Feelings on the new JC?

smacl

evolving_doors wrote: »

How do they matriculate for CAO/university ?

Difficult to say although this article claims that they do, albeit the article could well be biased coming from a Sudbury school. It would be interesting to see how well these schools function, as gut instinct would suggest that it could all go very Lord of the flies very quickly. I know there's one in Wicklow as well, but haven't heard much about it.

RealJohn

MathsManiac wrote: »

Well that's what Ruadhrí wanted to do, (get SEC out of it and leave it up to each school to set the assessments it wanted) but he capitulated in the face of teacher opposition to it.

No, it isn’t. What Ruadhrí wanted to do was not to have to pay for state exams to be marked and instead, have state exams marked for free by class teachers.
He still wanted formal exams and formal certificates. He just didn’t want to have to pay extra for them.
It was always a money saving exercise and it’s backfired spectacularly because they’re now not saving any money but have still damaged the integrity of the exams, not to mention the added expense of change for the sake of change, which is all it is now.

All teachers continually assess their students, regardless. What we don’t want is to be the ones who decide whether or not they get into college.

MathsManiac

RealJohn wrote: »

No, it isn’t. What Ruadhrí wanted to do was not to have to pay for state exams to be marked and instead, have state exams marked for free by class teachers.
He still wanted formal exams and formal certificates. He just didn’t want to have to pay extra for them.
It was always a money saving exercise and it’s backfired spectacularly because they’re now not saving any money but have still damaged the integrity of the exams, not to mention the added expense of change for the sake of change, which is all it is now.

All teachers continually assess their students, regardless. What we don’t want is to be the ones who decide whether or not they get into college.

Eh, No. He very much did not want to have "state exams", as you put it.

This is all just history anyway, but if I may remind you:

"I am therefore, over the next eight years, going to phase out the traditional Junior Certificate examination."
...
"The Junior Certificate Examination will be replaced with a school-based model of assessment."
...
"In the initial years, the SEC will be involved with the assessment of a number of subjects." (i.e., for a temporary transition period.)
...

Ultimately, the plan was that the "School Certificate" would be issued by the school, incorporating, for the initial years only, some data supplied by the SEC. Also, SEC would, for a temporary period, provide exam papers for schools to use until they got used to the whole idea of school-based assessment:

"The SEC will provide final assessment papers and marking schemes for subjects until the new school-based system of assessment is established."
...
"For English, Irish and Mathematics, the SEC will initially mark these papers, and return the marks to the school to be combined with the 40% weighting to the school work component. This arrangement will continue until standardised testing becomes established in junior cycle."

And it was very clear that it was to be a school providing the certificate and not the DES or SEC:

"To comply with the Framework for Junior Cycle, a school’s programme must:
...
at the end of the three years, provide students with a report that includes their School Certificate related to NFQ 3 or NFQ 2 (where relevant) as well as
commentary on other learning experiences
..."

Also, with regard to your comment about deciding who goes to college, the last time I checked, JC results didn't get you into college.

I agree, by the way, that the level of change we have now after the almost complete abandonment of those initial plans is probably not worth bothering with. But I still hold the view that I held as a young teacher in the nineties - that the JC exam is pointless; that, on balance, it hinders rather than helps in providing good education; and that it should have been scrapped decades ago.

The LC on the other hand, is an entirely different matter. Long may it survive.

Methinks this is all going off on a bit of a tangent anyway, as the thread is about feelings on the JC as it is now becoming, not as it might have been...

happywithlife

few parents i know have finally sat up and started asking questions
...whats it all about?
what's changed?
what's this "in line with expectations" ?
why aren't they learning....anymore
and so on

too little too late

evolving_doors

happywithlife wrote: »

few parents i know have finally sat up and started asking questions
...whats it all about?
what's changed?
what's this "in line with expectations" ?
why aren't they learning....anymore
and so on

too little too late

Parents are too busy to worry about it. Once all the students are playing the same game then they let them at it.
They won't really worry about it in 1st year... Or when they hit TY either.

happywithlife

no but at least they're finally waking up to the fact that changes are afoot ...for so long they haven't

Blaizes

happywithlife wrote: »

few parents i know have finally sat up and started asking questions
...whats it all about?
what's changed?
what's this "in line with expectations" ?
why aren't they learning....anymore
and so on

too little too late

This ' in line with expectations' is a really slippery slope isn't it.What about the child who has 'yet to meet expectations.' I feel sorry for any sensitive child who would be given the second descriptor.It could totally shatter them and destroy their confidence. I hope I'm wrong of course.

RealJohn

MathsManiac wrote: »

Also, with regard to your comment about deciding who goes to college, the last time I checked, JC results didn't get you into college.

I agree, by the way, that the level of change we have now after the almost complete abandonment of those initial plans is probably not worth bothering with. But I still hold the view that I held as a young teacher in the nineties - that the JC exam is pointless; that, on balance, it hinders rather than helps in providing good education; and that it should have been scrapped decades ago.

The LC on the other hand, is an entirely different matter. Long may it survive.

Methinks this is all going off on a bit of a tangent anyway, as the thread is about feelings on the JC as it is now becoming, not as it might have been...

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057914727/1/#post108199325

amacca

Blaizes wrote: »

This ' in line with expectations' is a really slippery slope isn't it.What about the child who has 'yet to meet expectations.' I feel sorry for any sensitive child who would be given the second descriptor.It could totally shatter them and destroy their confidence. I hope I'm wrong of course.

Its just a slightly less obvious way of indicating failure without coming right out and saying it........if a student gets that descriptor then they probably fall into some of the below categories

1) Did absolutely zero work, heedless, handed up almost a blank page with perhaps a drawing of a cat on it and maybe a swastika and a hash leaf or two spent the time they should have been working on the task talking, being disrespectful, vegetating, disrupting others and taking up way more than their fair share of the teachers time following procedures that led to no meaningful consequences being applied to them for said misbehaviour etc etc

2) Were not in most of the year but showed up or handed up something completely unrelated to the task or perhaps with a tenuous link that mostly failed to meet most criteria but smiled at you the one time they were in that year

3) Deliberately tried not to succeed to piss the teacher or parent off or get attention etc

4) Genuinely couldn't do it due to learning issues

and Id say not many would fall into category 4 as they would be coached/helped to do the "task/CBA whatever we are calling it now)

The whole thing is laughable and I agree if you are sensitive its nearly worse than getting a low grade.....at least that is straight up rather than a sneaky mealy mouthed euphemism that you could apply to more than just achievement in that one subject.....just read the reams of mostly nonsense on the new JC that probably hundreds of thousands has to be spent on printing and distribution when it could have been put to an actual good use somewhere to get an idea of what a cluster **** the new JC is.

Whats worse though imo is the general achieved a merit band that 90% of them are probably going to fall into......no nuance or rewarding of effort imo...the fair/average/good students will all end up getting the same descriptor everyone gets a rubber medal yay!

This is the result of the blue sky thinking brainstorming positivity without limits or reality post it jockey cohort of fantasists that seem to brush aside anything like common sense, logic or any reality that might rain on their parade in their quest for.............probably promotion because **** it as long as there is an action plan we are fighting the good fight.....but things like class sizes, resourcing, high contact hours, discipline, increasing demands on time for administration/box ticking etc etc don't really seem to fit in an action plan it seems to me because no one can take action on those ...the things that might actually help increase student attainment if they were tackled.

mtoutlemonde

amacca wrote: »

Its just a slightly less obvious way of indicating failure without coming right out and saying it........if a student gets that descriptor then they probably fall into some of the below categories

1) Did absolutely zero work, heedless, handed up almost a blank page with perhaps a drawing of a cat on it and maybe a swastika and a hash leaf or two spent the time they should have been working on the task talking, being disrespectful, vegetating, disrupting others and taking up way more than their fair share of the teachers time following procedures that led to no meaningful consequences being applied to them for said misbehaviour etc etc

2) Were not in most of the year but showed up or handed up something completely unrelated to the task or perhaps with a tenuous link that mostly failed to meet most criteria but smiled at you the one time they were in that year

3) Deliberately tried not to succeed to piss the teacher or parent off or get attention etc

4) Genuinely couldn't do it due to learning issues

and Id say not many would fall into category 4 as they would be coached/helped to do the "task/CBA whatever we are calling it now)

The whole thing is laughable and I agree if you are sensitive its nearly worse than getting a low grade.....at least that is straight up rather than a sneaky mealy mouthed euphemism that you could apply to more than just achievement in that one subject.....just read the reams of mostly nonsense on the new JC that probably hundreds of thousands has to be spent on printing and distribution when it could have been put to an actual good use somewhere to get an idea of what a cluster **** the new JC is.

Whats worse though imo is the general achieved a merit band that 90% of them are probably going to fall into......no nuance or rewarding of effort imo...the fair/average/good students will all end up getting the same descriptor everyone gets a rubber medal yay!

This is the result of the blue sky thinking brainstorming positivity without limits or reality post it jockey cohort of fantasists that seem to brush aside anything like common sense, logic or any reality that might rain on their parade in their quest for.............probably promotion because **** it as long as there is an action plan we are fighting the good fight.....but things like class sizes, resourcing, high contact hours, discipline, increasing demands on time for administration/box ticking etc etc don't really seem to fit in an action plan it seems to me because no one can take action on those ...the things that might actually help increase student attainment if they were tackled.

The best summing of the new JCT that I have seen!!!! Above expectations That should be sent to the fantastic people in the JCT!!!

acequion

mtoutlemonde wrote: »

The best summing of the new JCT that I have seen!!!! Above expectations That should be sent to the fantastic people in the JCT!!!

Not only that but amacca's post is the type of reality check the general public should get from responsible reporting in the media. But that wouldn't suit the pc fantasy that lazy journalists are happy to be part of. They'd far rather continue to write teacher bashing stuff. Way more popular!

Blaizes

amacca wrote: »

Its just a slightly less obvious way of indicating failure without coming right out and saying it........if a student gets that descriptor then they probably fall into some of the below categories

1) Did absolutely zero work, heedless, handed up almost a blank page with perhaps a drawing of a cat on it and maybe a swastika and a hash leaf or two spent the time they should have been working on the task talking, being disrespectful, vegetating, disrupting others and taking up way more than their fair share of the teachers time following procedures that led to no meaningful consequences being applied to them for said misbehaviour etc etc

2) Were not in most of the year but showed up or handed up something completely unrelated to the task or perhaps with a tenuous link that mostly failed to meet most criteria but smiled at you the one time they were in that year

3) Deliberately tried not to succeed to piss the teacher or parent off or get attention etc

4) Genuinely couldn't do it due to learning issues

and Id say not many would fall into category 4 as they would be coached/helped to do the "task/CBA whatever we are calling it now)

The whole thing is laughable and I agree if you are sensitive its nearly worse than getting a low grade.....at least that is straight up rather than a sneaky mealy mouthed euphemism that you could apply to more than just achievement in that one subject.....just read the reams of mostly nonsense on the new JC that probably hundreds of thousands has to be spent on printing and distribution when it could have been put to an actual good use somewhere to get an idea of what a cluster **** the new JC is.

Whats worse though imo is the general achieved a merit band that 90% of them are probably going to fall into......no nuance or rewarding of effort imo...the fair/average/good students will all end up getting the same descriptor everyone gets a rubber medal yay!

This is the result of the blue sky thinking brainstorming positivity without limits or reality post it jockey cohort of fantasists that seem to brush aside anything like common sense, logic or any reality that might rain on their parade in their quest for.............probably promotion because **** it as long as there is an action plan we are fighting the good fight.....but things like class sizes, resourcing, high contact hours, discipline, increasing demands on time for administration/box ticking etc etc don't really seem to fit in an action plan it seems to me because no one can take action on those ...the things that might actually help increase student attainment if they were tackled.

Yes, I was thinking the language wasn't very nice. With the old grade system a student knew what an E or F meant straight out but now they have this very degrading language ' yet to meet expectations'. Why put them through that and have it in on their record of achievement.Whose expectations anyway and as you rightly say there are so many elements to consider, it's not right to box people off like this and make them feel worthless.I really hope they will change this language and not write off young people.I worked in some schools in socially deprived areas with great students and they needed to be uplifted and encouraged not degraded.'Mol an oige agus tiocfaidh si.'( praise the young person and they will flourish)

And you are right class sizes are too big, I've always felt fifteen would be the perfect number, low class size and plenty of time to get round to everyone.

Resources and discipline more to be done.There's a whole other thread about voluntary contributions on boards.

So much to fix

loveroflight

From 'Introduction to Junior Cycle':.....' Junior cycle is inclusive of all students and
contributes to equality of opportunity, participation and outcome for all.' I can understand the aspiration to contribute to equality of opportunity and participation but what is meant by the equality of 'outcome'?

deiseindublin

I think it means that nobody fails.

Noveight

loveroflight wrote: »

I can understand the aspiration to contribute to equality of opportunity and participation but what is meant by the equality of 'outcome'?

It is a ridiculous idea.

To aim for equality of outcome is to hope that the student who works their behind off for their Junior Cert achieves the same result as the student who warms themselves on the radiator for the whole of 3rd year.

It's like they've hoped that enough flowery, aesthetic language will help hide the fact that it's a fundamentally flawed concept.

loveroflight

Thought so. It smacks of a lowering of standards and a lack of ambition for our students. Who benefits from that? Certainly not the students. Certainly not the teachers.

Icsics

Yes equality for all means no one 'fails'....instead the good, bad & indifferent are lumped in together in these 'bands'.
I had to tell a 5th yr that he actually failed English last yr, he was genuinely surprised. He only saw the 'achieved' part, 'partially' didn't register at all :rolleyes:

loveroflight

So then, when we try allow them face reality, so they can have a chance to turn things around, we'll be seen as the enemies. 'Blame the messenger'.

acequion

This nonsense is also going on now at LC with over 30% still giving them points.

I had a student who insisted and persisted in doing higher level English recently,despite being no where near the required standard and never being at school anyway. When the results came out this August she got H7 and shouted from the rooftops that she "passed" English.

Madness!

loveroflight

How are those students then meant to cope when rejected from entry into a course they wanted. They will have developed no coping skills for a disappointment like that.

Mountainsandh

loveroflight wrote: »

How are those students then meant to cope when rejected from entry into a course they wanted. They will have developed no coping skills for a disappointment like that.

But sure isn't the well being course going to make up for all that, and morph them into resilient human beings one mindfulness session at a time ?

storker

mtoutlemonde wrote: »

And the charge into the school to see why her little darling wasn't exceptional.
Let alone the 'In line with expectations and Yet to meet expectations' - explain that to someone who is used to and got A,B and C's in their own education.

To be fair, if that person can't follow the translation of terms, I would doubt that they ever scored as high as A, B or C.

loveroflight

"But sure isn't the well being course going to make up for all that, and morph them into resilient human beings one mindfulness session at a time ?".....as long as we have 'equality of outcome' ...that is!

loveroflight

loveroflight wrote: »

"But sure isn't the well being course going to make up for all that, and morph them into resilient human beings one mindfulness session at a time ?"

.....as long as we have 'equality of outcome' ...that is!

RealJohn

acequion wrote: »

This nonsense is also going on now at LC with over 30% still giving them points.

I had a student who insisted and persisted in doing higher level English recently,despite being no where near the required standard and never being at school anyway. When the results came out this August she got H7 and shouted from the rooftops that she "passed" English.

Madness!

I don’t really have a problem with some points for 30%+ in a HL paper, though I think that the points are too high - an E in HL should not be considered the same as a B in ordinary level - but it should definitely be made clear that it’s still a fail. I’d rather keep the students who are worried about failing HL but that aren’t in as much danger of it as they think, and give them some points if they don’t fail by much. As with everything else though, this government have no interest in producing anything, just in pleasing the public while saving as much money as they can.

I’m quite happy to explain to students that no, a H7 is not a pass, it’s a fail. If they’re not smart enough to understand that, they won’t get a H7 anyway.

solerina

acequion wrote: »

This nonsense is also going on now at LC with over 30% still giving them points.

I had a student who insisted and persisted in doing higher level English recently,despite being no where near the required standard and never being at school anyway. When the results came out this August she got H7 and shouted from the rooftops that she "passed" English.

Madness!

The whole system is flawed, apparently 30% of those who sat LC Biology in 2018 failed to get 30% after the first round of corrections....the marks were adjusted to bring that down to 14% !!! A weaker JC will lead to a much weaker LC in the years to come

Icsics

solerina wrote: »

The whole system is flawed, apparently 30% of those who sat LC Biology in 2018 failed to get 30% after the first round of corrections....the marks were adjusted to bring that down to 14% !!! A weaker JC will lead to a much weaker LC in the years to come

Thats why they'll have to change the LCert, these new 'independent learners' won't be able to do it!

r93kaey5p2izun

Icsics wrote: »

Thats why they'll have to change the LCert, these new 'independent learners' won't be able to do it!

They will know nothing but it's ok, they will be very skilful to make up for it - excellent critical thinkers. Of course the fact they will have little to no content knowledge about which to think critically is a slight drawback, but they'll have a certificate to say they took a module in metacognition and know about thinking about information, should they ever learn any.

acequion

RealJohn wrote: »

I don’t really have a problem with some points for 30%+ in a HL paper,

I do. Anything under 40% is a fail and a fail shouldn't be rewarded with points imo. It also means that students persist with HL when there are completely below the standard. It's more dumbing down and makes a mockery of standards.

maynooth_rules

Icsics wrote: »

Yes equality for all means no one 'fails'....instead the good, bad & indifferent are lumped in together in these 'bands'.
I had to tell a 5th yr that he actually failed English last yr, he was genuinely surprised. He only saw the 'achieved' part, 'partially' didn't register at all :rolleyes:

It's horrendously phrased. I've never seen a kid who worked well fáil the JC. Those that fail deserve to fail. Let's stop sugar coating it. All it does is lower the achievement of those who work so hard by using these jargon terms rather than our usual A, B, Cs