed system, ones that will eventually become apparent, it is such a wasted opportunity. What could have been a huge step forward in education in this country is now going to be brought in a slap dash approach.
Continuous assessment needs to be brought in, I totally agree, it is done in my particular subject more or less. I can see the benefits for students. However, is it fair for any student or teacher of non-core subjects to have such a small time frame to submit this work? March is the proposed month for students to pick the subjects they would like to continue for the final exam. Why not give the full year to students wishing to specialise in a subject?

jonseyblub

rebel10 wrote: »

Just after going through that for a second time, the last was after the announcement that it was going to be pushed through at my union branch meeting. An online questionnaire was filled out by various groups, 40% being second level teachers, they were asked about changes they would like to see implemented. Now, from what I have been told by my union, after that, very little consultation was carried out between teacher groups, unions and the NCCA. There are huge flaws in the proposed system, ones that will eventually become apparent, it is such a wasted opportunity. What could have been a huge step forward in education in this country is now going to be brought in a slap dash approach.

I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative but the whole idea of Junior Cert Reform has been muted for a few years now and as far as I can remember ideas were sought last November/December. If you read through some of the submissions (http://www.ncca.ie/en/Curriculum_and_Assessment/Post-Primary_Education/Junior_Cycle/Junior_cycle_developments/list_of_submissions.html) there are a wide range of proposals from different sections of the education partners. The one thing that strikes you should be that a lot of them propose ideas that would benefit their organisation. An example of this was quoted in the report in that when trying to decide what subjects should be classed in the core the Home Economics association argued that there's should be. Im sure most subject organisations would argue the same. Other examples would be IBEC, Intel etc arguing that Science and Maths should be the priority etc. The problem with this is that the more consultations you have the more and more you end up going around in circles so it's up to the department to then make the decisions based on it's own priorities (primary one these days unfortunately would be cost!!!) and then run with it.

Well, what the NCCA are proposing is that each student will study every subject for 2 years, in March of 3rd yr they will choose the final 8 they will take for the state exams (3 compulsory being Irish, English & Maths).

Is this true? I'm not saying it's not but I've never heard this. If it is true I agree that it's a nonsense idea.

Delphi91

jonseyblub wrote: »

...Is this true? I'm not saying it's not but I've never heard this. If it is true I agree that it's a nonsense idea.

Yes, unfortunately it is!

Now picture yourself with a third year class in March of third year with a subject like, say, Science. For whatever reason, only 5 of your 24 students decide that they want to study Science as one of their 8 subjects. The other 19 aren't too pushed about the subject anymore because they won't be sitting an exam in it. How do you manage that for the remainder of the year? Do you keep them in the class with you? Do they have a "free" class during your classes? And if they know by the end of first year that they won't be picking your subject, what is that going to do for their participation in class? I'm not sure that the day-to-day practicalities of this have been thought through at all. Yes, we did have a chance to voice our opinion, but that was when there were no proposals available to give an opinion on.

While the idea "might" be laudable to an extent, the practicalities of making students pick 8 subjects 3 months before the exam is crazy. If you're going to make them chose, then it should be done at the start of Second Year.

The cynic in me is also looking at this suggestion from the point of view of cost-saving. Less students taking certain subjects means less papers to be printed, less examiners & correctors to hire, etc.

rebel10

jonseyblub wrote: »

I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative but the whole idea of Junior Cert Reform has been muted for a few years now and as far as I can remember ideas were sought last November/December. If you read through some of the submissions (http://www.ncca.ie/en/Curriculum_and_Assessment/Post-Primary_Education/Junior_Cycle/Junior_cycle_developments/list_of_submissions.html) there are a wide range of proposals from different sections of the education partners. The one thing that strikes you should be that a lot of them propose ideas that would benefit their organisation.

I appreciate that you aren't trying to be argumentative, and you certainly aren't, you are just making your stance known.:) I understand that every teaching group would feel their subject should be valued more and thus placed within the core, but this isn't what I am trying to say. I'm saying that I teach a practical subject, and to force students who have no interest in studying the subject to do so impacts on those that do. Also, the budget in my subject would have to be increased with the increase of numbers, this would not come from the dept. but from parents. In 1st year, they are going to have a T.Y. type year. The majority of the school year will see students in 1st year developing themselves as individuals. I have no issue with this other than the amount of money that will be required from parents so that their student can avail of the proposed activities, i.e. outdoor pursuits, school tours, etc.

jonseyblub wrote: »

Is this true? I'm not saying it's not but I've never heard this. If it is true I agree that it's a nonsense idea.

+1 Delphi91. It is nonsense, but unfortunately that is the intention.:(

jonseyblub

That IS ridiculous then. I never explained where I was coming from above. I finished a masters last year and one of the components was curricula studies and we happened to be doing a bit on Junior Cert Reform. Haven't looked at it since. I was actually all in favour of the new JCert as originally proposed. I suppose it's like a lot of good ideas that go into the Department. They come out the other side a shadow of what they began as :mad:

Is there documentation anywhere explaining all this? Tried NCCA and can't find anything.

rebel10

I have trawled through the Dept. website and the NCCA website and even though it goes through the revised syllabus for each subject, it doesn't mention when the students have to pick their chosen subjects. The information I received was from my union branch meeting. They read out the proposed changes and outlined the concerns they had, they then sent a letter of concern to Quinn but as of yet there has been no response.
Once I find something official I will post the link up here.

spurious

March would be cutting it a bit fine for the summer exams.

rebel10

spurious wrote: »

March would be cutting it a bit fine for the summer exams.

That is why there was uproar by union members. Also, the student doesn't actually choose their final 8 subjects, the school does!:rolleyes: I suppose they are trying to address the obvious issue of 30 students choosing home economics and 2 choosing French. Going to be absolutely crazy.
Was looking at my main subjects revised syllabus a moment ago, the course they are expecting us to cover with the entire 3rd year group is completely unrealistic. I just would love to know how many teaching groups were working with the NCCA when devising the final syllabus. I know a science teacher who was on one of these panels and said that anything he submitted was rejected and instead the ideas of someone who taught science 15 years ago in South Africa was brought on board.

spurious

rebel10 wrote: »

That is why there was uproar by union members. Also, the student doesn't actually choose their final 8 subjects, the school does!:rolleyes: I suppose they are trying to address the obvious issue of 30 students choosing home economics and 2 choosing French. Going to be absolutely crazy.
Was looking at my main subjects revised syllabus a moment ago, the course they are expecting us to cover with the entire 3rd year group is completely unrealistic. I just would love to know how many teaching groups were working with the NCCA when devising the final syllabus. I know a science teacher who was on one of these panels and said that anything he submitted was rejected and instead the ideas of someone who taught science 15 years ago in South Africa was brought on board.

I agree, though I meant more from the SEC point of view, the logistics of paper printing , assignment of oral/practical examiners etc.. March is late.

Delphi91

spurious wrote: »

I agree, though I meant more from the SEC point of view, the logistics of paper printing , assignment of oral/practical examiners etc.. March is late.

Yet currently, third years do not pick levels, etc until around that time in 3rd year.

RealJohn

Delphi91 wrote: »

spurious wrote: »

I agree, though I meant more from the SEC point of view, the logistics of paper printing , assignment of oral/practical examiners etc.. March is late.

Yet currently, third years do not pick levels, etc until around that time in 3rd year.

Their levels aren't finalised until around that time of year. Typically, they're already registered well in advance of that and there's little change at that stage.

Allowing subjects to be chosen that late is madness. The end of first year would be best but the end of second year should be the absolute latest.