Changes to the Junior Cert - why do we complain so much?

NIMAN

The changes proposed yesterday were supposedly based a lot on the Finnish model, who are recognised as having one of the best education systems in the world.

I cannot understand why there is no much resistance to change in this country. Again there was nothing but negative comments about this new JC change.

Why would we not want to be among the best educated in the world? Is it vested interests? Or lack of commitment to putting in the work to get us there? Or plain old begrudgery?

Dr Galen

I don't know about anyone else but it all feels like window dressing for me.

Until we address some of the fundamental issues within the whole education sector in this country, e.g. so many hours spent on compulsory Irish and Religion versus subjects that will actually matter in the real world, then we won't get very far.

The idea of on-line based courses for schools with lower resource levels and in-school assessments instead of state run seems great, but I question how that sort of thing will work in practice.

RMD

I see 2 problems with this

1) The board of education wont do this right. Currently when it comes to the JC and LC students are on an entirely level playing field where they learn from the same available resources and sit the exact same exam. If they allow this much freedom it becomes worthless as it's open to abuse.

2) It's not marked by a centralised group, instead it's marked independently by the teachers.This will lead to inconsistencies in grades achieved by students depending on their teachers.

The JC is worthless in my view, the danger I see here is when they implement this for the LC. If they maintain the current CAO system while implementing continuous assessment style scenarios marked independently by teachers it could lead to great abuse / inconsistencies in results awarded. If they implement this for the LC as they said they plan to do in the future, they'll need to totally overhaul the 3rd level admissions policy as well.

It sounds great in theory but I don't see them doing this right. As previously said, I'd prefer them to divert resources away from relatively useless subjects such as Irish. Offer it as a choice subject if a student wishes to pursue it but don't force it upon students, a waste of valuable resources considering the majority don't want to study it.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

NIMAN wrote: »

The changes proposed yesterday were supposedly based a lot on the Finnish model, who are recognised as having one of the best education systems in the world.

I think the key missing element is Finns. People here don't trust independently marked tests. The JC is a lead-in for the LC; students and parents need it as an independent verification of how their children are actually doing.

bleg

Why do we need a Junior Cert? It's not a relevant qualification any more. Very few people leave school with a mere Junior Cert these days. The standardised testing that they're introducing will be enough. I reckon in 10 years the JC will be abolished (as originally recommended.)


The new system is a great idea I think. I'm no expert but from what I hear so far it seems impressive. I learned more in Transition Year when I had no pressure and the freedom to study what I wanted than I did in 5th/6th year.

bleg

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think the key missing element is Finns. People here don't trust independently marked tests. The JC is a lead-in for the LC; students and parents need it as an independent verification of how their children are actually doing.

Why can't the mocks or standardised testing be verification?


To be honest it sounds like lazy parenting if you rely on an irrelevant exam to tell you how your kids are doing.

Parent teacher meetings, grades and just talking to the child would be far more reliable metrics than an exam where you regurgitate as much as you can on the day.

Sure one of the teachers and the student might not get on and that might be reflected in grades/PT meetings but if the child is doing poorly across all subjects then surely that's indicative enough.

Also if my child was doing poorly in school I'd want to know ASAP rather than waiting 3 years for some sort of meaningless exam.

bleg

RMD wrote: »

The JC is worthless in my view, the danger I see here is when they implement this for the LC. If they maintain the current CAO system while implementing continuous assessment style scenarios marked independently by teachers it could lead to great abuse / inconsistencies in results awarded. If they implement this for the LC as they said they plan to do in the future, they'll need to totally overhaul the 3rd level admissions policy as well.

The 3rd level institutions have already stated that they intend to change the college entry system. Remember the CAO system is run by the universities not the state.

RMD wrote: »

It sounds great in theory but I don't see them doing this right. As previously said, I'd prefer them to divert resources away from relatively useless subjects such as Irish. Offer it as a choice subject if a student wishes to pursue it but don't force it upon students, a waste of valuable resources considering the majority don't want to study it.

So is it just Irish or are there other subjects you want to divert resources away from?

I agree with you by the way. Whilst literacy in English and numeracy are crucial, Irish isn't as important and shouldn't be mandatory.


If it sounds great in theory then let's give it a shot. We shouldn't be held back by fear of not getting it quite right. Anything is better than the system we have at the moment.

Dannyboy83

Dr Galen wrote: »

I don't know about anyone else but it all feels like window dressing for me.

It is.
Schoolchildren are still wasting their time learning redundant cr@p like Irish.

On the brightside, a pupil will probably be able to go through 6 years of school without ever having to waste time learning it now, as long as the teachers are in on it.

Dr Galen

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

It is.
Schoolchildren are still wasting their time learning redundant cr@p like Irish.

On the brightside, a pupil will probably be able to go through 6 years of school without ever having to waste time learning it now, as long as the teachers are in on it.

See that is the thing. If we were producing students who were genuinely bi-lingual, with a love of Irish and languages in general, then I'd be all for keeping Irish, but we're not. Far from it. I would totally support Irish as an optional subject, with a vastly reformed curriculum to try and make it appealing and relevant though.

The same can't be said for religion though. A general civics type class, that brought in numerous topics, I'd be all for. Start kids early on it too. 1 hour a week from the ages of 7 to 17 could give kids a serious grounding in all sorts of philosophical, sociological and spiritual topics.

Dannyboy83

Dr Galen wrote: »

See that is the thing. If we were producing students who were genuinely bi-lingual, with a love of Irish and languages in general, then I'd be all for keeping Irish, but we're not. Far from it. I would totally support Irish as an optional subject, with a vastly reformed curriculum to try and make it appealing and relevant though.

Well, Fine Gael proposed optional Irish at the last election and the electorate gave them a mandate to make that change.
But they didn't.

We are going to solve this dilemma the "Irish" way instead.
Irish problems require Irish solutions!

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/latest-news/huge-increase-in-number-of-students-not-sitting-irish-one-in-ten-children-exempt-from-studying-language-3194484.html
Huge increase in number of students not sitting Irish - one in ten children exempt from studying language

MORE than 7,000 Leaving Cert students were exempt from sitting the Irish exam this year, Foinse can reveal.

The numbers represent a massive increase of 35% on five years ago. There is growing concern too over the 25% increase in the number of secondary students on the whole who are exempt from Irish - 32,792 of the over 300,000 secondary students in the system skipped the subject this year.

hatrickpatrick

Dr. Galen, just a quick correction: Junior and Leaving Cert Irish has almost nothing whatsoever to do with language. Nothing.

In the Junior Cycle you learn to say the most pointlessly basic sh!te, the vast majority of which would rarely come up in conversation. In the Senior Cycle, almost all of the attention is diverted to studying the most appallingly depressing examples of Irish Literature imaginable.
Most of my time in LC Irish was spent learning Paper II stuff, and in all honesty if it wasn't about someone dying of hunger or getting screwed over by their neighbours, it was about a woman whose husband is a complete gobsh!te and who is more or less a walking advert for prozac (An Bhean Og).

You leave those classes feeling incredibly down, simply because the stuff you're supposed to be reading is all about misery. And I know there's an entire wealth of Irish stories out there which would raise a laugh from almost anyone. Whoever is in charge of picking the curriculum seems to be on a mission to depress the next generation!

If you compare it to the English literature, it's blindingly obvious why so many do well in English and not in Irish. Most (not all, but most) of the stories and poems they choose for English are at worst slightly boring - with relatively few exceptions, they don't dwell on utterly depressing subject matter for literally the entire exam.

That's just my point of view anyway, this hit me about half way through LC Irish when we read a story called "An Cearrbhach Mac Caba", an amusing story about a fellow who gambles with the devil and outsmarts him repeatedly, that this was the first time I'd actually found a story uplifting or cheerful in 2 years of "learning Irish".

Dr Galen

I think you have it pretty spot on there HTP.

Having been and educated mostly in the North, my experience of irish is very different to many down here tbh.

I learnt Irish almost as a foreign language, only in secondary school though, up to the age of 16. I actually had a pretty decent command of the language at that age. I didn't chose it as an A-Level subject, but I do know that those who did, continued to learn it, the way I was, in another classroom learning French. I studied Camus, the French newspapers, French TV and radio etc, and they did the same with their Irish language equivalents.

When I moved here at the age of 18, and went into the last year of school here, I was able to get an exception from having to do Irish. I did sit in on a few classes though to begin with, mainly to see if there was any chance of me doing it. An idea forced upon me by the lovely gaelgoir VP we had. While I knew shag all about moany old women in scarfs, or there not being any turf for the kids to eat or something, my command of the oral and aural language was near the top of the class! This was after 2 years of never using the language. Thankfully, I got my exception and was able to do chemistry instead but thats a different story.

Anyway, I don't think we should let this thread become just about Irish. There are plenty of other things that also need reform in the system.

RMD

bleg wrote: »

So is it just Irish or are there other subjects you want to divert resources away from?

I agree with you by the way. Whilst literacy in English and numeracy are crucial, Irish isn't as important and shouldn't be mandatory.

There's a certain few which I think are important:

Maths is incredibly important I think as it helps to give students a good quantitative base. They need to make the course more applicable to real life situations. I struggled with honours maths in school so I dropped to ordinary, yet when I went to college I was studying maths which was on par if not exceeding honours maths. The maths was applicable to real life situations, hence it was a hell of a lot easier to learn.

English is also important. They need to abolish paper 2, it's a waste of time rote learning quotes and points about various themes / characters / poems etc. Instead implement it into a more extensive version of paper 1. I'd like to see a greater level of critical analysis from students in this paper, you can't really train students to be great writers in 2 years but you can teach them to think logically.

A 2nd language (Not Irish): I think a 2nd language is very important from an economic point of view as in time it opens up greater economic possibilities. I'd like to see a 2nd language introduced at primary school level in the place of Irish. I think either German, Spanish or Chinese Mandarin would be the best to implement as they're they offer the greatest return. Irish is a waste of resources IMO, no economic gain occurs from it and most students dislike it was a subject. When I saw my LC, I'd say myself and about 75% of the years saw it as something to get through rather than to get points from.

Computers: Not the usual 1 class on a wednesday teaching you how to do the basics in Word, Excel or Powerpoint. Teach it like a regular subject exploring the various concepts of ICT and teach the basics of programming. Treat it as an actual science subject rather than a novelty.

Choice Of:

1) Commerce: Forget business studies, create a 2 paper subject incorporating the basics of Business, Accounting and Finance. Teach students how to prepare basic accounts, how the basics of banking / corporate finance works and the basics of business administration. Scrap accounting and business studies in it's place.

Or

2) Science: Study the principles of physics, chemistry and biology. Study how they interact with eachother and also the traits that are specific to each science.

As both of these subjects use 3 areas, the papers will consist of 20 short questions (or something similar, not overly challenging) and 3 long sections (each specific to 1 area of the subject) of which 2 are answered. This allows students who find 1 area overly hard or not apt for them to not have to heavily invest in it.

Finally 1 choice subject. Same format as current LC in essence:
Geography
History
An additional language
Music
Art
Economics
Religion (Not Catholic indoctrination, a biasless class demonstrating the various teachings of major religions and philosphers)
Etc

That is what I'd like to see implemented for the Leaving cert. Make what is studied more applicable to real life scenarios, exclude rote learning where possible (Obviously can't be done for some subjects) and embrace logical thinking and critical analysis.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

bleg wrote: »

Why can't the mocks or standardised testing be verification?

Because its not marked by a teacher who has no idea who the pupil is.

bleg wrote: »

Also if my child was doing poorly in school I'd want to know ASAP rather than waiting 3 years for some sort of meaningless exam.

You're missing the point, rather badly.

We need the LC as the regulator of access to third level, as it is the fairest (or least unfair) way that our culture can manage such things. Anything other than a blind, objective test will be undermined. If you don't know what I mean, consider that 85% of sick leave in the HSE is certified.

Parents cannot replicate the blind test; but the LC is absolutely crucial. A parent can gauge that a child seems to be doing OK in maths. But the wrong teacher may give wrong advice. It happens. So maybe that 'B' your child seemed to be getting in maths is actually a 'D'; the JC will tell you this, and give you two years to take remedial action.

On the points re: the curriculum, I would not shed a tear if the Irish language lost it's unique status as the only compulsory LC subject. But the JC is necessary, for as long as the LC regulates access to third level.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Although, in fairness, the role of religion and Irish isn't entirely divorced from the problem. Isn't Irish language competence a requirement for teaching? That limits entry to the profession, on the quite arbitrary ground of whether you are drawn from a reasonably narrow section of Irish society that is comfortable with the Irish language.

When I don my tinfoil hat, I sometimes wonder if the inadequate way that Irish is taught - a way that assumes that a child is supported by parents who are already competent in the language - is actually deliberate, as it is quite an effective way of closing off entry to the teaching profession.

At primary level, consider how the denominational nature of schools makes it difficult to take up the profession if you can't see yourself leading a class through communion and confirmation years.

So, yeah, you've a good point. But the position of Irish and religion in the system is a block to reform - and things that, even now, will be hard to change.

jumpguy

There's far too much mention of the LC here for a topic on JC reforms. I think this is a good direction to go in for JC reforms - I definitely would not support it for LC though, and I doubt Quinn would either for such a high-stakes exam.

The JC, however, is not at all a high-stakes exam. It really doesn't have much bearing on a student's life at all. I'm strongly in favour of the reforms - the Junior Cycle should be about fostering an interest in learning and not about preparing to sit some exam. From my own experience, I recall second year of secondary school being the most dull, aimless year, with curricula and exams being forced down our throats for an exam that nobody felt was worthwhile. It was the year most lads in my class lost interest in school.

It is, of course, far more open to abuse now since the papers aren't going to be marked by an independent commission. I have no doubt there will be a small percentage of grossly unfair teachers marking students harshly. Inevitable. One must remember though, it's the Junior Cert. Even in the small percentage of cases with terrible teachers, perhaps with an axe to grind, it has little bearing on a student's life, academic or otherwise. This applies on the flip-side too (teachers marking students ridiculously easy.)

These reforms make the Junior Cert what it always should have been - a laid-back, exam-free few years where you can just focus on learning and enjoying school. Not being subjected to this scare-mongering about big state exams and competitive college entry.

It was, in a few ways, the softest major reform Quinn could've made to Irish education - I still think he deserves credit, though. The biggest, most politically unpalatable reform yet to be made to Irish education is overhauling the minimum entry requirements for teachers. I completely agree with Permabear's post above. The quality of some teachers entering Irish education is frightening. The culture in Irish education, both with some teachers and wannabe-teachers, is "ah, this is a soft number" so much of the time. Teachers have a crucial job in this country, but the status of a teacher is waning, and with that so are the quality of teachers.

I wouldn't mind teachers being paid so well if I felt it was highly competitive profession to enter and every one of them were worth their salt. I'm well aware there are plenty of great teachers in this country, and I'm privileged to have been taught by some of them myself. I spare a thought for the many who aren't/weren't so lucky, and how different their lives might be if they had teachers who gave a shít about what and who they were teaching.