Goodbye junior cert.

judeboy101

As the last state certified standarised year group receive their results, do you think that the new 'junior cycle profile of achievement' will truly last as long as the inter/group/junior cert?

2011abc

You're two years premature .Anyway the main motivation behind this was saving money to send to bond holders so it was always going to be flawed .Common level papers a joke .Some freedom for teachers to formulate parts of syllabus welcome ("Short Courses") but extra correction /paperwork a disaster and slippery slope to UK style bureaucratic hell .

judeboy101

2011abc wrote: »

You're two years premature .Anyway the main motivation behind this was saving money to send to bond holders so it was always going to be flawed .Common level papers a joke .Some freedom for teachers to formulate parts of syllabus welcome ("Short Courses") but extra correction /paperwork a disaster and slippery slope to UK style bureaucratic hell .

Are current 3rd years not being assessed in-school in English under the new junior cycle criteria?

implausible

2011abc wrote:

You're two years premature .Anyway the main motivation behind this was saving money to send to bond holders so it was always going to be flawed .Common level papers a joke .Some freedom for teachers to formulate parts of syllabus welcome ("Short Courses") but extra correction /paperwork a disaster and slippery slope to UK style bureaucratic hell .

It is the last year. Next year's students will do new JCSA in English. No extra correction in English. Common papers not across the board.

Some accuracy instead of scaremongering would be nice.

gaiscioch

2011abc wrote: »

... but extra correction /paperwork a disaster and slippery slope to UK style bureaucratic hell .

This, 100%. Resist, 100%.

joe40

I have been teaching in a Northern Ireland school for the last 18 years and I have never seen any form of teacher assessment that works in the way it is supposed to. It is farcical that the Irish government are going down this route when the UK is pulling away from teacher assessments, or at the very least more rigorous criteria are put in place for the assessment to the point it is virtually "an exam". This is the only way to ensure consistency.

I can predict exactly what will happen. The results for the teacher assessed components will all be very good to excellent for all pupils except in extreme cases of misbehaviour or absenteeism as to make assessment impossible.
Even if you are a conscientious teacher you will not want to disadvantage your own students so criteria to get good assessments will be applied generously. There is no point teacher A giving accurate assessments when teacher B in a different school is playing the system and all his/her pupils coming out with good results. Especially when teachers are under scrutiny from school management and Parents (Which is of course understandable and quite right)

Therefore in terms of getting a reasonable distribution of grades the "exam" will be used.

It is right and proper to teach and assess skills but when something as important as the junior cert is involved the assessment will not be rigorous. This is guaranteed to happen.

Will a teacher realistically give a poor result for skills such as "working together" bar a pupil assaulting someone.

I live in Donegal and my child has just started secondary school so I will look on with interest.

In terms of extra workload of teacher assessmen I always found it manageable, it is just the results I would take with a larger pinch of salt!

political analyst

joe40 wrote: »

I have been teaching in a Northern Ireland school for the last 18 years and I have never seen any form of teacher assessment that works in the way it is supposed to. It is farcical that the Irish government are going down this route when the UK is pulling away from teacher assessments, or at the very least more rigorous criteria are put in place for the assessment to the point it is virtually "an exam". This is the only way to ensure consistency.

I can predict exactly what will happen. The results for the teacher assessed components will all be very good to excellent for all pupils except in extreme cases of misbehaviour or absenteeism as to make assessment impossible.
Even if you are a conscientious teacher you will not want to disadvantage your own students so criteria to get good assessments will be applied generously. There is no point teacher A giving accurate assessments when teacher B in a different school is playing the system and all his/her pupils coming out with good results. Especially when teachers are under scrutiny from school management and Parents (Which is of course understandable and quite right)

Therefore in terms of getting a reasonable distribution of grades the "exam" will be used.

It is right and proper to teach and assess skills but when something as important as the junior cert is involved the assessment will not be rigorous. This is guaranteed to happen.

Will a teacher realistically give a poor result for skills such as "working together" bar a pupil assaulting someone.

I live in Donegal and my child has just started secondary school so I will look on with interest.

In terms of extra workload of teacher assessmen I always found it manageable, it is just the results I would take with a larger pinch of salt!

The UK isn't; England is. Education is a devolved matter in the rest of the UK.

As for the issue at hand, no teacher will be expected to give a good mark to a pupil whose performance is crap. Parents know that they have to respect the school's authority over their children. Therefore, the principal will support the teacher.

evolving_doors

political analyst wrote: »

The UK isn't; England is. Education is a devolved matter in the rest of the UK.

As for the issue at hand, no teacher will be expected to give a good mark to a pupil whose performance is crap. Parents know that they have to respect the school's authority over their children. Therefore, the principal will support the teacher.

It's that how it played out in England?

judeboy101

political analyst wrote: »

The UK isn't; England is. Education is a devolved matter in the rest of the UK.

As for the issue at hand, no teacher will be expected to give a good mark to a pupil whose performance is crap. Parents know that they have to respect the school's authority over their children. Therefore, the principal will support the teacher.

Having worked in England, principals do not have the teachers back. Everything revolves around results. It is quite scary how much of the schools money depends on results

poppers

With most children going on to 3rd level now i think the junior cert has come to it natural end, just as the group cert done 15-20 yrs ago.

judeboy101

poppers wrote: »

With most children going on to 3rd level now i think the junior cert has come to it natural end, just as the group cert done 15-20 yrs ago.

Isn't that the problem? Most students shouldn't be going to 3rd level. We need to bring back the group cert so students can leave with a rigorous cert to engage in skilled careers e.g army, guards, trades etc. The drop out rate in 3rd level is very high by oecd standards.

man_no_plan

judeboy101 wrote: »

Isn't that the problem? Most students shouldn't be going to 3rd level. We need to bring back the group cert so students can leave with a rigorous cert to engage in skilled careers e.g army, guards, trades etc. The drop out rate in 3rd level is very high by oecd standards.

The problem at the minute is there's no other show in town. Apprenticeships are few and far between and employment was sorely lacking in all areas, dublin might be on the move but rural areas still have no prospects.

I don't think the JC is to blame and i dont think the group cert would change anything. There are plenty of people who didn't enter secondary school or third level who have productive employment / self employment. Those who want to work will, those who don't won't. There is too much value placed on third level academic qualifications, the RTCs were about getting people working. We're only interested in getting 'qualified' now.

political analyst

Gebgbegb wrote: »

It's that how it played out in England?

I wasn't referring to teachers in England. There are huge cultural differences between England and Ireland in several areas.

political analyst

judeboy101 wrote: »

Having worked in England, principals do not have the teachers back. Everything revolves around results. It is quite scary how much of the schools money depends on results

No indication that our government is going down that road.

If parents challenge a teacher's judgement on an assessment in JC English and the principal doesn't support the teacher, then that teacher can report the principal to the Teaching Council.

judeboy101

political analyst wrote: »

No indication that our government is going down that road.

If parents challenge a teacher's judgement on an assessment in JC English and the principal doesn't support the teacher, then that teacher can report the principal to the Teaching Council.

Did the dept not produce a report last year looking at the option of devolving funding to schools and making them responsible for it? And did that paper not mentions school meeting certain performance criteria?

political analyst

judeboy101 wrote: »

Did the dept not produce a report last year looking at the option of devolving funding to schools and making them responsible for it? And did that paper not mentions school meeting certain performance criteria?

I haven't read that report. Surely, devolving funding means not having to deal with civil servants in the Department as often.

As I said, a teacher can report an unethical colleague, e.g. a principal, to the Teaching Council.

man_no_plan

political analyst wrote: »

I haven't read that report. Surely, devolving funding means not having to deal with civil servants in the Department as often.

As I said, a teacher can report an unethical colleague, e.g. a principal, to the Teaching Council.

Maybe you should start reading reports and maybe the FG manifesto. Then come back. Just because you don't think something isn't as it is doesn't mean it isn't!

judeboy101

political analyst wrote: »

I haven't read that report. Surely, devolving funding means not having to deal with civil servants in the Department as often.

As I said, a teacher can report an unethical colleague, e.g. a principal, to the Teaching Council.

Devolving funding means devolving responsibility. Funding was devolved to hospital groups and now they get fined and have to make cuts if they don't make targets. And we don't have a good record of treating whistle blowers.

implausible

joe40 wrote: »

I can predict exactly what will happen. The results for the teacher assessed components will all be very good to excellent for all pupils except in extreme cases of misbehaviour or absenteeism as to make assessment impossible.
Even if you are a conscientious teacher you will not want to disadvantage your own students so criteria to get good assessments will be applied generously. There is no point teacher A giving accurate assessments when teacher B in a different school is playing the system and all his/her pupils coming out with good results. Especially when teachers are under scrutiny from school management and Parents (Which is of course understandable and quite right)

Therefore in terms of getting a reasonable distribution of grades the "exam" will be used.

---

In terms of extra workload of teacher assessmen I always found it manageable, it is just the results I would take with a larger pinch of salt!

Interesting to hear the perspective from NI. However, there is one significant detail that makes the new JCSA different - the teacher assessed components are not part of the state certified exam. They are reported in parallel with the state exam results, but do not form part of it.

Your final exam is still your "Junior Cert."

political analyst

implausible wrote: »

Interesting to hear the perspective from NI. However, there is one significant detail that makes the new JCSA different - the teacher assessed components are not part of the state certified exam. They are reported in parallel with the state exam results, but do not form part of it.

Your final exam is still your "Junior Cert."

But the teacher-assessed component is part of the exam result in JCSA English.

evolving_doors

implausible wrote: »

Interesting to hear the perspective from NI. However, there is one significant detail that makes the new JCSA different - the teacher assessed components are not part of the state certified exam. They are reported in parallel with the state exam results, but do not form part of it.

Your final exam is still your "Junior Cert."

Common level / dumbed down paper. ..'its junior cert Jim, but not as we know it!

Rosita

judeboy101 wrote: »

Having worked in England, principals do not have the teachers back. Everything revolves around results. It is quite scary how much of the schools money depends on results

Money following results sounds like a recipe for copper fastening disadvantage.

political analyst

Rosita wrote: »

Money following results sounds like a recipe for copper fastening disadvantage.

That would mean giving students in one school in a particular area preferential treatment over students in another school in that area - that would violate the principle of equality and would thus be unconstitutional.

implausible

political analyst wrote:

But the teacher-assessed component is part of the exam result in JCSA English.

No it's not. It's marked and reported separately. The only grade on your JCSA is the grade you get in the final exam.

man_no_plan

political analyst wrote: »

That would mean giving students in one school in a particular area preferential treatment over students in another school in that area - that would violate the principle of equality and would thus be unconstitutional.

Will I get banned if I tell him to f#@* off. Can you see all the lads from the tough estate heading off looking for a judicial review?

evolving_doors

man_no_plan wrote: »

Will I get banned if I tell him to f#@* off. Can you see all the lads from the tough estate heading off looking for a judicial review?

Yup that'b a paddlin,
Use ignore function.
Mod
Ta

political analyst

implausible wrote: »

No it's not. It's marked and reported separately. The only grade on your JCSA is the grade you get in the final exam.

If that component is not part of the JCSA state exam result then that means that teachers wouldn't be assessing students for a state exam in English. So what is the ASTI's problem?

judeboy101

political analyst wrote: »

If that component is not part of the JCSA state exam result then that means that teachers wouldn't be assessing students for a state exam in English. So what is the ASTI's problem?

If you agree to the principle of non-standardised school assessment, its not so much of a jump to non standardised state assessment. The beauty of our system was that every anonymous script was marked by anonymous correctors who did not work for the school, but rather worked for the sec. Look at the endemic corruption in coursework across the sea in England.

implausible

judeboy101 wrote:

If you agree to the principle of non-standardised school assessment, its not so much of a jump to non standardised state assessment. The beauty of our system was that every anonymous script was marked by anonymous correctors who did not work for the school, but rather worked for the sec. Look at the endemic corruption in coursework across the sea in England.

That principle was broken before the new JC came in e.g. teachers already assess their own students for state certification at Leaving Cert in Ag Science.

What's happening in England is worrying, but the JCSA retains the externally marked final assessment. That's what resulted from the JC dispute.

political analyst

judeboy101 wrote: »

If you agree to the principle of non-standardised school assessment, its not so much of a jump to non standardised state assessment. The beauty of our system was that every anonymous script was marked by anonymous correctors who did not work for the school, but rather worked for the sec. Look at the endemic corruption in coursework across the sea in England.

The Department has agreed that there won't be non-standardised state assessment. If the ASTI had accepted the new Junior Cycle assessment system and the Department had then broken its word, then all the ASTI would have to do is ballot again for industrial action on the issue of the assessment system.

Aufbau

political analyst wrote: »

The Department has agreed that there won't be non-standardised state assessment. If the ASTI had accepted the new Junior Cycle assessment system and the Department had then broken its word, then all the ASTI would have to do is ballot again for industrial action on the issue of the assessment system.

Enda Kenny - is that you? ☺