Change in CAO points structure

Redser87

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/cao-points-changes-aim-to-reduce-pressure-on-students-1.2339120

The new system, which will apply to those sitting the exams in 2017, and thus entering fifth year this month, will award 37 CAO points for a grade of 30-39 per cent in higher level exams, which is currently regarded as an E or “fail”.

and

To reduce the risk of random selection for college places, by virtue of a large number of students getting the same points total, points will no longer go up in multiples of five. Instead, they will vary by an order of eight, nine, ten or 11.

Thoughts? I'm a primary teacher so this won't affect my charges yet, but still find it interesting. What really strikes me is that adding up the points will be that bit more stressful when it's not 5s and 10s... the kids are nervous enough as it is! I remember adding my LC results up to 10 points fewer than I actually got, just with the nerves I mixed up what each grade was worth (and I did honours maths :P)

mirrorwall14

Redser87 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/cao-points-changes-aim-to-reduce-pressure-on-students-1.2339120




and




Thoughts? I'm a primary teacher so this won't affect my charges yet, but still find it interesting. What really strikes me is that adding up the points will be that bit more stressful when it's not 5s and 10s... the kids are nervous enough as it is! I remember adding my LC results up to 10 points fewer than I actually got, just with the nerves I mixed up what each grade was worth (and I did honours maths :P)

You'd hope that in implementing a new system they would put the standard points calculation on the results page albeit with a proviso that this may not be appropriate for all courses...

solerina

I think its crazy to keep students in HL with the reward of points for failing (30-39%). Failure is a part of life, they should have to be mature and live with the consequences if they fail......or opt for OL.

implausible

Awarding points for failing a subject is by far and away the worst idea I've heard in a long long time. The "everyone gets a prize" mentality has gone too far.

I can see myself ending up with students taking up space in a HL class because they can sleep through it and get CAO points for knowing less than a third of the material on the course.

e.g. A H7 (30-39%, current E) will be equal to an O3 (70-79%, current . In my subject (English) a B at OL is much harder to get than an E at HL.

mirrorwall14

It really doesn't make any sense to me. They'll head off to college where the reality is they need to get at least a 2:1 for the jobs market the way it is having sat on their hands for the previous two years...

bpb101

so, one students get 30 in a higher level subject and he gets the same points as somebody who gets 79 in OL.

Bullshít. Its all just Bull.

Next year the headline will complain about the highest points ever for subjects.

EoghanIRL

Promoting failure.
Let the colleges sort it out when students move onto third level.

implausible

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Promoting failure.
Let the colleges sort it out when students move onto third level.

Yes, but in the meantime, we will have to put up with students sitting in front of us who are not capable of the level they are entered for, taking from the students who are.

dambarude

I don't see why they didn't just go for straightforward As, Bs, Cs, Ds. Internationally, these grades are recognisable.

A 'H3 grade' won't mean anything to anyone who isn't tuned into the education system.

bpb101

dambarude wrote: »

I don't see why they didn't just go for straightforward As, Bs, Cs, Ds. Internationally, these grades are recognisable.

A 'H3 grade' won't mean anything to anyone who isn't tuned into the education system.

Because A is good, F is bad.

I know stupid , but for somebody who gets a h7 Sounds better than a f

evolving_doors

I think it's just pushing for more mixed ability..
Just like the bonus points for maths it'll created a nightmare for subjects in a good few schools. Before you could really get into the nitty gritty with a good honours class, but now it's a case of "I still don't get it could you explain it again Miss?" meanwhile the top group are banging their heads off the tables wanting to move on.

I dunno though, language/science teachers seem to be able to differentiate the class enough to cater for different levels.

Maybe it really only effects Maths and English (and Irish to some extent). Where traditionally it was a very clear cut Honours and Ordinary levels with a significant gap in between. Even at that the Ordinary levels could learn significant stuff while working towards an A.

But sitting back and banking on 30-39% in Honours for points is just bonkers.

Anyone know the rationale for this?

Samhradhs

I don't think it's awarding failure as such, but awarding those who.really tried for.higher and.missed out narrowly.

Maybe I'm.thick but for.the.life of.me I can't figure out how.it's gonna stop people.getting the same points? Isn't it.more.likely now.that there are fewer bands? In.the old system, if two people got.80 and.89% they were awarded different points. Now they'll be awarded the same.points

dingding

From IoTI


This new 8-point grading scale will replace the current 14-point scale at both Higher and Ordinary levels. The objective is to reduce pressure on students. Currently, the majority of students receiving a given grade are within 3 percentage marks of a higher grade, and 5 extra points, creating pressure towards rote learning and using the marking scheme to gain those few additional marks. The new broader grade bands will ease the pressure on students to achieve marginal gains in each examination. The new grading system will also allow for greater flexibility, variety and innovation in Leaving Certificate assessments. The broader objective is to allow for an enhanced learner experience in senior cycle, with a greater focus on the achievement of broader learning objectives.
The new 8-point scale moves the Irish Leaving Certificate closer to school leaving examinations in other countries, such as Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Finland, and to the International Baccalaureate.


http://www.ioti.ie/news/latest-news

mattP

Samhradhs wrote:

Maybe I'm.thick but for.the.life of.me I can't figure out how.it's gonna stop people.getting the same points? Isn't it.more.likely now.that there are fewer bands? In.the old system, if two people got.80 and.89% they were awarded different points. Now they'll be awarded the same.points

That's exactly what I was thinking, so what if the multiples of 5 are gone, more people will get the same points now. I think that they will also be very strict marking schemes to cover this up, and a H1 will be much harded to get than an A2

Icsics

so the CAO have decided how we will grade our students, out with the ABCs & in with this code. This is going to be confusing, subjects required for min requirement will still have to be 'passed', so the CAO will give points for 'failing' but colleges won't recognise for entry...?? This is a continuation of new JCT grading, no grades just 'achievement', nobody will fail anything, until they end up in college!

RealJohn

On points for failing, I was against it initially but having thought about it, it probably is fair to reward those who take a higher level subject, work hard and nearly pass over those who take an ordinary level subject and cruise to a C, as long as the fáil still counts as a fail so that if the subject is a course requirement then you don't get the course.

It occurs to me though that to prevent people on equal points being allocated places by lottery the universities and colleges (and the CAO) should prioritise subjects that actually relate to the course - if two candidates are looking for a chemistry course, they have equal points but one has done chemistry, physics and biology and the other has done art, music and biology that the person with the three science subjects gets priority. In fact I think that, assuming they didn't scrape a pass in those subjects while the art/music person how As (or H1s or whatever) then they should be given priority anyway. Similarly, a person aiming for arts having done three foreign languages and history should be given priority over someone who did two foreign languages and two science subjects.

I presume the argument is that the current system is more transparent but in my opinion, that is an example of transparency leading to unfairness whereas the system I'm suggesting would, if implemented fairly (and I'm not inclined to believe it wouldn't be - no tin foil hat here), be fairer, in spite of it being less transparent.

spurious

I agree with the prioritising of relevant subjects, but until the DES will finance all schools (or amalgamate smaller ones) so that they are in a position to offer all the subjects to all children, I don't think it will fly.

seavill

The only problem I see with prioritising subjects for college places is it forces life changing decisions even earlier on children. For example now at end of third year age maybe 15 they make choices that effect their leaving only. If the other option came in you would have 15 year olds trying to decide what job they want in 10 years and basing subjects on that to gain college entry.
Although it does already happen to a certain extent for people wanting medicine etc I think forcing all students to do that could lead to big problems down the line for them

rainbowtrout

implausible wrote: »

Awarding points for failing a subject is by far and away the worst idea I've heard in a long long time. The "everyone gets a prize" mentality has gone too far.

I can see myself ending up with students taking up space in a HL class because they can sleep through it and get CAO points for knowing less than a third of the material on the course.

e.g. A H7 (30-39%, current E) will be equal to an O3 (70-79%, current . In my subject (English) a B at OL is much harder to get than an E at HL.

I'd agree. In my experience students failing my subject at HL (in class tests, mocks etc) and drop to OL, typically come out with a C at ordinary level. That's in two LC subjects.

What I'm more interested in is what will the colleges be accepted in their minimum entry requirements? Currently it's usually a D3 at Higher Level in many subject specific requirements, will they allow a H7???

Also many courses require a HL C3 currently, is H5 (50-59) going to be the new equivalent?

rainbowtrout

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Promoting failure.
Let the colleges sort it out when students move onto third level.

That's not the answer. Many students already perceive courses as being easy or hard based on their points which is not true. Many look at the minimum entry requirements and think 'they're only looking for 2 honours and 4 passes, it can't be that hard' and get an awful shock when they land. I returned to college part time 2 years ago and was in second year lectures and was astonished at the spoon feeding lecturers had to do. Giving students the idea that getting into college with E grades is a bit of a disaster.

rainbowtrout

RealJohn wrote: »

On points for failing, I was against it initially but having thought about it, it probably is fair to reward those who take a higher level subject, work hard and nearly pass over those who take an ordinary level subject and cruise to a C, as long as the fáil still counts as a fail so that if the subject is a course requirement then you don't get the course.

It occurs to me though that to prevent people on equal points being allocated places by lottery the universities and colleges (and the CAO) should prioritise subjects that actually relate to the course - if two candidates are looking for a chemistry course, they have equal points but one has done chemistry, physics and biology and the other has done art, music and biology that the person with the three science subjects gets priority. In fact I think that, assuming they didn't scrape a pass in those subjects while the art/music person how As (or H1s or whatever) then they should be given priority anyway. Similarly, a person aiming for arts having done three foreign languages and history should be given priority over someone who did two foreign languages and two science subjects.

I presume the argument is that the current system is more transparent but in my opinion, that is an example of transparency leading to unfairness whereas the system I'm suggesting would, if implemented fairly (and I'm not inclined to believe it wouldn't be - no tin foil hat here), be fairer, in spite of it being less transparent.

Is knowing only a third of a course working hard though? To me personally, it isn't. Have had plenty of students over the years who did little to nothing and got an E.

With subjects with a number of different component parts, e.g. English: essay, comprehension, poetry, novel, play, conceivably a student could just say 'can't be bothered with the material on paper 2' and just do comprehension and essay from paper 1 at higher level to get the H7, which has no learning attached (relatively speaking), rather than taking the ordinary level option which would involve doing all those components to get the H3 (B) grade at OL.

man_no_plan

How many points for each grade though? Is it not something like 8? I could have imagined that!

I suppose it will come down to the number of points. If the A at ol is higher points wise than the fail at higher there should be an incentive to do OL that is currently missing.

You do see people barely missing the D3 at HL and missing out on any college place because of bonus points and a misguided belief that they are killing themselves with work. The bonus points are the worst thing to happen to the LC in recent years.

In my day :-D, there were bonus points for maths for engineering and technology based courses in some colleges. Better system IMO.

That's off topic I know but it comes down to kids gambling on potential gains over what they could realistically achieve if they made a good effort across all other subjects. The points for failure model will exacerbate this unless as I said there is more to play for at OL.

rainbowtrout

man_no_plan wrote: »

How many points for each grade though? Is it not something like 8? I could have imagined that!

Points are in link on first post but

Higher Level

H1: 100
H2: 88
H3: 77
H4: 66
H5: 56
H6: 46
H7: 37
H8: 0

Ordinary Level


O1: 56
O2: 46
O3: 37
O4: 28
O5: 20
O6: 12
O7: 0
O8: 0

evolving_doors

Samhradhs wrote: »

I don't think it's awarding failure as such, but awarding those who.really tried for.higher and.missed out narrowly.

Maybe I'm.thick but for.the.life of.me I can't figure out how.it's gonna stop people.getting the same points? Isn't it.more.likely now.that there are fewer bands? In.the old system, if two people got.80 and.89% they were awarded different points. Now they'll be awarded the same.points

if someone is getting between 30~39%, chances are theyve been getting this all the way through. I think theyd have benefitted far more in their learning by doing well in an ordinary level rather than struggling at higher.

Also, if they got 35% in say English can they matriculate for college?
If they want to do a certain business course can they get in with 34% in hons maths?

RealJohn

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Is knowing only a third of a course working hard though? To me personally, it isn't. Have had plenty of students over the years who did little to nothing and got an E.

With subjects with a number of different component parts, e.g. English: essay, comprehension, poetry, novel, play, conceivably a student could just say 'can't be bothered with the material on paper 2' and just do comprehension and essay from paper 1 at higher level to get the H7, which has no learning attached (relatively speaking), rather than taking the ordinary level option which would involve doing all those components to get the H3 (B) grade at OL.

A student can already take that approach (to some extent) in any course that offers exams with a regular structure and a choice in what questions to do though. Your post seems to imply that you feel that punishing the lazy student is more important than rewarding the weaker student who aimed high and didn't quite make it or the decent student who made a bit of a mess of things on the day.

Depending on the subject, a strong, lazy student who ignored certain sections of the course might still be able to bluff enough of the marks in those sections to 'earn' the same number of points anyway.

Don't you think that a student who can get 30% in HL english based on P1 only would be able to go in and get a B in ordinary level based on (presumably) a higher mark for P1 and an adequate (for OL) standard of answering on questions on P2 from the knowledge they'd have picked up just by being in class (assuming they had halfway reasonable attendance)?

Not to mention the students who might go in, sit a good P1, have a dodgy Chinese takeaway to celebrate and are too sick to sit P2 and end up getting no points for their 38% even though it represents 76% for the paper they actually sat.

Boober Fraggle

Has it been said anywhere what the requirement would be in Irish for primary teaching?

rainbowtrout

RealJohn wrote: »

A student can already take that approach (to some extent) in any course that offers exams with a regular structure and a choice in what questions to do though. Your post seems to imply that you feel that punishing the lazy student is more important than rewarding the weaker student who aimed high and didn't quite make it or the decent student who made a bit of a mess of things on the day.

It's not about being more important to punish the lazy student. The examiner correcting it doesn't know if the student was lazy or weak. One way or another if they got an E, they didn't know the material they were being examined on.

Some people are good at some things and rubbish at others. Why should we be rewarding someone just because they had a go, when there are countless others who not only had a go, but also achieved. I'm rubbish at art, can't draw at all. It's not where my abilities lie. It would be madness to think I could land into LC Art and be awarded 38 points because I rocked up with my crayolas and aimed high even though I had little to no ability in that area.

If I rock up to my local GAA club and attend training, if I'm not in the top 15 i won't get next or near the pitch. If I'm not in the top twenty I won't get near the subs bench, and no apology will be made for me aiming high. It'll be down to my lack of sporting ability.

I don't see why the LC should be a place that we provide rewards just because someone aimed high when they were clearly not able (and often quite deluded about their abilities).

RealJohn wrote: »

Not to mention the students who might go in, sit a good P1, have a dodgy Chinese takeaway to celebrate and are too sick to sit P2 and end up getting no points for their 38% even though it represents 76% for the paper they actually sat.

People have bad luck all the time. There are students every year who miss out subjects (and presumably college) because they get sick, have a death in the family. All students have to be graded on the same scale so if a student doesn't sit paper two, then it's tough luck if they don't pass. It's unfortunate for them if it's for genuine reasons and they end up missing out a college place that year, but it's not the end of the world. They can have another go.

rainbowtrout

Boober Fraggle wrote: »

Has it been said anywhere what the requirement would be in Irish for primary teaching?

Not that I've seen. I'd say it will be a while before we see any requirements if colleges are going to streamline their offerings and have a smaller number of courses, and probably look at the minimum entry requirements across the board.

It's currently a HC3 isn't it? So presumably a H5 would be the equivalent (50-60) but honestly I would think a H4 would be better all round as a standard to aim for.

robp

dingding wrote: »

From IoTI


This new 8-point grading scale will replace the current 14-point scale at both Higher and Ordinary levels. The objective is to reduce pressure on students. Currently, the majority of students receiving a given grade are within 3 percentage marks of a higher grade, and 5 extra points, creating pressure towards rote learning and using the marking scheme to gain those few additional marks. The new broader grade bands will ease the pressure on students to achieve marginal gains in each examination. The new grading system will also allow for greater flexibility, variety and innovation in Leaving Certificate assessments. The broader objective is to allow for an enhanced learner experience in senior cycle, with a greater focus on the achievement of broader learning objectives.
The new 8-point scale moves the Irish Leaving Certificate closer to school leaving examinations in other countries, such as Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Finland, and to the International Baccalaureate.


http://www.ioti.ie/news/latest-news

I'd love to see how this wishy washy aim is going to be achieved.

implausible

It's a symptom and serious indictment of 'prizes for all.' How on earth are our students going to develop resilience if they are not allowed to fail or are rewarded for sub-par performance? In an era of greater awareness of mental health, we should be promoting resilience, not removing any barrier that may get in a teenager's way.

Life is tough, things go wrong, learn from them.

mirrorwall14

We have had students fail every class test and summer test in fifth year but parents/students insist on staying at higher level. Unsurprisingly these students then go on to fail their mocks in sixth year in spectacular fashion at which point reality kicks in but they have missed so much ground that it's a struggle for them to pass the OL paper and they end up with d's and the odd C when they could have actually sat a decent paper if they had dealt with reality

How much worse will it be with this?