Current Junior Cert to be phased out

Lord TSC

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1004/quinn-to-announce-major-overhaul-of-junior-cert.html

Minister for Education Ruairi Quinn has announced the phasing out of the current Junior Cert programme over the next three years.

It will be replaced by a school-based model of continuous assessment.
The new programme will see 40% of examination marks being based on course-work and 60% being based on a final written assessment.

Examination papers will be set by the State Examination Commission (SEC) but will be administered and corrected by teachers for the most part.

However, in the case of English, Irish and Maths examination papers will be corrected by the SEC for the first couple of years.

Schools will be allowed to develop short courses of their own which are particularly relevant to their students and local communities.
Mr Quinn said the SEC is to begin planning for its phased withdrawal from the Junior Cycle exams and that we have to move beyond exams to a process of generating evidence of learning.

Speaking at the launch of the reform plans, Mr Quinn said too many students "switch off" in second year and never reconnect to learning.
He said the experience of third year students is dominated by exam preparation where the focus narrows to the performance in the exam rather than the quality of learning.

Under the new plans, students can substitute two short courses for one full subject to allow for courses such as Chinese or Digital Media Literacy to be taken.

Schools will also be able to offer their own short courses in accordance with specifications provided by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.

Pupils currently in fifth class in primary school will be the first students not to sit the Junior Cert as we know it, as the new programme is due to begin in 2014.

Also from 2014, second year students will sit standardised tests in English reading and Maths, and Irish reading in Irish-medium schools. Standardised testing in Science will be included from 2016.

Today's announcement follows the publication of 'Towards a Framework for Junior Cycle - Innovation and Identity' by the NCCA last November.
The Economic and Social Research Institute said the overhaul will lead to improved educational standards among students.

Speaking on RTÉ's Morning Ireland, the ESRI's Dr Emer Smyth said the variety of teaching methods and the new structures will result in teenagers engaging more with learning.

Research by the ESRI among Junior Cert pupils has found that the exam promotes an over-emphasis on exam preparation, rather than the active learning "that young people find engaging".

However, the Association of Secondary Teachers, Ireland said the manner of today's announcement, which it said is being made without consultation with the education partners, is profoundly disappointing.
ASTI said education reform is a serious matter and "not something which should be used for eliciting shock and awe and grabbing headlines".

Not 100% sure how to feel about this. I can see the pros and cons of this...

dory

I thought when I first read about it that 40% of the correction would be done by the teacher and 60% by the SEC. And now it seems eventually the teacher will be doing the summer correcting. Will that eventually mean that those who teach Junior Cert will effectively work 2 - 3 longer than those who don't have JC? I wouldn't like to come across a parent whose child I just failed in their Junior Cert.

whiteandlight

To be honest I need a lot more information about how this is going to work before I have an opinion.

Issues I foresee:
2nd year are the least motivated students, having them sit standardised tests and continous assessment may backfire spectacularly.
Major issues with failure and local parental pressure. We are are very 'who you know' society and I can see this being a major problem.
Are the syllabi all going to change simultaneously? The NCCA can't even manage project maths roll out properly mever mind 22 subjects that I heard mentioned

implausible

It's going to mean a lot of correcting for us English teachers anyway - the course-work and the exam. When I hear standardised testing, I think of the reading age ones where it's just filling in boxes. If it's those, they're easy enough to correct and we do them every year in our school anyway.

I head RQ on the radio twice today and his motivation and the ideas behind it seem sound enough. However, it's the implementation of it that will be the problem.

Fuinseog

it means the kids will have to work more throughout the year but also more parental pressure on teachers.sue the school if the kid gets a bad grade.

with the old system three years work is judged in a single day. too bad if you are sick or miss the exam.

wingnut

We're piloting this this year. Loving it.

whiteandlight

wingnut wrote: »

We're piloting this this year. Loving it.

Wingnut any chance you could give us a rundown on how it works in practise?
It's how it works on the ground that I'm interested in

bdoo

Musicmental85 wrote: »

wingnut wrote: »

We're piloting this this year. Loving it.

Wingnut any chance you could give us a rundown on how it works in practise?
It's how it works on the ground that I'm interested in

I'm sure it's great and it has potential to.improve student learning and more importantly understanding. Unfortunately the work will fall back on teachers.

Anyone who teaches a subject with a practical component knows how difficult it is to get students to produce work on time. Personally I am prepared to be unpopular with parents by enforcing rules and deadlines. The management of coursework should not be underestimated in terms of time and energy.

I have a concern, having worked in the UK, that coursework will be doctored in schools to achieve the grades. In the school I worked in this was mandated by management, not suggested or encouraged.

The terminal exams will be taken in schools during June, supervised by school staff and corrected by school staff.

It could create a two tiered system of schools who cater to the needs of the affluent and those who cater to the needs of the underprivileged. Back to the day's of the tech and the better off secondary schools.

Tell me there isn't a money saving exercise here somewhere. It will also please the public by keeping teachers in schools for longer.

I would hope kidswill gain more from it but if under resourced and under supported it will be a disaster

chris2008x

So they are turning parts of the Junior Cert into a Mickey Mouse qualification. Schools here will do exactly what the schools in the UK did with the GCSE's by introducing subjects like cake decoration.

More focus on Irish Maths and English. That's great and all when it comes to English and Maths but the idea of a greater focus on Irish is just a waste of time (nothing against Irish keep reading to get my point) and will be no use in this knowledge economy they want.

Why students are not doing well in these subjects is down to the Primary schools not the Post Primary's. You can't expect a 12/13 year old to learn Irish in 30 months when the Primary schools especially the rural ones don't commit enough time to these subjects.

In the school I went to they spent too much time with Communion/Confirmations and GAA and not enough time teaching Maths/English/Irish. Few classmates in Primary who started secondary school with me had to repeat first year unbelievably and went on to do foundation level in the Junior Cert. Thankfully I got B's in ordinary level in Maths English etc but I would have failed Irish if I had not been exempt from it.

The real reforms should start at Primary


To add I also believe Science should be compulsory like Maths and English not in 2014 NOW!

byhookorbycrook

Plenty reform at primary thanks, we have to do the standardised tests in English, Irish and Maths each year from 1st to 6th. We also have to draw up 3 year plans to improve all of the above.

I think the issue of parental pressure, particulary in middle class areas ,will be massive.

rainbowtrout

chris2008x wrote: »

So they are turning parts of the Junior Cert into a Mickey Mouse qualification. Schools here will do exactly what the schools in the UK did with the GCSE's by introducing subjects like cake decoration.

Not necessarily. Students in the UK to the best of my knowledge are 16 doing their GCSEs and 18 doing their A-levels. Our students are a year younger doing Junior Cert and Leaving Cert. It's normal in the UK for a student to leave school after 16 and start working, where as here it's not really considered the norm to leave school after Junior Cert anymore (I know there are students who still do, and perhaps those students tend to fall into the more disadvantaged socio economic groups overall).

So if the majority of students are continuing on to Leaving Cert, where no reform has been announced and there's still a load of exams deciding how you get to college I can't see too many schools bringing in cake decoration as a Junior Cert subject.

That coupled with the choices:

8 of the existing subjects
7 of the existing subjects and 2 short courses
6 of the existing subjects and 4 short courses

The short courses have to be at least 100 hours in duration, which is roughly equivalent to a year and a half of the junior cert cycle as it stands.

Schools that have a cohort of students that typically continue to third level education will probably continue as normal in that they will offer the 8 subject module and not bother with the short courses.

English, Irish, Maths and Science as compulsories (assume Science will be as standarised testing is proposed in science from 2016) does not leave much room for subject choice. Assuming most students also take a foreign language or this is a mandatory subject in their chosen school, leaves them with only 3 other subjects to choose from the range that already exists or 1-2 other subjects with 2-4 short courses.

Current range in many schools would include: History, Geography, Music, Art, Home Economics, Business, Metalwork, Woodwork, Tech Drawing.


I can't see too many schools bringing in Cake Decoration if they have a permanent woodwork teacher whose timetable needs to be filled.

I've already had a look at some of the short courses and I would like to bring Software Development into my school. Unfortunately we have no equivalent at Leaving Cert level and are not likely to at any time in the near future.

bdoo

rainbowtrout wrote: »

chris2008x wrote: »

So they are turning parts of the Junior Cert into a Mickey Mouse qualification. Schools here will do exactly what the schools in the UK did with the GCSE's by introducing subjects like cake decoration.

Not necessarily. Students in the UK to the best of my knowledge are 16 doing their GCSEs and 18 doing their A-levels. Our students are a year younger doing Junior Cert and Leaving Cert. It's normal in the UK for a student to leave school after 16 and start working, where as here it's not really considered the norm to leave school after Junior Cert anymore (I know there are students who still do, and perhaps those students tend to fall into the more disadvantaged socio economic groups overall).

So if the majority of students are continuing on to Leaving Cert, where no reform has been announced and there's still a load of exams deciding how you get to college I can't see too many schools bringing in cake decoration as a Junior Cert subject.

That coupled with the choices:

8 of the existing subjects
7 of the existing subjects and 2 short courses
6 of the existing subjects and 4 short courses

The short courses have to be at least 100 hours in duration, which is roughly equivalent to a year and a half of the junior cert cycle as it stands.

Schools that have a cohort of students that typically continue to third level education will probably continue as normal in that they will offer the 8 subject module and not bother with the short courses.

English, Irish, Maths and Science as compulsories (assume Science will be as standarised testing is proposed in science from 2016) does not leave much room for subject choice. Assuming most students also take a foreign language or this is a mandatory subject in their chosen school, leaves them with only 3 other subjects to choose from the range that already exists or 1-2 other subjects with 2-4 short courses.

Current range in many schools would include: History, Geography, Music, Art, Home Economics, Business, Metalwork, Woodwork, Tech Drawing.


I can't see too many schools bringing in Cake Decoration if they have a permanent woodwork teacher whose timetable needs to be filled.

I've already had a look at some of the short courses and I would like to bring Software Development into my school. Unfortunately we have no equivalent at Leaving Cert level and are not likely to at any time in the near future.

I wasn't aware that theshort courses were published yet, are they on the ncca site or is there just the list of suggested courses? Jewish studies caught my eye!

evolving_doors

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Plenty reform at primary thanks, we have to do the standardised tests in English, Irish and Maths each year from 1st to 6th. We also have to draw up 3 year plans to improve all of the above.

I think the issue of parental pressure, particulary in middle class areas ,will be massive.

>Multinational Companies Blame Universities
>Universities Blame Secondary Schools
>Secondary Schools Blame Primary Schools
>Primary Schools Blame Parents

As a parent and teacher I think it's my place to complete the loop and blame multinationals. (Their only here for the tax folks, if we want to ensure better job opportunities then just lower the corporate tax)

I think everyone here will readily admit that the Junior Cert was just a Leaving Cert 'Lite'. I think as teachers we finally have the chance to have an input into what we think is important in our subject and how it relates to today's world. I'm not really worried about the Junior Cert reforms in terms of teaching and learning, (who here honestly even remembers thier JC/IC results?) the real question is about RQ's plans to reform the Leaving Cert...

Anyone seen that notice about 'introduction to mandarin Chinese' in their staffroom?

byhookorbycrook

Not blaming parents at all, but I reckon well heeled parents will kick up if little Asbo isn't given high enough grades for projects etc or else will pay for someone to do them for him.

happywithlife

my initial thoughts are perhaps its well intentioned but i can't help but feel they are going to make a pig's ear out of it
initial questions are how are they going to ensure standardisation in the short course modules? and how are teachers who haven't marked with the sec before going to be expected to mark their own classes now? and currently my subject allows students to gain 50% of marks for their coursework - and that's at higher level - its 60% for the ordinary level students -- is this going to be reversed? meaning students are actually disadvantaged by the new JC?
i dunno.... need a heck of a lot of more info on it ...

rational

What will it mean for the teaching of religion in schools? as a recent graduate of mater dei still not permanent I am worried religion will be phased out, and my other subject is georgaphy. Any thoughts?

coolperson05

My understanding of it was that the Junior Cycle is being scaled back and that the standardization and pressure of the current examination was, as RQ put it today, the "Junior Leaving Cert". Surely that's a good thing? Parents shouldn't be worried about standards, uniformity and grades at 15...leave the children grow and develop. Achieve these "key skills". It promotes assessment for learning, not of learning.

happywithlife

rational wrote: »

What will it mean for the teaching of religion in schools? as a recent graduate of mater dei, still not permanent I am worried religion will be phased out, and my other subject is georgaphy. Any thoughts?

yeah i'd worry about this too .. religion is my second subject and i'd also often teach sphe and cspe -- i'd worry about how these reforms are going to affect these subjects bigtime? or will schools still have to ensure the likes or re and sphe are timetabled? and what about pe?
it just seems very little consultation - maybe i'm wrong on that? but i did attend a pdst meeting recently and only one person (whose school was piloting it) had any understanding of it .. nobody else seemed to know much about it

Fuinseog

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Not blaming parents at all, but I reckon well heeled parents will kick up if little Asbo isn't given high enough grades for projects etc or else will pay for someone to do them for him.

they will for sure. i know at LC level a lot of kids only submit their history project at the last minute. In Ireland deadlines do not matter.

The new JC is designed for those who struggle in society. the middle classes will love the introduction of Chinese.

slickmcvic

...where were the teaching council today to give an informed independent view of the changes and ensure continued professionalism and standards?
...their silence spoke volumes, checked the website today and they seem to be gearing up wholesale for "World Teachers day" tomorrow.
......woop de doo!
well worth the annual €90

mtoutlemonde

slickmcvic wrote: »

...where were the teaching council today to give an informed independent view of the changes and ensure continued professionalism and standards?
...their silence spoke volumes, checked the website today and they seem to be gearing up wholesale for "World Teachers day" tomorrow.
......woop de doo!
well worth the annual €90

... and don't forget the fabulous email we got today!!

mick kk

Hi noticed this also - when I saw I had an email from the TC I assumed it was to brief me about how my job was about the change....it looks to me like the teaching council didn't have a clue that this announcement was coming today. Just goes to show what Ruairí himself thinks about them. Can't wait to send them €65 next march.

mtoutlemonde

mick kk wrote: »

Hi noticed this also - when I saw I had an email from the TC I assumed it was to brief me about how my job was about the change....it looks to me like the teaching council didn't have a clue that this announcement was coming today. Just goes to show what Ruairí himself thinks about them. Can't wait to send them €65 next march.

The only job the Teaching Council has it to infuriate every teacher in the country! Mine is due in November

dory

mtoutlemonde wrote: »

... and don't forget the fabulous email we got today!!

I never got an email from them. What was it about?

slickmcvic

dory wrote: »

I never got an email from them. What was it about?

...world teachers day
......wooop de doo

mtoutlemonde

dory wrote: »

I never got an email from them. What was it about?

As slickmcvic said nothing else, just an invitation to watch an online lecture from the CEO of the NCCA to celebrate World Teachers Day.

dory

Hate to be a cynic - but this seems like a nice way to slash teacher numbers.

Schools have a choice of 7 subjects plus two short courses (the much touted Chinese!) or 8 normal subjects.

So now schools are expected to cut the JC subjects to 7, loose teachers, and the remaining teachers now have to go about creating, learning to teach and marking totally new areas. We've been told some courses are available but it sounds like it will end up like Transition year; often no books so teachers go find something or other to do....

In short, this will be great for schools who struggle to keep students engaged. Less subjects and maybe some interesting ones along the way. For a lot of schools it was just a nice way for Ruairí to say - we've lessening the amount of subjects and will make teachers unemployed.

delta_bravo

To me it is woefully underfunded, project maths apparently cost about the same as they are planning to spend on reforming an entire curriculum.

My subjects are now no longer compulsory. So many questions, how are the teaching council going to sort out qualification of teachers to teach these varied short courses.

I think one major effect of this will be a big drop in long term posts as schools can hire someone to teach a short course for 8 weeks and turf them out.
Its just one thing after another. I graduated in 2011, did a bit of subbing last year and failed to find a job for Sept. Couldn't afford the dole and subbing again so got a temp job in a totally different area. But to be honest I really don't know if ill be back in the classroom again. The profession is dying. The unions need to stand up to this or they may as well fold.

bdoo

http://education.ie/en/Press-Events/Press-Releases/2012-Press-Releases/PR12-10-04.html

The timetable lists when each subject will change, 2017 has,'technology subjects' I wonder will this be used as a chance to combine the traditional subjects into one.

rainbowtrout

Has anyone here ranting about job losses and 8 week short courses actually read the documentation on the NCCA website? Because its been there for at least 6 months and yesterday's announcement didn't have much new to add.

Schools are required to provide students with a minimum of 28 hours tuition per week. They will still be required to do this. So while some subjects will be required less the same numbers of hours will be needed to teach students. Students who do 11-12 subjects for junior cert in its current context only have some subjects 2-3 times per week. If a school goes with the 8 subject option a student would more than likely have each subject 4-5 times per week. So hours may shift from one subject to another in schools.


Again a short course has 100 hours minimum requirement so from a time tabling point of view I would see a short course being timetabled for perhaps 2 classes a week over the 3 year cycle.

Many of the short courses proposed on the NCCA are based on existing subjects and clearly schools with permanent staff are only going to offer short courses from within the staff they already have.

As for locally devised short courses I can see courses being developed like Cookery and Nutrition developed which could be taught by a home economics teacher. Or i think one of the NCCA ones suggested has got something to do with budgeting and personal finances. Clearly that's a job for the business teacher.


Maybe teachers need to have a read of the new curriculum before knocking it. Failing that, talk to Joe.

RealJohn

Yet another exercise in punishing teachers for the sake of appeasing the general public. Making us do more work for the sake of a negligible saving in the scheme of things and no real benefit to the students.

I'm not going to blame the primary school teachers for the problems but it's undeniable that the problems are in the primary school system first and foremost. Students spending eight years learning Irish and not being able to have even a basic conversation by the time they reach secondary school is the norm. On our projects maths inservice, they told us to treat fractions as though the students had never done them before, not to mention that even good students reach for a calculator to perform the most basic tasks, as though they'd never learned their times tables at all. I'm informed by the english teachers that spelling and grammar have gone to the dogs there too.

It's the primary system that needs to be reformed and by that, mean back to basics. Back to the "three Rs". Any student who leaves primary school without basic reading and writing skills in Irish and english and without being able to add, subtract, multiply and divide without using a calculator has been failed by the system and they haven't got a chance in secondary.

I think there should be a short course (if not an entire subject) in this new junior cert entitled "Things you're supposed to have learned in primary school."

Lord TSC

Yet another exercise in punishing teachers for the sake of appeasing the general public.

More and more, it's becoming obvious the agenda against teachers is growing larger and larger. I've seen this covered on the news and there's constant interviews with mummies at school gates, but no questions poised to teachers on their thoughts, or questions to experts on the pros and cons of the scheme....

doc_17

The "results" at the end of this 3 year JC will be completely undermined. Imagine a driving instructor who was able to "mark" his/her students in the actual test. Would it be credible?

And who the hell is gonna teach chinese! Short courses that 3 years? That's the length of a BA!!

rainbowtrout

doc_17 wrote: »

The "results" at the end of this 3 year JC will be completely undermined. Imagine a driving instructor who was able to "mark" his/her students in the actual test. Would it be credible?

And who the hell is gonna teach chinese! Short courses that 3 years? That's the length of a BA!!

No school is obliged to teach Chinese, but the option is there if they want it. The junior cert is already 3 years long yet is not the same as a BA, can't see why you are making the comparison between short courses and a BA. Students are already doing a short course subject in the form of CSPE. In most schools it's only timetabled 1-2 times a week for three years.

The 60% exam will still be corrected in the same manner as current written exams are. So no doubt marking schemes will still exist and curves will be maintained.

doc_17

Short Courses done over 1-2 lessons for 3 years are a total waste of time. Not that it's practical but you'd imagine a short course as being intensive and something that would be best done in a term. So CSPE is a short course? First I ever heard of it being referred to as that.

Will Maths be broken down into 60/40 exam/CA? And if we are maintaining the curves then what's it all about really?

The projectmaths.com (not the official one) posted a really interesting stat this week. Had a student only got low partial credit for each question in PM P1 they would have achieved 56% in that paper. Compare that to the standard P1 that everyone else sat where the comparable attempt mark achieved by a student in each question would have seen them achieve only 33%.

I know that's off topic but what the hell kind of direction is the system taking?

RQ is making a real b*lls of things. Saying the problem is at second level? There are problems there no doubt but that isn't the only place they are to found.

rainbowtrout

doc_17 wrote: »

Short Courses done over 1-2 lessons for 3 years are a total waste of time. Not that it's practical but you'd imagine a short course as being intensive and something that would be best done in a term. So CSPE is a short course? First I ever heard of it being referred to as that.

Well that's my personal opinion on CSPE with regard to the time allocated to it in schools I am familiar with. I am yet to meet a teacher who is teaching CSPE 3-4 times per week for three years. So in terms of time allocated to the course, it is on par with the time that is proposed for the short courses suggested.

Perhaps a short course would be best done over a short period of time, but what do you suggest happens in schools? To complete a 100 hour course in 8 weeks as was suggested, would mean that a student would have to receive 12.5 hours per week tuition in that subject. When a student has to receive a minimum of 28 hours per week tuition on their timetable, realistically what you are suggesting would be to have several classes(at least four) a day, every day. So lets drop Irish, English and Maths for a term and leave those teachers twiddling their thumbs so we can fit a short course into 8 weeks.

I don't see why you think students can't make any progress in a subject where they have it only 2 classes a week. They seem to do ok in CSPE and at the moment we are so tight on our timetable JC students only get history twice a week in first and second year. But perhaps we are wasting their time teaching history them as well.

doc_17

Ok, so let's say Chinese is introduced as a short course. What do you think the learning outcomes would be if it were taught on average 1.5 classes over 3 weeks? We teach irish every day (well, most) and after 14 years a large number can't speak it.

You did say yourself it would be better to do it over a short time. And of course I realise that CSPE is not (thankfully) givien more than 1 class per week.

But the debate will continue!! My problem with this is that they have released something without all the details fully planned out.

Lord TSC

It's one thing to do CSPE as a class a week. It's another to do a new language.

We've already enough trouble teaching Irish and other languages at 5 classes a week. How, exactly, are students going to get any decent exposure to Chinese at one class a week? :S

rainbowtrout

doc_17 wrote: »

Ok, so let's say Chinese is introduced as a short course. What do you think the learning outcomes would be if it were taught on average 1.5 classes over 3 weeks? We teach irish every day (well, most) and after 14 years a large number can't speak it.

You did say yourself it would be better to do it over a short time. And of course I realise that CSPE is not (thankfully) givien more than 1 class per week.

But the debate will continue!! My problem with this is that they have released something without all the details fully planned out.

I said perhaps a short course would be better in a short period of time. Some subjects may lend themselves to this model better than others. I teach adult education classes and I find that the students that have come from computer classes where they went 1-2 classes a week consistently and therefore practiced their skills consistently over a long period of time (1 year) tend to remember far more than the ones who cram ECDL (or similar) into 8 weeks who are only learning for the exam at the end of the week, and the following week very little is retained because those skills or information has not been retained in the long term because it doesn't have to be. In that regard I would prefer to have the subject over a longer period.

Irish is a bit of an anomaly. I did French and German for my Leaving Cert and both were of a better standard than my Irish at that point. Nothing to do with the number of classes. Irish simply isn't taught as a modern spoken language. I could write essays about the problems of the youth of today, but I'd have had difficulty having an everyday conversation in Irish.

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

It's one thing to do CSPE as a class a week. It's another to do a new language.

We've already enough trouble teaching Irish and other languages at 5 classes a week. How, exactly, are students going to get any decent exposure to Chinese at one class a week? :S

Why is everyone so hung up on Chinese? Realistically the number of schools that will offer it in the next 5 years are going to be little or none.

Who's to say that a Cookery and Nutrition course couldn't be offered in a double class a week where students might learn valuable life skills if they are not already studying Home Economics?

I did Home Economics in first year in school. I didn't have a whole lot of interest in the rest of the course but I did like the cookery/nutrition part of it and a course focused solely in this area would have interested me.


Similarly there are students who have no idea of banking, budgeting, financial skills and products. 'I don't know what a tracker mortgage is' springs to mind. A course with a practical focus in these areas would be beneficial to students, again if they are not already doing business studies.


Also remember, schools don't have to offer short courses. It's an option. Some schools may continue to go the traditional route of the existing subjects (now with added coursework).


I see plenty of students in school, many with learning disabilities and special needs who struggle to cope with all the subjects. A reduced number of subjects would help them greatly. Some short courses which would be of real use to them in life would also be a huge benefit.


Personally in my school I would like to introduce Computer Science/Software Development as a short course, and perhaps an Agriculture/Horticulture course. There is huge scope in both of these areas. In particular the second one would tie in partially with Junior Cert Science and would serve as a follow on for LC Ag Science.

Lord TSC

Why is everyone so hung up on Chinese? Realistically the number of schools that will offer it in the next 5 years are going to be little or none.

Who's to say that a Cookery and Nutrition course couldn't be offered in a double class a week where students might learn valuable life skills if they are not already studying Home Economics?

I use it as an example because it's the example that keeps being brough up, but you're right. There's plenty of options that could work just as well in there....

bdoo

I cant see why schools won't run short courses in bands of three or four subjects over a year and a half. Students could then change over to another short course.

The course need not run from Sept of first year until may of third year. The certification will be received after third year but it will be earned before then.

That's one of the main advantages from my point if view, mid second year boom, finished that course start a new one, no delayed gratification, no second year dip... In theory at least.

I think we need to stop thinking 9 x 40 min classes here and start looking at hour long lessons, two week timetables etc with classes set aside for completing project work etc. This has remarkable potential if it is done well.

A bit of perspective here.

km79

bdoo wrote: »

I cant see why schools won't run short courses in bands of three or four subjects over a year and a half. Students could then change over to another short course.

The course need not run from Sept of first year until may of third year. The certification will be received after third year but it will be earned before then.

That's one of the main advantages from my point if view, mid second year boom, finished that course start a new one, no delayed gratification, no second year dip... In theory at least.

I think we need to stop thinking 9 x 40 min classes here and start looking at hour long lessons, two week timetables etc with classes set aside for completing project work etc. This has remarkable potential if it is done well.

A bit of perspective here.

That would work for the junior cycle but the senior cycle will remain the same .....

rainbowtrout

bdoo wrote: »

I cant see why schools won't run short courses in bands of three or four subjects over a year and a half. Students could then change over to another short course.

The course need not run from Sept of first year until may of third year. The certification will be received after third year but it will be earned before then.

That's one of the main advantages from my point if view, mid second year boom, finished that course start a new one, no delayed gratification, no second year dip... In theory at least.

I think we need to stop thinking 9 x 40 min classes here and start looking at hour long lessons, two week timetables etc with classes set aside for completing project work etc. This has remarkable potential if it is done well.

A bit of perspective here.

Ya that would definitely work, particularly if schools offered subjects in pairs or as you said put them in groups. Or perhaps offered say four short courses for the first year and a half and the same four repeated for the second year and a half, so the same teachers would be timetabled consistently for the same hours over three years and students just pick a different subject from the band the second time round.

There is lots of scope. I just suspect that single and double classes in their traditional format would probably remain so as not to impact on the rest of the school timetable for all the other subjects.

dory

rainbowtrout wrote: »

The 60% exam will still be corrected in the same manner as current written exams are. So no doubt marking schemes will still exist and curves will be maintained.

I thought so too. But then I've been reading (can't find a link right now) that eventually - down the line - 100% of all tests will be marked by teachers.

bdoo

I'd kill for an hour long standard class across the board now it would be ideal for senior cycle imo

allprops

I'm in two minds over this change. The ideas seem reasonable but the reality in Irish Education is often different. People are naturally fretful of change and it can often be unwarranted. My difficulty with the proposals are that much of this seems to be change for the sake of it.
I am also fearful, especially having watched the recent documentary, that this is more about RQ and his legacy as much as anything else. The man seemed to be pure ego and wants to be the a sort of Donagh O Malley type character who will be remembered than somebody who is interested in education. If he could call it the Quinn cert., I think he would. (I hope that doesn't catch.) Reform for reform's sake is never good.

bdoo

This was well underway before rurai moved in, I think it was batt, I am open to correction.

Boober Fraggle

bdoo wrote: »

This was well underway before rurai moved in, I think it was batt, I am open to correction.

Bdoo, I was just thinking I remember someone suggesting that coughlan was going to do away with the junior cert so that she would have a legacy.

Properly funded, and properly managed, I think most of these proposals are great.

chippers

delta_bravo wrote: »

To me it is woefully underfunded, project maths apparently cost about the same as they are planning to spend on reforming an entire curriculum.

My subjects are now no longer compulsory. So many questions, how are the teaching council going to sort out qualification of teachers to teach these varied short courses.

I think one major effect of this will be a big drop in long term posts as schools can hire someone to teach a short course for 8 weeks and turf them out.
Its just one thing after another. I graduated in 2011, did a bit of subbing last year and failed to find a job for Sept. Couldn't afford the dole and subbing again so got a temp job in a totally different area. But to be honest I really don't know if ill be back in the classroom again. The profession is dying. The unions need to stand up to this or they may as well fold.

Sorry to hear this. Both my subjects will now become options as well. Two subjects I see as extremely important yet deemed to be only important enough to be options. Looks like my employability is shrinking.

How can geography only be an optional subject. Us as humans are destroying the planet we live on and its only seen as a side issue. Are we really better better off reading poems and old Shakespearian plays....And as for Irish it's great for general interest but usefulness in everyday life? Surely Irish should be an optional subject. I just don't get it.

byhookorbycrook

Boober Fraggle wrote: »

Bdoo, I was just thinking I remember someone suggesting that coughlan was going to do away with the junior cert so that she would have a legacy.

Properly funded, and properly managed, I think most of these proposals are great.

But there is the crux of the matter. Epsen has not been enacted and yet, we are off doing IEPs, unresourced and untrained.Will the same happen here?

bdoo

chippers wrote: »

Sorry to hear this. Both my subjects will now become options as well. Two subjects I see as extremely important yet deemed to be only important enough to be options. Looks like my employability is shrinking.

How can geography only be an optional subject. Us as humans are destroying the planet we live on and its only seen as a side issue. Are we really better better off reading poems and old Shakespearian plays....And as for Irish it's great for general interest but usefulness in everyday life? Surely Irish should be an optional subject. I just don't get it.

Well geography and history are currently optional in my school, both are well subscribed with interested students, if there is such a thing.

I don't think it's helpful generally of we turn this into a debate about what subject issue most important. Remember that they can study ten subjects but a max of 8 will be certified. Read the ncca website.