Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
new jc reforms
Comments
-
QQI is not a shambles under the Dept. of Education. When you privatise education and turn it into a business, you get a shambles. The second level sector is not being Fásified by the Department. Not yet. If that starts, that will be time to take on that battle.
The JC reforms are NOT good enough. You are right. For many reasons. But not because teachers are incapable of being objective or withstanding pressure.
What do you mean "ignoring other people's experiences"? We have not had CA of this type for state certification in our second level system, so those teachers objecting to it don't, for the most part, have experience of it. The facts are that in most parts of the world - there is more to the world than the UK - it works, and works well. THAT is the experience that matters. Not what people think about something they have never experienced.
The Department of Education are not responsible for the grading of QQI in second level centres. Individual centres are. I've had students come to me to do PLC with some previous FETAC qualifications, stuff like a Distinction in Word Processing and then in one of my modules have asked them to type up a simple letter of application for example and what they hand me is pure tripe. No punctuation, spelling or grammar adhered to. There's no way a student achieved a Distinction in Word Processing with that standard without some creative marking. For the record, I've never had a student register from a private centre.
As for the other point. In Leaving Cert there are two subjects that come to mind where teachers grade the projects: Ag Science and Construction. Historically I don't know why this process is in place for those two subjects only. Teachers grade their own students. External examiners come in to check the grades and moderate where necessary. Let's just say it's an eye opener seeing what goes on in some schools, even though teachers know an extern is coming every year.0 -
I didn't realise from the thread title that one is obliged to disagree on principle with CA for state certification, or that those who disagree don't want anything other than mutual back slapping for being in opposition to it.
For some strange reason, I thought this was a forum for debate and discussion, and that, in forming opinions about this issue, it might be useful to hear the experience of someone who actually uses the system successfully, and to note similar experiences in other countries.
Katydid can you really not see the irony of what you have just posted?
This IS supposed to be a forum for debate and discussion but when was the definition of debate /discussion one person ramming their view down everyone else's throat and constantly repeating the same point,almost demoniacally so? You obviously cannot see that that is precisely what you are doing. Can you not just accept that people don't agree with you,that their experiences are different,agree to disagree and let the discussion move on?
The mutual back slapping [ie thanking posts] is because so many posters concur on one thing: frustration with you! It wouldn't matter so much if we were all just debating some academic argument,not closely relevant to our lives. This,Katydid,is our lives,our working lives,and it really is too bad that the intransigence and repetitiveness of one poster is turning people away from the thread. I'm not trying to insult you but I would ask you to please stop going on and on about the same issue. Please.
Debate allows for all opinions and people will argue,even fight. I've received many a stern warning here on boards.ie from the mods. And that is all part of the cut and thrust of debating controversial issues. But the bottom line has to be acceptance and respect for differing viewpoints and experiences. Without wishing to sound snide,is that not what we strive to instil in our pupils?
So Katydid,could you please let it go now about CA,objectivity,professionalism and such as you really have made your point crystal clear.0 -
How am I ramming anything down anyone's throat? Most of the posters here are of one opinion. I am of another opinion. How do you work it out that when I post my opinion it's "ramming it down your throat", and when other people post their opinions, it's fine?Katydid can you really not see the irony of what you have just posted?
This IS supposed to be a forum for debate and discussion but when was the definition of debate /discussion one person ramming their view down everyone else's throat and constantly repeating the same point,almost demoniacally so? You obviously cannot see that that is precisely what you are doing. Can you not just accept that people don't agree with you,that their experiences are different,agree to disagree and let the discussion move on?
The mutual back slapping [ie thanking posts] is because so many posters concur on one thing: frustration with you! It wouldn't matter so much if we were all just debating some academic argument,not closely relevant to our lives. This,Katydid,is our lives,our working lives,and it really is too bad that the intransigence and repetitiveness of one poster is turning people away from the thread. I'm not trying to insult you but I would ask you to please stop going on and on about the same issue. Please.
Debate allows for all opinions and people will argue,even fight. I've received many a stern warning here on boards.ie from the mods. And that is all part of the cut and thrust of debating controversial issues. But the bottom line has to be acceptance and respect for differing viewpoints and experiences. Without wishing to sound snide,is that not what we strive to instil in our pupils?
So Katydid,could you please let it go now about CA,objectivity,professionalism and such as you really have made your point crystal clear.
Of course I can accept that other people don't agree with me. You might think of pointing out to other people, and thinking yourself about the fact that that works two ways...
I know it's frustrating to have someone not agreeing with one's preconceived ideas, but life is not all about avoiding unpleasant realities because they don't fit with them.0 -
rainbowtrout wrote: »The Department of Education are not responsible for the grading of QQI in second level centres. Individual centres are. I've had students come to me to do PLC with some previous FETAC qualifications, stuff like a Distinction in Word Processing and then in one of my modules have asked them to type up a simple letter of application for example and what they hand me is pure tripe. No punctuation, spelling or grammar adhered to. There's no way a student achieved a Distinction in Word Processing with that standard without some creative marking. For the record, I've never had a student register from a private centre.
As for the other point. In Leaving Cert there are two subjects that come to mind where teachers grade the projects: Ag Science and Construction. Historically I don't know why this process is in place for those two subjects only. Teachers grade their own students. External examiners come in to check the grades and moderate where necessary. Let's just say it's an eye opener seeing what goes on in some schools, even though teachers know an extern is coming every year.
The teachers who grade QQI are your colleagues, employed by the Dept. of Education. They are not employees of a private company whose only interest is profit. I don't teach the subject you mention, but I know that my colleagues who do have very thorough marking schemes, in line with QQI guidelines. I know from teaching communications, and liaising with them in the production of business documents, that grammar and punctuation is part of the assessment procedure. You can't creatively mark a set of assessment criteria which are either correct or not. Have you considered the possibility that students value spelling and grammar so little that once assessments are done, they put such things straight out of their minds? I know that even after repeated reminders of such matters to my communications students, I still get the most horrendous mistakes. The fact is that for certain students, these things don't matter whatsoever.
If, as you suggest, there are teachers at second level, who are helping students finish projects for the subjects you mention, then those teachers are unprofessional, and should be dealt with. You don't knock an entire assessment system because of a few bad apples.0 -
Most of the people I work with are on temporary contracts. No one comes under pressure from external sources to change marks, because the marks are there for all to see. It is simply not an issue. For permanent, for part timers, for anyone.
I didn't realise from the thread title that one is obliged to disagree on principle with CA for state certification, or that those who disagree don't want anything other than mutual back slapping for being in opposition to it.
For some strange reason, I thought this was a forum for debate and discussion, and that, in forming opinions about this issue, it might be useful to hear the experience of someone who actually uses the system successfully, and to note similar experiences in other countries.
But to be fair KatyDid you are speaking on behalf of these individuals now... surely even you realise that you don't actually have the authority or the insight to comment on whether or not these individuals feel preassurised to have their results in line with colleagues/other institutions?
Also if you bothered to fully read and think about what others have said you would understand that many posters have pointed out that it os not CA itself they are opposed to but particular elements of what is proposed.
Some arguments have included the way that this particular CA has been forced upon us, the ambiguity, concerns over workload, etc etc
Also discussion and debate relies on the participants having respect for each others views and not shouting them down. Your posts that I have read on this topic are akin to screaming "NO YOU'RE WRONG. I'M RIGHT" again and again and again.0 -
Advertisement
-
The teachers who grade QQI are your colleagues, employed by the Dept. of Education. They are not employees of a private company whose only interest is profit.
So what? Being a Dept of Ed employee means nothing. It means they are qualified to teach, and employed to teach. It doesn't mean they are adhering to the QQI standards, or that they are being put under pressure in their centre to pass students that don't deserve to pass.I don't teach the subject you mention, but I know that my colleagues who do have very thorough marking schemes, in line with QQI guidelines. I know from teaching communications, and liaising with them in the production of business documents, that grammar and punctuation is part of the assessment procedure. You can't creatively mark a set of assessment criteria which are either correct or not.
And I've met teachers who don't have thorough marking schemes. Your experience doesn't invalidate mine, which is the point most people have been trying to make to you on this forum. Your experience is not the only experience and doesn't make it fact. I have met and know tutors who do not have thorough marking schemes, who are creative with marks. You can choose not to believe that, but it happens. Maybe not in your centre, but it is certainly happening.Have you considered the possibility that students value spelling and grammar so little that once assessments are done, they put such things straight out of their minds? I know that even after repeated reminders of such matters to my communications students, I still get the most horrendous mistakes. The fact is that for certain students, these things don't matter whatsoever.
And have you considered that the students I was referring to were given grades that they didn't deserve?
My experience of students both at PLC level and at secondary level is that students that put the effort in and come out with mainly distinctions, high LC points, tend to pay attention to detail in their work, and produce work of a high quality. They suddenly don't present a letter to you with no capital letters starting sentences, or not know how to lay out the address on the top of the letter, when they enrol in another FETAC course. If they are a genuine distinction student, they have been consistently producing high quality work. Obviously they can make mistakes, but I'm not talking about making mistakes, I'm talking about a student who looked like they had never typed a letter in their life.
Not sure why you can't accept that this does happen, not only in private centres but in centres under the department of education.
If, as you suggest, there are teachers at second level, who are helping students finish projects for the subjects you mention, then those teachers are unprofessional, and should be dealt with. You don't knock an entire assessment system because of a few bad apples.
I never said that I was knocking the entire system, but I certainly don't think that it's as uncommon as you think.
Funding for PLC centres is based on numbers. That is the bottom line. Some centre directors will put pressure on teachers/tutors to get students across the line, whatever that takes.0 -
I'm not speaking on anyone's behalf. I can't. I can only speak for myself. But I am aware of how things work in my workplace, especially as union rep, and I have never, either officially or on the grapevine, heard of any such pressure. It couldn't happen, because work is cross moderated, internally verified and externally moderated. Marking schemes are attached to all work, and are open to anyone to see. It would be very strange for anyone in management or any other position to access the marks in the first place, and take the time to go through all the marks to see if they conform to some desired pattern, not to mind put pressure, covert or overt, on the teachers involved. It would take some planning and some neck, to be honest. And to what purpose?History Queen wrote: »But to be fair KatyDid you are speaking on behalf of these individuals now... surely even you realise that you don't actually have the authority or the insight to comment on whether or not these individuals feel preassurised to have their results in line with colleagues/other institutions?
Also if you bothered to fully read and think about what others have said you would understand that many posters have pointed out that it os not CA itself they are opposed to but particular elements of what is proposed.
Some arguments have included the way that this particular CA has been forced upon us, the ambiguity, concerns over workload, etc etc
Also discussion and debate relies on the participants having respect for each others views and not shouting them down. Your posts that I have read on this topic are akin to screaming "NO YOU'RE WRONG. I'M RIGHT" again and again and again.
I have read AND responded to the other issues people have raised. And agree with them - if you would have seen had you read my posts thoroughly. My point is that the issue that has been highlighted has been that of fear of objectivity and pressure, not the ones that are valid, such as subject changes, assessment methods etc., as well as resources and time.
You have a strange way of reading if you interpret my posts as "screaming" in the way you claim. I hold a certain opinion, based both on my experience and on the facts as they are in the educational world beyond second level schools in this country, and I make no apology for expressing it, or for defending my corner when responding to those who disagree with me.0 -
Some of our QQI subjects have only one specialist teacher and they can't IV their own students. I've IVed lots of folders, and for some of them all I could really do it tot the marks and make sure that all pieces of the assessment were present and complete. I'm not qualified to gauge the quality of a First Aid assignment or another area outside of my own field. We've followed QQI procedures to the book, but not sure that I can stand over my IV expertise.
Also, not all folders are IVed, it's a random sample of portfolios per centre. The EV process is a joke. Only borderline grades are checked so it'd be very easy to slip a midway mark in and be pretty sure that it wouldn't be EVed.
Bottom line is that the QQI system does have some flaws, even though it has some great elements too.
I really think we should get this thread back on track though, it's a JC reform thread, QQI/PLC talk should move to it's own forum.0 -
Dept. of Education schools, as you know, have to adhere to certain levels of quality assurance. They are not motivated by profit, but by the interest of the students, and 99% of the teachers that work in them are totally committed to their students.rainbowtrout wrote: »So what? Being a Dept of Ed employee means nothing. It means they are qualified to teach, and employed to teach. It doesn't mean they are adhering to the QQI standards, or that they are being put under pressure in their centre to pass students that don't deserve to pass.
And I've met teachers who don't have thorough marking schemes. Your experience doesn't invalidate mine, which is the point most people have been trying to make to you on this forum. Your experience is not the only experience and doesn't make it fact. I have met and know tutors who do not have thorough marking schemes, who are creative with marks. You can choose not to believe that, but it happens. Maybe not in your centre, but it is certainly happening.
And have you considered that the students I was referring to were given grades that they didn't deserve?
My experience of students both at PLC level and at secondary level is that students that put the effort in and come out with mainly distinctions, high LC points, tend to pay attention to detail in their work, and produce work of a high quality. They suddenly don't present a letter to you with no capital letters starting sentences, or not know how to lay out the address on the top of the letter, when they enrol in another FETAC course. If they are a genuine distinction student, they have been consistently producing high quality work. Obviously they can make mistakes, but I'm not talking about making mistakes, I'm talking about a student who looked like they had never typed a letter in their life.
Not sure why you can't accept that this does happen, not only in private centres but in centres under the department of education.
I never said that I was knocking the entire system, but I certainly don't think that it's as uncommon as you think.
Funding for PLC centres is based on numbers. That is the bottom line. Some centre directors will put pressure on teachers/tutors to get students across the line, whatever that takes.
If you have met teachers who don't have thorough marking schemes, it is up to the QQI external examiner, and the management of the centre, to rectify this situation. I have no doubt that QA is not as thorough in some centres as in others, but that is something that is increasing year on year, with QQI and ETB's developing ever more rigorous QA. No system is perfect, but it is getting better through trial and practice.
No, I haven't considered that the students you mentioned were given marks they didn't deserve. Without knowing the details of the marking schemes for Word Processing, I would assume (maybe wrongly) that it would not be possible to achieve a distinction in it with major errors in grammar and spelling. Have YOU considered that it may be that they pay attention to these things for assessment, and then don't bother with them in a different context?0 -
I'm not speaking on anyone's behalf. I can't. I can only speak for myself. But I am aware of how things work in my workplace, especially as union rep, and I have never, either officially or on the grapevine, heard of any such pressure. It couldn't happen, because work is cross moderated, internally verified and externally moderated. Marking schemes are attached to all work, and are open to anyone to see. It would be very strange for anyone in management or any other position to access the marks in the first place, and take the time to go through all the marks to see if they conform to some desired pattern, not to mind put pressure, covert or overt, on the teachers involved. It would take some planning and some neck, to be honest. And to what purpose?
I have read AND responded to the other issues people have raised. And agree with them - if you would have seen had you read my posts thoroughly. My point is that the issue that has been highlighted has been that of fear of objectivity and pressure, not the ones that are valid, such as subject changes, assessment methods etc., as well as resources and time.
You have a strange way of reading if you interpret my posts as "screaming" in the way you claim. I hold a certain opinion, based both on my experience and on the facts as they are in the educational world beyond second level schools in this country, and I make no apology for expressing it, or for defending my corner when responding to those who disagree with me.
Well I can speak as one of those pressurised teachers as I am one.
1. No one in my staff room much less the union rep was aware of the pressure I was placed under. Not even colleagues that I socialised with outside of work.
2. Very easy manipulate the QQI system... just make sure all the marks add up.. no one moderates WHY you marked the way you did they just check that marks are consistant with your scheme and you make no addition errors ( in the centre I was in... may not be the case in other centres)
3. I have been explicity told on two occassions to "look again" at my marks by management suggesting that perhaps the candidates that I had awarded merits to were in fact distinctions
4. Alot of NQT and part time teachers aren't members of the union
5. I would not approach you of you were my union rep as from what I see in your posts you are unable to have empathy for anyone
But go ahead Katie... tell me how my experience is less valid than yours....i have already acknowledged in a previous post that your centre seems to work well.... you however are incapable of acknowledging that your experience is not applicable to everyone else.
Or in other words...off you go...shout me down0 -
Advertisement
-
Ever get that feeling?0 -
Dept. of Education schools, as you know, have to adhere to certain levels of quality assurance. They are not motivated by profit, but by the interest of the students, and 99% of the teachers that work in them are totally committed to their students.
Some people are just motivated by holding on to their jobs. Some are pushed by their principals to pass students.If you have met teachers who don't have thorough marking schemes, it is up to the QQI external examiner, and the management of the centre, to rectify this situation. I have no doubt that QA is not as thorough in some centres as in others, but that is something that is increasing year on year, with QQI and ETB's developing ever more rigorous QA. No system is perfect, but it is getting better through trial and practice.
As deiseindublin said, it's not possible to IV a subject to the same depth as your own when it's not your subject area. Same goes for external examiners. I taught computer programming for a few years. It's quite specialist. No one in my centre can programme. None of the external examiners that came to us in that period could programme or understand what was presented to them. I'd even go so far as to argue that even for them reading the requirements of the module, they had no idea if they work presented to them met those requirements (it did). So all they did with my portfolios was add up the marks to see if they were correct and presumably count the number of projects in each folder to see if it matched the number there were marks for on the marking sheets.
I could have put absolutely anything in those folders and the extern wouldn't have known the difference. Same goes for a wide variety of subjects in centres all over the country.
If I was going into a centre that had a business cert and students had done a random music module as one of their 8 modules, I wouldn't have a clue if their work was good or not. I can't read music.If you have met teachers who don't have thorough marking schemes, it is up to the QQI external examiner, and the management of the centre, to rectify this situation. I have no doubt that QA is not as thorough in some centres as in others, but that is something that is increasing year on year, with QQI and ETB's developing ever more rigorous QA. No system is perfect, but it is getting better through trial and practice.
Is that what we want for the Junior Cert? Trial and practice?? We want a solid system that stands up to scrutiny, not a patched up piece meal system.
No, I haven't considered that the students you mentioned were given marks they didn't deserve. Without knowing the details of the marking schemes for Word Processing, I would assume (maybe wrongly) that it would not be possible to achieve a distinction in it with major errors in grammar and spelling. Have YOU considered that it may be that they pay attention to these things for assessment, and then don't bother with them in a different context?
It's possible if the tutor changes the marking scheme. I'm not about to go into the specifics about how I know all of this, but I know the tutor in question, I know how they operate because they told me themselves, and I know poor quality work from a student when I see it. As I said, there's a big difference between a student that is just being lazy and a student who presents poor quality work because they don't know how to do it, although they have a cert that says they do.
Again, katydid, I am talking about specific students who have come to my centre with FETAC modules from another centre, who are incapable of producing work to the standard that their previous certification implies they are capable of. I am not referring to students who are lazy in general. Why are you having an issue with this?0 -
rainbowtrout wrote: »Some people are just motivated by holding on to their jobs. Some are pushed by their principals to pass students.
As deiseindublin said, it's not possible to IV a subject to the same depth as your own when it's not your subject area. Same goes for external examiners. I taught computer programming for a few years. It's quite specialist. No one in my centre can programme. None of the external examiners that came to us in that period could programme or understand what was presented to them. I'd even go so far as to argue that even for them reading the requirements of the module, they had no idea if they work presented to them met those requirements (it did). So all they did with my portfolios was add up the marks to see if they were correct and presumably count the number of projects in each folder to see if it matched the number there were marks for on the marking sheets.
I could have put absolutely anything in those folders and the extern wouldn't have known the difference. Same goes for a wide variety of subjects in centres all over the country.
If I was going into a centre that had a business cert and students had done a random music module as one of their 8 modules, I wouldn't have a clue if their work was good or not. I can't read music.
Is that what we want for the Junior Cert? Trial and practice?? We want a solid system that stands up to scrutiny, not a patched up piece meal system.
It's possible if the tutor changes the marking scheme. I'm not about to go into the specifics about how I know all of this, but I know the tutor in question, I know how they operate because they told me themselves, and I know poor quality work from a student when I see it. As I said, there's a big difference between a student that is just being lazy and a student who presents poor quality work because they don't know how to do it, although they have a cert that says they do.
Again, katydid, I am talking about specific students who have come to my centre with FETAC modules from another centre, who are incapable of producing work to the standard that their previous certification implies they are capable of. I am not referring to students who are lazy in general. Why are you having an issue with this?
In the event that a principal would push a teacher to pass students, how do you propose that this would happen? Given that they have to follow a marking scheme based on QQI guidelines, and can't make it up as they go along, you can't pass someone that doesn't merit a pass by altering your marking scheme. It is cross moderated and externally moderated - don't you think someone along the way would notice? Even if it is not your specialist area, would you not see that the work didn't match the criteria?
There are criteria for passing a WP module, and, to the best of my knowledge, they include producing work that is of a certain standard, in terms of spelling and grammar. Perhaps you can pass the module without that standard, but I find it difficult to believe they could get a distinction, however "creative" a teacher might get with a very detailed and specific marking scheme. I don't know the subject well, only from working on a cross-curricular level with it, and seeing the marking schemes while doing internal verification, but I know that the marking scheme is very specific, right down to half points.
We want an assessment system across our education system that is fair and objective. We can do that by providing assessment and verification methods that are unambiguous and transparent. As I said, in Germany the CA, which is two thirds of a student's end grade, is done in class in formal tests, which are graded by the teacher, and where the marks are clear and unambiguous. You can't be "creative" with a vocabulary test. There is a lot wrong with the proposed reforms, and our system is not ready for CA until the proper systems have been put in place. These proposals are putting the cart before the horse. THAT is what teachers should be arguing and fighting for, not saying that they don't trust themselves to carry out assessments in a professional manner. That undermines themselves and is a very weak case. They have so much material to actually complain about that is valid and unquestioningly wrong, why not focus on that?0 -
[QUOTE=katydid;96985281
I know it's frustrating to have someone not agreeing with one's preconceived ideas, but life is not all about avoiding unpleasant realities because they don't fit with them.[/QUOTE]
Why don't you stick that up on your mirror and maybe some day the truth of it might hit you.0 -
One of my serious concerns about JC reforms is that we are reducing the contact time for subjects at JC level. It seems like courses are being dumbed down and are veering away from the lc format but we are still expecting students to sit a traditional leaving cert. I cannot see that working out well.0
-
In the event that a principal would push a teacher to pass students, how do you propose that this would happen? Given that they have to follow a marking scheme based on QQI guidelines, and can't make it up as they go along, you can't pass someone that doesn't merit a pass by altering your marking scheme. It is cross moderated and externally moderated - don't you think someone along the way would notice? Even if it is not your specialist area, would you not see that the work didn't match the criteria?
There are criteria for passing a WP module, and, to the best of my knowledge, they include producing work that is of a certain standard, in terms of spelling and grammar. Perhaps you can pass the module without that standard, but I find it difficult to believe they could get a distinction, however "creative" a teacher might get with a very detailed and specific marking scheme. I don't know the subject well, only from working on a cross-curricular level with it, and seeing the marking schemes while doing internal verification, but I know that the marking scheme is very specific, right down to half points.
The ongoing problem that people have with you posting on this thread and other threads katydid, is that you simply will not accept anyone else's opinion. Your opinion is the only one that is correct and is the only one that counts and everything everyone else says is dismissed.
Look at what I have put in bold above. You are dismissing what I have encountered in my teaching and co-ordination of PLC. What I have encountered is fact. I'm not making it up to argue with you on this thread. It happened, the tutor told me how they marked the subject, I have had students in my class from that tutors class, and they had their FETAC cert with a distinction on it. So you can have all the difficulties you want in believing it, but it has happened and is happening.
Aside from that a student can achieve a distinction because a marking scheme is created to suit the work handed up. They could plagiarise the work and it not be noticed. They could plagiarise the work and the teacher could notice and just let it slide. The teacher could have helped them finish the project and provided so much help that it was more the teacher's work than the students. Any of the above and more could happen in any centre. You don't know what goes on in every classroom in the country.
Have a look at done deal some night. Plenty of students on there selling 'A1 standard LC projects'. Don't assume QQI is immune to this sort of behaviour either.
The fact that you will not accept this and other teachers' experiences is what is pissing posters off.
We want an assessment system across our education system that is fair and objective. We can do that by providing assessment and verification methods that are unambiguous and transparent. As I said, in Germany the CA, which is two thirds of a student's end grade, is done in class in formal tests, which are graded by the teacher, and where the marks are clear and unambiguous. You can't be "creative" with a vocabulary test. There is a lot wrong with the proposed reforms, and our system is not ready for CA until the proper systems have been put in place. These proposals are putting the cart before the horse. THAT is what teachers should be arguing and fighting for, not saying that they don't trust themselves to carry out assessments in a professional manner. That undermines themselves and is a very weak case. They have so much material to actually complain about that is valid and unquestioningly wrong, why not focus on that?
Students complete a project component in almost every LC subject. That project is sent away with their LC paper for correction anonymously. Why can't that system be adopted for JC? I can't imagine any English teachers would have any major problems with recording oral presentations with their second years and getting them to write up an essay or document or whatever in third year, and for that video and booklet to be submitted with their JC exam. It's what happens for LCVP and works fine.
There is a 35% project component in JC Science already. The booklet for it is sent away and corrected with the written exam. Not having the project corrected by the SEC means less correctors will be needed. A money saving exercise, not an educational one.0 -
neverfinished wrote: »One of my serious concerns about JC reforms is that we are reducing the contact time for subjects at JC level. It seems like courses are being dumbed down and are veering away from the lc format but we are still expecting students to sit a traditional leaving cert. I cannot see that working out well.
Very true. I can't understand how the government keeps pushing for STEM subjects and jobs, yet reduced JC Science from 240 hours to 200. Not to mind stripping out so much of the content. It's a joke.0 -
rainbowtrout wrote: »Very true. I can't understand how the government keeps pushing for STEM subjects and jobs, yet reduced JC Science from 240 hours to 200. Not to mind stripping out so much of the content. It's a joke.
Thought the idea was that students would do short courses in a variety of areas such as coding etc. Traditional timetabled subjects aren't the only way students learn and schools can still choose to offer same amount of co tact time they currently do. The final science specification hasn't been published yet or inservice provided so I'd wait and see what's expected and the impact it may or may not have on LC.0 -
Thought the idea was that students would do short courses in a variety of areas such as coding etc. Traditional timetabled subjects aren't the only way students learn and schools can still choose to offer same amount of co tact time they currently do. The final science specification hasn't been published yet or inservice provided so I'd wait and see what's expected and the impact it may or may not have on LC.
The introduction of the science syllabus was due to come in this September and was only postponed until next year in recent months.
The specification for the syllabus was published last year. Granted, it may change in the final publication, but a recommendation for hours is often what schools work with, not provide extra.
A number of the human body systems were removed from biology, sound and light were removed from physics, and well chemistry is no longer called chemistry. Enough said there. Some of the most interesting (to students) and accessible topics are no longer on the course. Sure, courses change all the time, but these are fairly basic concepts in science and concepts that are taken as a given at leaving cert level.
I find it bizarre that students could be coming into my physics classes in fifth year and not have learned the basics about sound waves or properties of light. Or that I could be teaching physiology in ag science to students that have not been taught anything about the senses, the skeleton or the urinary system.
Schools may timetable more than 200 hours for science, but the fact remains that the NCCA are putting together a syllabus that they say can be taught in 200 hours rather than the 240-270 currently recommended. That means they are learning less and also the project has to be included in that time.
Short courses are fine, but those topics that have been ditched from the science course will not feature in short courses. I am delighted to see coding as a possibility in schools. I think Computer Science should be a leaving cert subject, but the introduction of coding doesn't make up for the fact that the science syllabus has had a lot of the fundamental basics removed from it.
I also suspect that schools that promote themselves as 'academic' will not take the short courses seriously unless there is a leaving cert follow on. Parents will ask: can my child do this for LC? If the answer is no, and a child has the option of taking two short courses at JC level instead of a traditional subject, but overall that reduces their subject choice at LC level, then they might not be so quick to opt for the short courses.0 -
Although I like the idea of new topics being taught like these short courses, I think the system as it is proposed is flawed. As mentioned above there is no follow up for leaving cert, no matter how talented a student may be in it. What happens in terms of teaching it? Perhaps a current teacher has an interest in a particular area? If it is already a short course then there is a lot of prep and I assume CPD in getting up to scratch to teach it. Those extra hours are not accounted for. If it isn't already a short course then the prep in devising and implementing that course is going to take a lot of time. The alternative is that qualified people are brought in to teach them. As they are not lc subjects there is probably no teaching council recognition. How does this work? Also if the course only runs to JC then the number of hours this professional will get will be incredibly limited, thus promoting casualisation in schools again.0
-
Advertisement
-
Anyone run 'short course' modules for TY?imagine your subject being relegated to that for JC
No way.
Short courses are dead in the water I hope... are they on the ballot?0 -
a
I could say the same; nobody else will accept my opinion. You don't seem to understand how debate works; nobody is forced to accept anyone's opinion. That would be termed brainwashing. In a debate forum, opinions are put out there for people to consider and to make up their own minds. At least by my putting the other side of the story, people can have a broader set of opinions and facts to base their own opinions on.rainbowtrout wrote: »The ongoing problem that people have with you posting on this thread and other threads katydid, is that you simply will not accept anyone else's opinion. Your opinion is the only one that is correct and is the only one that counts and everything everyone else says is dismissed.
Look at what I have put in bold above. You are dismissing what I have encountered in my teaching and co-ordination of PLC. What I have encountered is fact. I'm not making it up to argue with you on this thread. It happened, the tutor told me how they marked the subject, I have had students in my class from that tutors class, and they had their FETAC cert with a distinction on it. So you can have all the difficulties you want in believing it, but it has happened and is happening.
Aside from that a student can achieve a distinction because a marking scheme is created to suit the work handed up. They could plagiarise the work and it not be noticed. They could plagiarise the work and the teacher could notice and just let it slide. The teacher could have helped them finish the project and provided so much help that it was more the teacher's work than the students. Any of the above and more could happen in any centre. You don't know what goes on in every classroom in the country.
Have a look at done deal some night. Plenty of students on there selling 'A1 standard LC projects'. Don't assume QQI is immune to this sort of behaviour either.
The fact that you will not accept this and other teachers' experiences is what is pissing posters off.
Students complete a project component in almost every LC subject. That project is sent away with their LC paper for correction anonymously. Why can't that system be adopted for JC? I can't imagine any English teachers would have any major problems with recording oral presentations with their second years and getting them to write up an essay or document or whatever in third year, and for that video and booklet to be submitted with their JC exam. It's what happens for LCVP and works fine.
There is a 35% project component in JC Science already. The booklet for it is sent away and corrected with the written exam. Not having the project corrected by the SEC means less correctors will be needed. A money saving exercise, not an educational one.
Of course people can cheat by helping students finish work. If they do, that is disgraceful. 99% of us are honest, and would not do it.
Yes, a certain amount of CA could be sent away. But why would it be sent away, when the teacher could do it? The teacher will be assessing the students anyway - we all do it on an ongoing basis - so why not use those results for state certification?
I agree entirely with you that this present proposal is, like everything else the Dept. has done in recent years, a cynical exercise in money or face saving, dressed up as reform. I don't agree with the present proposals, and would vote no if I had a vote. There are so many areas that need re-visiting, that there is more than enough ammunition to fight this, instead of talking about cheating teachers, and teachers who can't be objective or resist pressure. You are picking something that reflects negatively on the profession, instead of highlighting the genuine concerns.0 -
aI could say the same; nobody else will accept my opinion. You don't seem to understand how debate works; nobody is forced to accept anyone's opinion. That would be termed brainwashing. In a debate forum, opinions are put out there for people to consider and to make up their own minds. At least by my putting the other side of the story, people can have a broader set of opinions and facts to base their own opinions on.
Of course people can cheat by helping students finish work. If they do, that is disgraceful. 99% of us are honest, and would not do it.
Yes, a certain amount of CA could be sent away. But why would it be sent away, when the teacher could do it? The teacher will be assessing the students anyway - we all do it on an ongoing basis - so why not use those results for state certification?
I agree entirely with you that this present proposal is, like everything else the Dept. has done in recent years, a cynical exercise in money or face saving, dressed up as reform. I don't agree with the present proposals, and would vote no if I had a vote. There are so many areas that need re-visiting, that there is more than enough ammunition to fight this, instead of talking about cheating teachers, and teachers who can't be objective or resist pressure. You are picking something that reflects negatively on the profession, instead of highlighting the genuine concerns.
Oh I understand how debate works katydid. But you have a very different definition of debate. Your version of debate appears to be 'CA in my centre is perfect and works so it will work everywhere and anyone who says otherwise is wrong'
Many posters including myself have presented their concerns. I gave you a specific situation where CA by a tutor hasn't worked and your reaction 'I find it hard to believe a student could get a distinction and a tutor could be creative with marks'
See, teachers are willing to accept that CA works in your perfect centre. You are not willing to accept that it does not work in other centres and when presented with situations that back up that opinion you dismiss them or ignore them. I notice you had no comment to make on that scenario.
Do you think I'm lying about that student katydid?
Anyway I think I'm done with this thread.
*clicks unfollow*0 -
I hope we all remember this thread and vote no to changes we don't know enough about and to changes we don't want.
I'm done with this thread and I'm also done with boards.
This forum used to be a place to ask for or give advice, see how things worked in different schools and debate aspects of change. It has now become a source of irritation where points can't actually be made without being rudely shot down and almost every thread goes off track. It no longer serves its purpose for me. I notice far fewer posters so I can't be the only one.0 -
I notice far fewer posters too vamos and the reason is quite obviously as you state in your post. But we teachers need a forum in these trying times in our profession, so I really hope you don't abandon us!! Please.0
-
Yes, that is what I say. Because that is what I believe. And that's a problem.rainbowtrout wrote: »Oh I understand how debate works katydid. But you have a very different definition of debate. Your version of debate appears to be 'CA in my centre is perfect and works so it will work everywhere and anyone who says otherwise is wrong'
Many posters including myself have presented their concerns. I gave you a specific situation where CA by a tutor hasn't worked and your reaction 'I find it hard to believe a student could get a distinction and a tutor could be creative with marks'
See, teachers are willing to accept that CA works in your perfect centre. You are not willing to accept that it does not work in other centres and when presented with situations that back up that opinion you dismiss them or ignore them. I notice you had no comment to make on that scenario.
Do you think I'm lying about that student katydid?
Anyway I think I'm done with this thread.
*clicks unfollow*
And you say otherwise. But that's ok.
Maybe this a forum of debate isn't the right place for you.0 -
Yes, that is what I say. Because that is what I believe. And you say otherwise. But that's ok, apparently. Maybe this a forum of debate isn't the right place for you.
Why won't you address the accusation made by all the posters that you are dismissing and invalidating opinions and experiences that are not the same as yours?0 -
Why won't you address the accusation made by all the posters that you are dismissing and invalidating opinions and experiences that are not the same as yours?
I have. Several times. I am not invalidating opinions by expressing mine. I have given examples from direct experience and from knowledge of how it works in other context. IN MY OPINION, it is wrong for teachers to undermine their profession by making the matter of objectivity an issue, when there are so many other issues that are much more valid and urgent. Other people hold other opinions.
When a person holds an opinion, they clearly can't accept the opinion of someone when that opinion is in direct conflict with their own. People are denigrating our profession and questioning the integrity of the vast majority of teachers, and I am not going to accept that opinion.
What you want me to do is put my hands up and say that you are all right, teachers are not capable of being objective and having integrity when it comes to assessing their own students, and that is something I will not do. I have been teaching for thirty five years, I love my job and I am proud to be a teacher. You honestly expect me to give up my belief in the integrity of my profession, especially when I see it displayed every day in my colleagues?0 -
I have. Several times. I am not invalidating opinions by expressing mine. I have given examples from direct experience and from knowledge of how it works in other context. IN MY OPINION, it is wrong for teachers to undermine their profession by making the matter of objectivity an issue, when there are so many other issues that are much more valid and urgent. Other people hold other opinions.
When a person holds an opinion, they clearly can't accept the opinion of someone when that opinion is in direct conflict with their own. People are denigrating our profession and questioning the integrity of the vast majority of teachers, and I am not going to accept that opinion.
What you want me to do is put my hands up and say that you are all right, teachers are not capable of being objective and having integrity when it comes to assessing their own students, and that is something I will not do. I have been teaching for thirty five years, I love my job and I am proud to be a teacher. You honestly expect me to give up my belief in the integrity of my profession, especially when I see it displayed every day in my colleagues?
What I would like you to do is to stop screaming,stop repeating yourself over and over and stop patronising posters with your intransigent tone. You are quite clearly incapable of saying something like: "Fair enough,that is your opinion,mine is different,let's agree to disagree" which is how proper professional people behave. You will not stop insulting the rest of us with this rubbish that you are repeating demoniacally that we don't have confidence in our objectivity,when the whole issue is a million times more complex and multi layered than that.You have taken over not only this thread but many others and turned people completely off posting at this important juncture in our profession, yet you quite obviously don't care as long as you get to have the last word!0 -
Advertisement
-
OK it's that time again folks.
I'm opening the thread again as it's getting close to the voting.
- If you aren't satisfied with a persons manner of 'debating' then stick em on the ignore.
- If someone refuses to respond to the points you've spent a lot of time making then stick em on ignore.
- If someone repeats the same old line then stick em on ignore.
- If you are responding with personal comments and getting angry then you should probably be just sticking that offending poster on ignore, then go back and look at a different aspect in the thread.
- Click on the name, and an option menu will drop down.
MOD
0
Advertisement