Junior cert dispute between Unions and Dept of Education

FreudianSlippers

Gebgbegb wrote: »

You're 'argument' position must be fairly weak if you have to resort to pathetic generalisations.
'snivelling teachers'!

I have yet to hear a coherent argument from the teachers vis-a-vis the continual assessment model and the concessions put to them thereafter. The complaint seems to boil down to snivelling over not wanting to do it - like petulant children. Every single teacher I have heard on the radio, when presented with valid points resorts to snivelling rather than earnest rebuttals.

That's my view, but I don't have a horse in the game. :pac:

evolving_doors

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Someone, whose job it is to decide such things, has decided that it is OK for teachers to grade their own students. I dont know whether they are correct in that conclusion or not. But they are the ones charged with analysing and reaching a decision. Teachers unions are not. Their view on the matter is no more relevant than mine. If they had any professional integrity they would get on with implementing the education policy, and not be getting involved in decions that are not theirs to make.

True, it is someones job to decide (although I think you may be interested to note that the people who did decide (NCCA) were duly ignored by RQ... instead he went with his own scatty plan. ). We know the implication by RQ was rammed without consideration through because of the pathetic/minimal/confusing inservice given to the english teachers.

I would consider most of my english teacher colleagues to be fairly reserved and measured but when they returned from those inservices they were appalled at the inability of the instructors to answer basic questions. I aldo heard this from a member of university reps who were invited to the courses. The main reply was usually 'we dont know yet' and this was for a course due to start the following term!
Now compare that to the time and effort put into project maths... as much as I disagree with parts of it, everything was planned out, piloted for a few years and gradually phased in with continuous inservices. Whereas the english and presumably the new dumbed down science syllabus... nothing.

Just in relation to unions having an interest.. it has ALWAYS been a recognised core principal that teachers dont certify for state examinations... ALWAYS. (even the Travers doc. recognises this). For someone to suddenly decide that 'no I dont think I like that' and try and ram it through without any discussion was a challenge to say the least. Accepting this would be puttingg the profession in further mud.

Ask any uk teacher about grading and influence by management to 'adjust' or else there might be issues with their bonus (yes that old dirty word again dressed up as 'pay related performance').. ive spoken to quite a few.

Would you trust a politician to have control over the awarding of state contracts? No. there is a procurement and tendering process which removes the accusation of bias... (to an extent). '... but surely they are intelligent professionals too no?

Eugene Norman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I have yet to hear a coherent argument from the teachers vis-a-vis the continual assessment model and the concessions put to them thereafter. The complaint seems to boil down to snivelling over not wanting to do it - like petulant children. Every single teacher I have heard on the radio, when presented with valid points resorts to snivelling rather than earnest rebuttals.

That's my view, but I don't have a horse in the game. :pac:

I am not a teacher and here is my view.

It works. Don't fix it.

Ireland is doing well in the PISA tests which specifically target 15 year olds. There doesn't seem to be much wrong.

Eugene Norman

One of the very few successful things the Irish State has done better than others is the unbiased education system. It was built to remove any hint of impropriety. Exams marked somewhere else. Names not on exams. Two IDs ( the leaving cert and CAO).

All designed to stop the system being gamed. This will re-introduce a gaming of the system.

FreudianSlippers

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I am not a teacher and here is my view.

It works. Don't fix it.

Ireland is doing well in the PISA tests which specifically target 15 year olds. There doesn't seem to be much wrong.

1) Wrote learning is not the correct type of learning for that age group;
2) It doesn't at all benefit children that will never go further than LC education in any way.

Of course there should be a "final examination" but rejecting continuous assessment out of hand seems ridiculous.

jank

A continual assessment which is part of the senior cycle exam and is marked by your own teacher is used here in Australia in conjunction of a state level exam marked independently. Of all the things I have heard teachers complain about over the past 5 years of living here, this is not one of them.

Don't they have similar in the best educational systems in the world, Finland South Korea?

Eugene Norman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

1) Wrote learning is not the correct type of learning for that age group;
2) It doesn't at all benefit children that will never go further than LC education in any way.

Of course there should be a "final examination" but rejecting continuous assessment out of hand seems ridiculous.

I don't agree that is rote. Although rote is useful for some degrees like Law, which is a system of memorising, the leaving and junior cert at least in my day did ask for analysis, or maths or science. In any case the PISA tests are not tests of knowledge.

FreudianSlippers

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I don't agree that is rote. Although rote is useful for some degrees like Law, which is a system of memorising, the leaving and junior cert at least in my day did ask for analysis, or maths or science. In any case the PISA tests are not tests of knowledge.

I don't agree that law is rote (which my phone is finally figuring out I'm trying to write instead of "wrote " lol ) but I guess I'm at a disadvantage since I didn't do JC here as I was living abroad at the time

freedominacup

yellowlabrador wrote: »

maybe it's time to cancel that particular state examination? It's after all a left over from the days when children didn't stay in school till 18. We had a similar certificate in Belgium where I went to school. I was a bit of a rebel and signed mine with purple ink. my headmistress went bananas and said I'd never get a job and I was ruined for life. Can you guess how often I've needed to present it at an interview? Yearly exams, corrected by the teachers make more sense.I'd even get the teachers to compose the questions.

My eldest is in first year. At the moment he will be in the Algarve around the time the junior cert exam starts in 2017. We will have the various exams and assessments he does in the meantime to guage how he is doing. Pointless exam with no impact whatsoever on any part of a child's life other than the stress it induces in the run up to the exam. Voting with their feet by parents would see this cash cow for teachers and grind schools consigned to the dustbin of history where it surely belongs.

Paulzx

freedominacup wrote: »

My eldest is in first year. At the moment he will be in the Algarve around the time the junior cert exam starts in 2017. We will have the various exams and assessments he does in the meantime to guage how he is doing. Pointless exam with no impact whatsoever on any part of a child's life other than the stress it induces in the run up to the exam. Voting with their feet by parents would see this cash cow for teachers and grind schools consigned to the dustbin of history where it surely belongs.

Are you saying you are deliberatley planning to ensure your child misses a state examination in two years time because you consider it a pointless exam and it's more important to go on holiday in the Algarve?

Maybe I've picked you up wrong but that's what it's reading like to me

freedominacup

Paulzx wrote: »

Are you saying you are deliberatley planning to ensure your child misses a state examination in two years time because you consider it a pointless exam and it's more important to go on holiday in the Algarve?

Maybe I've picked you up wrong but that's what it's reading like to me

You got it in one. Tbh after our experience of primary school and the huge changes since we attended we were appalled to find more or less the same curriculum being taught in more or less the same manner in secondary school as it was thirty years ago. Every other area of life/work has changed out of all recognition in the interim but secondary school teachers who weren't even born when I started first year are still ploughing the same furrow as their long retired predecessors were three decades ago. How can this be regarded as being even remotely relevant to current needs? And therefore pointless.

Paulzx

freedominacup wrote: »

. How can this be regarded as being even remotely relevant to current needs? And therefore pointless.

As distinct from the usefullness of a month in the Algarve.

So what happens when your child goes to college and decides a given assignment is using your words "pointless." Using the example you've taught them they just don't bother doing it.

What happens when they enter the workforce and a project allocated to them by a manager is "pointless." Do they head to the Algarve to do something more usefull?

Whilst understanding your frustration with a syllabus that you don't like I hardly think you're doing your kids any favours by basically telling them that you don't have to bother doing anything that you don't agree with.

If only life was so simple

Iused2likebusts

freedominacup wrote: »

My eldest is in first year. At the moment he will be in the Algarve around the time the junior cert exam starts in 2017. We will have the various exams and assessments he does in the meantime to guage how he is doing. Pointless exam with no impact whatsoever on any part of a child's life other than the stress it induces in the run up to the exam. Voting with their feet by parents would see this cash cow for teachers and grind schools consigned to the dustbin of history where it surely belongs.

This type of attitude is why there is a lack of respect for teachers from students compared to when I went to school. This all feeds into discipline problems in school as we have a generation of parents that will defend their kids to the hilt and stop teenagers taking responsibility for their actions.

freedominacup

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

This type of attitude is why there is a lack of respect for teachers from students compared to when I went to school. This all feeds into discipline problems in school as we have a generation of parents that will defend their kids to the hilt and stop teenagers taking responsibility for their actions.

No it's not. None of my children have been in any trouble of any kind. All ptm a pleasure to attend. Children here well used to taking responsibility for their actions and can be trusted to do as instructed whether at home in the yard or in school. I'm well aware of their limitations but the general comments from other parents and teachers is that they are well mannered and polite. I've never found myself having to defend them tbh.

This kind of attitude is a reasoned response to unreasonable behaviour and attitudes from teachers and their unions. While it might display a lack of respect for teachers their current actions aren't deserving of much respect atm. Their only aim seems to be to impose their will on all other stakeholders regardless of how wrongheaded and outdated these aims are.

freedominacup

Paulzx wrote: »

As distinct from the usefullness of a month in the Algarve.

So what happens when your child goes to college and decides a given assignment is using your words "pointless." Using the example you've taught them they just don't bother doing it.

What happens when they enter the workforce and a project allocated to them by a manager is "pointless." Do they head to the Algarve to do something more usefull?

Whilst understanding your frustration with a syllabus that you don't like I hardly think you're doing your kids any favours by basically telling them that you don't have to bother doing anything that you don't agree with.

If only life was so simple

Who said anything about a month?

The difference between your putative college assignment and the junior cert is that there is no need to waste time on the junior cert whereas a college assignment esp with course credit involved has to be done regardless of their opinion. The junior cert counts for nothing the assignment could be the difference between a pass or merit.

With regards to the manager and the pointless project I'd hope that the work ethic we have tried to instill in them from a young age (they've all had chores from junior infants on, the older ones work with me from time to time) would kick in and they would just crack on and get the project finished in a timely and effective manner.

They are made on a daily basis to do things they don't agree with. At the moment unless the law says otherwise they don't have to do things I consider pointless.

robp

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

1) Wrote learning is not the correct type of learning for that age group;
2) It doesn't at all benefit children that will never go further than LC education in any way.

Of course there should be a "final examination" but rejecting continuous assessment out of hand seems ridiculous.

Rote learning is a specific issue and it is distinct from whether or not there should be an externally marked exam. If rote learning is a major issue it could be dealt within a externally marked terminal exam system.

Eugene Norman

freedominacup wrote: »

Who said anything about a month?

The difference between your putative college assignment and the junior cert is that there is no need to waste time on the junior cert whereas a college assignment esp with course credit involved has to be done regardless of their opinion. The junior cert counts for nothing the assignment could be the difference between a pass or merit.

With regards to the manager and the pointless project I'd hope that the work ethic we have tried to instill in them from a young age (they've all had chores from junior infants on, the older ones work with me from time to time) would kick in and they would just crack on and get the project finished in a timely and effective manner.

They are made on a daily basis to do things they don't agree with. At the moment unless the law says otherwise they don't have to do things I consider pointless.

Until it's abolished the JC has to be taken, I would have thought.

freedominacup

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Until it's abolished the JC has to be taken, I would have thought.

Or what?

evolving_doors

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

1) Wrote learning is not the correct type of learning for that age group;

Could you provide a source for that research!

Sure, an over reliance on rote learning is a bad thing (that's why it's called too much), and I'd agree that there is a lot on the plate of a 14/15 year old for the junior cert (10 odd subjects!)... but don;t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Any teacher who's come out of teacher training in the last 10 years will know that understanding is the aim of the game.

Just to quote from a letter to the Irish times RE: Rote Learning. Esp. as it's become the new 'dirty word' thrown out by politicians. (Skip to the underlined bit if you wish).

Sir, – I wasn’t surprised to see the usual criticism of the Leaving Cert as being too dependent on rote learning. This criticism is usually trotted out without any substantiation. Having taught for 20 years I don’t know any student who learns things without understanding them and then applying this knowledge in a variety of ways. It acts as a platform for expansion. As Daisy Christodoulou puts it her book Seven Myths about Education: “Saying all these negative things about rote learning [versus understanding] is very unhelpful. The two things are not in opposition. It’s not that we should spend time on conceptual understanding instead of spending it on learning times tables. It’s by spending time on times tables that you’ll develop the conceptual understanding.”
Christodoulou goes onto critique other favorites of our of our academic elite – projects and “active learning”. This she does with a mixture of common sense and extensive research which contradicts much of what the elite proposes. I would recommend that your readers to pick up a copy of her book before we throw out a relatively well-performing system and replace it with the latest fad. We need more minority voices – the consensus is often wrong – quite wrong. Yours, etc,
BARRY HAZEL,
Giltspur Wood,
Killarney Road,
Bray,
Co Wicklow

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

2) It doesn't at all benefit children that will never go further than LC education in any way.

Yes and I'd agree with you that the established Junior Cert. system is definitely not suitable for a certain cohort of students (and there are programs available for this cohort too!),,, does that mean you should change it to suit them?

How do the proposed changes suit those who don;t go on to further education anyway?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Of course there should be a "final examination" but rejecting continuous assessment out of hand seems ridiculous.

I dont think ANY teacher who has ever walked this earth has rejected the concept of continuous assessment (a very basic example of continuous assessmnet is changing a seating plan!!, calling the role.. then at a higher level might be project work... these forms of continuous assessment take place every day). To be spinning out the line of 'rote learning' is preventing 'continuous assessment' is disingenuous to the work that teachers undertake every day..

Quite simply... It's continuous assessment for certification that is at the core of the issue. If continuous assessment becomes a box ticking exercise that every teacher has to do in a certain restrictive/moderated way then good-bye education, hello edutainment.

Here is a quote from the Guardian on the pushing of edutainment to 'get the kids attention' (Full article HERE)

"...planning exciting lessons is a time-consuming activity. Vast swathes of a teacher's time in an over-regulated education system is spent proving they are doing the job, rather than actually doing it. If Gilbert wants more exciting lessons, perhaps the focus should be less on top-down diktats, and more on reducing teacher workload, so that we have the time to engage, to excite and, yes, even to entertain."

I'd like to draw your attention to the underlined part. In the last 2 years this is what is coming from 'on high' through the Inspectorate/JMB/through to school managers. Every single meeting that we have now is essentially about paperwork and justifying everything we are doing. (It's Ironic the Croke Park times have been transferred to buzword meetings rather than extra teaching/planning time!!).

Time after time I hear the line ".. you know folks this is nothing new for you teachers, we've [sic!] been doing it all along anyway, it's just a way of formalising and reflecting on our work!". If we've been doing it all along then just leave us the hell alone to do it, or maybe give us time to do more of it.

Vast swathes of a teacher's time in an over-regulated education system is spent proving they are doing the job, rather than actually doing it.

This is what the new JC is leading too..

It's the UK system, pure and simple.

Eugene Norman

freedominacup wrote: »

Or what?

Or no leaving cert. but your kids will inherit the farm so no need of book learning.

FreudianSlippers

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Could you provide a source for that research!

As you well know, asking a very disingenuous question, there are hundreds of not thousands of pieces of literature debating the rote learning vs. critical thinking question. The vast majority seem to conclude that there is obviously a level of rote learning which is manifestly fundamental to building higher education (i.e. times tables, etc.) but over-emphasis on "cramming" particularly for large exams is detrimental to early education.

I can't seem to find the exact study at present (mainly because I read about it 5+ years ago and can't remember the magazine (although I think it was Scientific American); in any case, the conclusion was that whilst exams such as the LC were useful for older students, as they were able to formulate answers to questions using both base knowledge and critical thinking, they were not useful for more youthful students (JC age) as they were not using critical thinking to form answers, but they were just regurgitating memorised chunks of information regardless of whether they directly correlated with the question.

Sure, an over reliance on rote learning is a bad thing (that's why it's called too much), and I'd agree that there is a lot on the plate of a 14/15 year old for the junior cert (10 odd subjects!)... but don;t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Any teacher who's come out of teacher training in the last 10 years will know that understanding is the aim of the game.

I think we largely agree here, I just do not believe that the JC is a good "tool" to teach understanding to that age group.

Just to quote from a letter to the Irish times RE: Rote Learning. Esp. as it's become the new 'dirty word' thrown out by politicians. (Skip to the underlined bit if you wish).

Sir, – I wasn’t surprised to see the usual criticism of the Leaving Cert as being too dependent on rote learning. This criticism is usually trotted out without any substantiation. Having taught for 20 years I don’t know any student who learns things without understanding them and then applying this knowledge in a variety of ways. It acts as a platform for expansion. As Daisy Christodoulou puts it her book Seven Myths about Education: “Saying all these negative things about rote learning [versus understanding] is very unhelpful. The two things are not in opposition. It’s not that we should spend time on conceptual understanding instead of spending it on learning times tables. It’s by spending time on times tables that you’ll develop the conceptual understanding.”
Christodoulou goes onto critique other favorites of our of our academic elite – projects and “active learning”. This she does with a mixture of common sense and extensive research which contradicts much of what the elite proposes. I would recommend that your readers to pick up a copy of her book before we throw out a relatively well-performing system and replace it with the latest fad. We need more minority voices – the consensus is often wrong – quite wrong. Yours, etc,
BARRY HAZEL,
Giltspur Wood,
Killarney Road,
Bray,
Co Wicklow

Yes, you have a problem here where teachers are not looking objectively at what is best for their students. Mr Hazel is clearly taking a position on a topic having decided already that he knows what is best from his subjective perch.

I'm not sure anyone is arguing that rote learning should be abolished; the issue is that the JC exam is fundamentally geared towards a method of learning that doesn't benefit all children.

Yes and I'd agree with you that the established Junior Cert. system is definitely not suitable for a certain cohort of students (and there are programs available for this cohort too!),,, does that mean you should change it to suit them?

Yes, you should formulate a system for that age group that manages to benefit all children - having them all take a large exam doesn't seem to be the best way.

evolving_doors

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

As you well know, asking a very disingenuous question,

I don't think it's unheard of on boards to ask a poster to provide a basis for their claims!! If anything its genuine. referring to research but not being able to cite it however....

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

there are hundreds of not thousands of pieces of literature debating the rote learning vs. critical thinking question.

Just one will do!

Also be aware that - yet again -you are setting up a false dichotomy as part of your argument i.e. rote learning vs. critical thinking. Which is why I pasted the extract to highlight the fallacy: (The two things are not in opposition. It’s not that we should spend time on conceptual understanding instead of spending it on learning times tables. It’s by spending time on times tables that you’ll develop the conceptual understanding.”)

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The vast majority seem to conclude that there is obviously a level of rote learning which is manifestly fundamental to building higher education (i.e. times tables, etc.) but over-emphasis on "cramming" particularly for large exams is detrimental to early education.

To be honest I dont think that the stuff I teach (especially for the junior cert) is geared towards rote learning (unfortunately in some cases). I cant think of many examples where 'essays learned off' will garner the student any extra credit. It IS the understanding which is being tested at junior cert.

Perhaps if you'd like to consider the Junior cert maths or music course then I'd be happy to discuss how rote learning isn't a means to a high grade (I've corrected for both so I know that the understanding is being tested, so if you want the A you have to understand). Even in terms of a weaker student then YES there is a certain amount of fundamentals the must be learned in order for them to even consider taking up the subject at leaving cert.

If those fundamentals aren't there, then sexing up the course with powerpoint presentations, project work , modularisation etc. then what's the point. Every teacher knows that you can have your mini exams after each chapter but it has to be nailed down in a bigger exam at some stage. I would contend that dividing it down into 3 exams in 2 years is not really testing a comprehensive level of understanding.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I can't seem to find the exact study at present (mainly because I read about it 5+ years ago and can't remember the magazine (although I think it was Scientific American); in any case, the conclusion was that whilst exams such as the LC were useful for older students, as they were able to formulate answers to questions using both base knowledge and critical thinking, they were not useful for more youthful students (JC age) as they were not using critical thinking to form answers, but they were just regurgitating memorised chunks of information regardless of whether they directly correlated with the question.

As above the regurgitating memorised chunks of information doesn't go on in the subjects I'm familiar with. At leaving cert. then yes it does to some extent... but it still doesn't necessarily get you top marks. We all know the students clambering around for 'the notes' from a certain private 'institution' around easter revision time. I was discussing it with a few of my colleagues and really there's nothing astounding there.

Plagiarise/rote learn all you like, but the learning takes place in the classroom. It happens between the interaction of the teacher and student with whatever style their teaching is suited to (not 'best practice' dictated to by those on high)..

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think we largely agree here, I just do not believe that the JC is a good "tool" to teach understanding to that age group.

I'd disagree for the reasons above, mainly I do believe that the JC 'tests' understanding in an impartial manner in a comprehensive way. Changing the nature of it by modularising it down with mini tests to be done by the students own teacher... then it's the UK, plain and simple. And then that leads to analysing every little grade you gave little Johnny in order to get your 'bonus' from your 'line manager'... "and we wouldn't want any of the proposed published results to reflect badly on the school now would we?".

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Yes, you have a problem here where teachers are not looking objectively at what is best for their students. Mr Hazel is clearly taking a position on a topic having decided already that he knows what is best from his subjective perch.

Not quite true there, he has cited some research by the way so I wouldn't say it's as subjective as 'others'.
I believe that there are teachers who are looking very objectively at what is going on. I would say most schools in Ireland teach with Irish teachers returning from the UK...

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not sure anyone is arguing that rote learning should be abolished; the issue is that the JC exam is fundamentally geared towards a method of learning that doesn't benefit all children.

You will never get a system that benefits ALL children. That does not mean that you don't improve the system..... but to abolish the system alltogether in such a shoddy manner speaks volumes.

Remember: JCSA English vs. Project Maths rollout .... compare and contrast etc.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Yes, you should formulate a system for that age group that manages to benefit all children - having them all take a large exam doesn't seem to be the best way.

What way is best?

I'll let you in on a little secret...*

*reduce the *&$%$*%&$ class sizes and let teachers interact with the students for a change.