Senior cycle review

Bobtheman

I do plan to make a submission. I have issues with the JC and do not want some of the trends transmitted onto the LC
The first trend is wellness which while I understand that we are interested in student well being - should not be at the expense of academic subjects. We are not social workers or social engineers. I have already remarked on this elsewhere.
The second trend is the lowering of standards and the steady march of continuous assessment. Project work is already riddled with over involved teachers and parents without the basic integrity of the exam up for grabs.
Any other ideas?
It's hard to read the consultation document as it's very obliquely written with broad statements that basically take a long time to say little.

amacca

Bobtheman wrote: »

It's hard to read the consultation document as it's very obliquely written with broad statements that basically take a long time to say little.

Do you mean bull****?

Would that be the plain simple way to describe what is happening?

When I read through the new junior cert "specification" (what a laugh - someone out there must be trolling, the document contains the least specificity for a description of an academic course I have ever seen) thats what springs to mind, its complete and utter bull**** which will lower standards while simultaneously increase pointless admin/box ticking/paper trail chasing. its there to obfuscate the fact this reform is simply justification for guys on 100k plus that have to be seen to be doing something. Change because it can't be left the same even if the change is detrimental to the system/outcomes etc.

I'd agree with what you say and hope it won't take 15/20 years before enough people spot that the emperor has no clothes. When you "engage" with this muck and "unpack" it what you find is a whole load of SFA but a massive potential increase in workload, its heading down the road of UK style 5 year burnout reporting on students "connectednes" and "wellbeing"

I wonder if any constructive feedback given will feed into reform at LC level or be brushed under the carpet, in the past real concerns I would have liked to raise were ignored or surveys etc had no scope for tackling any real issues/gave leading questions or had such a narrow scope they couldn't but give the results the survey makers intended......does anyone even bother to read comments section of them? never mind submissions disappearing into blackholes if they don't suit the program

to me their consultation process is simply 1) box ticking (we asked all the stakeholders), 2) rubber stamping (this is what the stakeholders wanted what more can we do) ......and the system is gamed so they get what they were aiming for anyway without having to take on board any concerns that they might have to adapt their thinking for.

What I'd like to see is a consultation process where the people giving the survey reading submissions have to leave it open ended and have to prove that they have noted and engaged with all the concerns raised by publishing what is submitted (so the people putting time and effort into responding know it didn't go in s bin somewhere) and a response to it......that way when "academic" research/budget concerns etc are quoted as justification these points can be examined for truth/accuracy etc

TheValeyard

So now that they have successfully ballsed up the Junior Cert, it's time to move onto the Leaving cert and really wreck things this time!

jam17032010

amacca wrote: »

Do you mean bull****?

Would that be the plain simple way to describe what is happening?

When I read through the new junior cert "specification" (what a laugh - someone out there must be trolling, the document contains the least specificity for a description of an academic course I have ever seen) thats what springs to mind, its complete and utter bull**** which will lower standards while simultaneously increase pointless admin/box ticking/paper trail chasing. its there to obfuscate the fact this reform is simply justification for guys on 100k plus that have to be seen to be doing something. Change because it can't be left the same even if the change is detrimental to the system/outcomes etc.

I'd agree with what you say and hope it won't take 15/20 years before enough people spot that the emperor has no clothes. When you "engage" with this muck and "unpack" it what you find is a whole load of SFA but a massive potential increase in workload, its heading down the road of UK style 5 year burnout reporting on students "connectednes" and "wellbeing"

I wonder if any constructive feedback given will feed into reform at LC level or be brushed under the carpet, in the past real concerns I would have liked to raise were ignored or surveys etc had no scope for tackling any real issues/gave leading questions or had such a narrow scope they couldn't but give the results the survey makers intended......does anyone even bother to read comments section of them? never mind submissions disappearing into blackholes if they don't suit the program

to me their consultation process is simply 1) box ticking (we asked all the stakeholders), 2) rubber stamping (this is what the stakeholders wanted what more can we do) ......and the system is gamed so they get what they were aiming for anyway without having to take on board any concerns that they might have to adapt their thinking for.

What I'd like to see is a consultation process where the people giving the survey reading submissions have to leave it open ended and have to prove that they have noted and engaged with all the concerns raised by publishing what is submitted (so the people putting time and effort into responding know it didn't go in s bin somewhere) and a response to it......that way when "academic" research/budget concerns etc are quoted as justification these points can be examined for truth/accuracy etc

Well said. I left a few criticisms in my submission, but like you said, they will never be addressed and will never see the light of day.

Also, those surveys are so biased and flawed. The question on "what % should be given to coursework" didn't have a 0% option. Minimum 10%. And there were many more leading questions and unsatisfactory options for answers.

The NCCA are not fit for purpose IMO.