New JC English (disaster)

implausible

siulach wrote: »

Shows what I know! Thanks Implausible, I mistakenly thought the texts together with the reflection sheets had to be handed up with the assessment booklet. So the department vision was that teachers give a numerical mark to their own students for both the collection of texts and the oral based assessment then.

However, that now throws up a whole other issue. Students are expected to complete a reflection sheet in the assessment booklet. Obviously, they will need to have put a collection of texts together in order to complete the reflection sheet. But, as Implausible points out, the collection of texts is a classroom based assessment, and as far as I understand it ASTI directive tells us not to engage with classroom based assessment.

My plan at the moment is to get students to complete a collection of texts (I would be setting and correcting essays for them even if I was teaching the old course, so really a 'collection of texts' is nothing new). I will also tell them to plan to redraft two pieces later in the term based on whatever feedback I give them. Does this sound reasonable to others?

I'm still completely in the dark as what to do with regard to the oral assessment. Ignore the deadline? Do an oral assessment, keep a record of same, but not give a numerical mark? Ignore the oral component altogether?

And there's also the question of whether the classroom based assessment (where students will complete the booklet to send to the SEC) will go ahead at all, or whether it can go ahead given that the CBA is to be based on the collection of texts that the union seems to suggest we should not be marking!!

I'm lucky to have a class of very focused, clever young people this year, and I hate going into them at the start of every term telling them that there is still no consensus about what they are meant to be studying and what form their assessment will take.

It's not even a numerical mark that you award for the CBAs; you assess the work using one of the following descriptors:
1. Exceptional
2. Above expectations
3. In line with expectations
4. Yet to meet expectations

What you're planning to do sounds like a reasonable way of covering yourself for the collection of texts CBA, and as you've pointed out, it's really no different to the work English teachers have always done.

Your point about the Assessment Task/booklet is crucial. Students of ASTI teachers will be unable to complete the reflection part of it and the Assessment Task is 10% of the state-certified exam. Things will have to come to a head before this, otherwise you'll have a situation where students of TUI teachers will be able to complete 100% of their Junior Cycle English and the other students will only be able to do 90%.

As for the oral component, you can't ignore it, as you are still required to teach the syllabus (which includes oral skills). You have to practise them and do assessment for learning, whether or not you assess them formally using the descriptors. However, I doubt this will be sorted in the next few weeks, so I wouldn't lose any sleep over it for third years anyway.

man_no_plan

Info on TUI website.

The State Examinations Commission has confirmed that in the event that an AT is not submitted to the SEC for marking, the student, if s/he sits the June examination, will be marked out of 90%, as opposed to 100%, of the marks.

My head isn't working when I read that. It seems that the students in ASTI schools are still able to get full marks in that case?

rainbowtrout

man_no_plan wrote: »

Info on TUI website.

The State Examinations Commission has confirmed that in the event that an AT is not submitted to the SEC for marking, the student, if s/he sits the June examination, will be marked out of 90%, as opposed to 100%, of the marks.

My head isn't working when I read that. It seems that the students in ASTI schools are still able to get full marks in that case?

That makes no sense. What's to stop a teacher/school (regardless of union affiliation) just opting out of doing the classroom assessment? How are the SEC going to know?

Jamfa

rainbowtrout wrote: »

That makes no sense. What's to stop a teacher/school (regardless of union affiliation) just opting out of doing the classroom assessment? How are the SEC going to know?

I'd take it to mean that if a student doesn't complete the AT they will only be able to get 90% of the marks available & therefore lose 10%. Remember that the AT & final exam receive one combined grade from the SEC similar to CSPE.

Moody_mona

Jamfa wrote: »

rainbowtrout wrote: »

That makes no sense. What's to stop a teacher/school (regardless of union affiliation) just opting out of doing the classroom assessment? How are the SEC going to know?

I'd take it to mean that if a student doesn't complete the AT they will only be able to get 90% of the marks available & therefore lose 10%. Remember that the AT & final exam receive one combined grade from the SEC similar to CSPE.

Like CSPE, or like Irish, where an optional oral is added to the score sometimes and not others?

rainbowtrout

It's ambiguous. Could be interpreted either way really.

man_no_plan

rainbowtrout wrote: »

It's ambiguous. Could be interpreted either way really.

Yeah I couldn't make it out really. Out of 100 is out of 100. If you only present 90% of the work it should still be out of 100 surely?

If you don't do paper 2 in maths you're not marked out of 50% you're marked out of 100% and can only get 50% Max.

In LCA for those with an Irish exemption their credits are marked out of less so that they don't lose out. To my mind this is the same approach.

If it said they will only be marked to a maximum of 90% that would be clearer.

The wording should be clearer, I would expect it to be capped at 90 for students not doing 10% of their work.

Jamfa

Moody_mona wrote: »

Like CSPE, or like Irish, where an optional .oral is addedx score sometimes and not others?

Like CSPE & RE as the AT isn't optional. The total marks for JC English is 200 & if a student doesn't complete the AT the max they can get is 180.

evolving_doors

Jamfa wrote: »

Like CSPE & RE as the AT isn't optional. The total marks for JC English is 200 & if a student doesn't complete the AT the max they can get is 180.

So if the max they can get is 180, and they get 90... Is that 50% or 45%?

Jamfa

45%. The DES would need to intervene if the AT is to be changed to an option which seems unlikely at the moment.

deiseindublin

My reading of it is that the most they could score is 90%. More strong armed tactics to scare the teachers into submission. No teachers wants to see their students that sit in front of them every day suffer.

political analyst

Why don't parents of the students of ASTI members take legal action against the SEC on the grounds that causing students to lose marks while the students of TUI members are not affected would violate the principle of equality and thus be unconstitutional?

man_no_plan

political analyst wrote: »

Why don't parents of the students of ASTI members take legal action against the SEC on the grounds that causing students to lose marks while the students of TUI members are not affected would violate the principle of equality and thus be unconstitutional?

Maybe they'd be better placed to sue the ASTI? Should drivers who pass the theory test but not the practical sue the RSA or sue their instructor?

Or alternatively, nobody sues anyone because its a nonsense idea. Unconstitutional my ass.

political analyst

man_no_plan wrote: »

Maybe they'd be better placed to sue the ASTI? Should drivers who pass the theory test but not the practical sue the RSA or sue their instructor?

Or alternatively, nobody sues anyone because its a nonsense idea. Unconstitutional my ass.

But the students of ASTI members are prevented from sitting this assessment. The SEC can't deny them marks simply because they are prevented from sitting the assessment.

political analyst

man_no_plan wrote: »

Info on TUI website.

The State Examinations Commission has confirmed that in the event that an AT is not submitted to the SEC for marking, the student, if s/he sits the June examination, will be marked out of 90%, as opposed to 100%, of the marks.

Obviously, it means that, for the students of ASTI members, if the dispute is not resolved, the 90% of JC English will be counted as 100% of the subject.

deiseindublin

I don't know PA, I'm reading the exact opposite into that statement.

spurious

The SEC's over-riding mantra is always that 'the candidates will not be adversely affected' by glitches, be they bureaucratic, printing, organisational, whatever.

In that light, I would read it as 90% becomes the new 100%.

deiseindublin

I'd like to think that was the case spurious but I think they're basically trying to break the union. How many Year 3 English teachers would waver when casting their vote if their students would potentially lose 10%, not to mention ASTI members not on full hours after last Fridays letter.

RH149

I'm assuming it will be the same situation that exists with languages at Junior Cert. ASTI Members don't do the JC Orals as we don't assess our own students (Some schools get around this by paying outside examiners to come in and examine the Orals but I think most JC students in ASTI schools don't do these orals.) The students are marked out of 320 whereas those students who do the orals are marked out of 400. So the students aren't technically disadvantaged by not doing the Orals.

If the current 3rd years don't do the Classroom based assessments I guess they'll be marked in a similar way?

rainbowtrout

RH149 wrote: »

I'm assuming it will be the same situation that exists with languages at Junior Cert. ASTI Members don't do the JC Orals as we don't assess our own students (Some schools get around this by paying outside examiners to come in and examine the Orals but I think most JC students in ASTI schools don't do these orals.) The students are marked out of 320 whereas those students who do the orals are marked out of 400. So the students aren't technically disadvantaged by not doing the Orals.

If the current 3rd years don't do the Classroom based assessments I guess they'll be marked in a similar way?

The main difference there though is that the orals are optional. The classroom based assessment was not presented to teachers as optional, it's compulsory.

evolving_doors

rainbowtrout wrote: »

The main difference there though is that the orals are optional. The classroom based assessment was not presented to teachers as optional, it's compulsory.

Many ASTI schools circumnavigate the directive by getting in other teachers to examine the orals. So in one way it's expected to be done every year because a precedent had been set... and thus, compulsory.

rainbowtrout

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Many ASTI schools circumnavigate the directive by getting in other teachers to examine the orals. So in one way it's expected to be done every year because a precedent had been set... and thus, compulsory.

But that's the schools internal policy on the orals. It still remains as optional from an SEC point of view.

Jamfa

rainbowtrout wrote: »

The main difference there though is that the orals are optional. The classroom based assessment was not presented to teachers as optional, it's compulsory.

The Assessment Task isn't a Classroom-BasedAssessment and will be set & marked externally by the SEC. It is to take place during 2 class periods & relates to the second CBA. The ASTI directive would seem to preclude teachers from engaging in the AT.

siulach

Jamfa wrote: »

The Assessment Task isn't a Classroom-BasedAssessment and will be set & marked externally by the SEC. It is to take place during 2 class periods & relates to the second CBA. The ASTI directive would seem to preclude teachers from engaging in the AT.

Problem is that the assessment task is linked to the CBA, so ASTI directive seems to suggest students do an exam that their teachers cannot prepare them for. It's like walking a tightrope trying to unpick what to do and what not to do

Mardy Bum

siulach wrote: »

Problem is that the assessment task is linked to the CBA, so ASTI directive seems to suggest students do an exam that their teachers cannot prepare them for. It's like walking a tightrope trying to unpick what to do and what not to do

The drafting and redrafting process has to be done according to the syllabus and students can consult with the teacher on what they want to include in their portfolio of four texts (2 of which is marked if you are TUI), it is the assessment or SLAR meetings ASTI teachers are not able to attend. So students should be able to do the Assessment Task as they will have completed the process of drafting and redrafting a number of pieces from different genres (they just won't get an award for the portfolio).

*This is my reading of the situation.

rainbowtrout

Jamfa wrote: »

The Assessment Task isn't a Classroom-BasedAssessment and will be set & marked externally by the SEC. It is to take place during 2 class periods & relates to the second CBA. The ASTI directive would seem to preclude teachers from engaging in the AT.

I got the names of them mixed up. The point still stands though. It's not an optional task.

RH149

I don't know the history of the JC orals but i wonder was it always optional or did it become that way when ASTI members were directed not to do them? I imagine in schools where they do them with outside examiners brought in, they aren't optional for either students or teachers....again I'm guessing that but maybe others might know for sure.

rainbowtrout

RH149 wrote: »

I don't know the history of the JC orals but i wonder was it always optional or did it become that way when ASTI members were directed not to do them? I imagine in schools where they do them with outside examiners brought in, they aren't optional for either students or teachers....again I'm guessing that but maybe others might know for sure.

The JC was first examined in 92. I did mine in 94 and didn't do an oral. I can only assume that they've been optional from the start or the Asti kicked up about them in early 90s so it had to be optional from the start

Jamfa

Mardy Bum wrote: »

The drafting and redrafting process has to be done according to the syllabus and students can consult with the teacher on what they want to include in their portfolio of four texts (2 of which is marked if you are TUI), it is the assessment or SLAR meetings ASTI teachers are not able to attend. So students should be able to do the Assessment Task as they will have completed the process of drafting and redrafting a number of pieces from different genres (they just won't get an award for the portfolio).

*This is my reading of the situation.

But where will the AT take place if the teachers refuse to have any part in it?

Stewie Griffin

I'm curious: What happens to the Collection of Student Texts? (I'm ASTI)