Circular Number: 0037/2020

ngunners

Lindsey Happy Asphalt wrote: »

Genuinely confused as to what you mean by ‘applying them’.

My rationale is extremely fair to each student.

I simply assume that each student has ‘every accommodation’ to enable them to perform to the best of their ability- reader, scribe,whatever.

Therefore, I tick yes for everybody . Simple.

Explain clearly why you feel it’s vital to know the specific accommodations for specific students.

This is not equitable. All students may do better with a scribe. Only some students are entitled to one.

6am7f9zxrsjvnb

ngunners wrote: »

This is not equitable. All students may do better with a scribe. Only some students are entitled to one.

It’s perfectly equitable. I know what my students’ strengths and weaknesses are. They’re not strangers to me.

Ticking that box is me simply assuming they have everything they need to perform to their optimum on the day.

I raised this issue with the Principal last Tuesday when I handed in my results. The two vice principals were also present.

If they get back to me over my decision, I’ll happily admit as such here.

rainbowtrout

RealJohn wrote: »

Teachers can be trusted to take account of students with reasonable accommodations. They can’t be trusted to do it consistently or accurately, any more than they can for any other part of this farcical process, but they can be trusted to do it.

That's contradictory. You're saying they can be trusted to do it but not trusted to do it properly. It's very simple, you get a list of students with RA. So they're on the list or not. If they're not, then the 'does not apply' box is ticked. If they're on it, then the 'yes' box is ticked and the RA is applied where appropriate.

rainbowtrout

Lindsey Happy Asphalt wrote: »

It’s not up to teachers to check if individual students are receiving accommodations. I told my principal I ticked yes for all and he just nodded.
Our understanding was that it just assumes that each student would have what they need for the exam. e.g. a scribe, a reader...chewing gum. Whatever will help them perform to their optimum.
As I say , I ticked yes for all and I don’t expect to get a call over it.

And this is why teachers shouldn't be grading students.

Reasonable Accommodations has a very clear meaning in the Junior Cert/Leaving Cert context. It does not mean all students get it and it does not mean that having chewing gum during the exam is an RA.

Mardy Bum

Lindsey Happy Asphalt wrote: »

It’s perfectly equitable. I know what my students’ strengths and weaknesses are. They’re not strangers to me.

Ticking that box is me simply assuming they have everything they need to perform to their optimum on the day.

I raised this issue with the Principal last Tuesday when I handed in my results. The two vice principals were also present.

If they get back to me over my decision, I’ll happily admit as such here.

Ticking the YES box is to show you have acknowledged the difference between students who have access to RA and those that don't. That is the only reason why it is on the form. It was supposed to remind teachers to check. Not applicable is for those who don't have access.

km79

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Ticking the YES box is to show you have acknowledged the difference between students who have access to RA and those that don't. That is the only reason why it is on the form. It was supposed to remind teachers to check. Not applicable is for those who don't have access.

I am genuinely surprised at the amount of discussion on this .
That’s what I took it to mean immediately. Double checked in guidelines to be sure .

Ticking Yes on all May have been seen as acceptable by some principals. That doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do !

RealJohn

rainbowtrout wrote: »

That's contradictory. You're saying they can be trusted to do it but not trusted to do it properly. It's very simple, you get a list of students with RA. So they're on the list or not. If they're not, then the 'does not apply' box is ticked. If they're on it, then the 'yes' box is ticked and the RA is applied where appropriate.

It’s not contradictory at all, because I’m referring to trust in two different capacities. In both cases, I trust teachers to do their best. In both cases too, I don’t trust teachers to do it competently, because they can’t.

I’m a very experienced examiner. I have a colleague who’s newly graduated and has just finished her first year teaching. I have another colleague who is teaching a few years now (and has also worked as an examiner), but to be frank, isn’t much good. All three of us can be trusted to give our students predicted grades, and to take reasonable accommodations into account. All three of us will also do that to varying degrees of competence. Nobody knows which of us will do it best, but we definitely won’t do it the same. That’s my point.

I trust every teacher to take RAs into account (as much as I trust them on uncertified sick leave and undocumented Croke Park hours). I don’t trust any teacher to accurately predict their students’ grades, and even less so with the added variable of RAs, because it’s impossible for them (or anyone else) to do.
Clearer?

Mardy Bum

km79 wrote: »

I am genuinely surprised at the amount of discussion on this .
That’s what I took it to mean immediately. Double checked in guidelines to be sure .

Ticking Yes on all May have been seen as acceptable by some principals. That doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do !

I think issues will arise if there is an appeal.

r93kaey5p2izun

Lindsey Happy Asphalt wrote: »

Genuinely confused as to what you mean by ‘applying them’.

My rationale is extremely fair to each student.

I simply assume that each student has ‘every accommodation’ to enable them to perform to the best of their ability- reader, scribe,whatever.

Therefore, I tick yes for everybody . Simple.

Explain clearly why you feel it’s vital to know the specific accommodations for specific students.

But in reality each student would not have every accommodation to enable them to perform to the best of their ability! I have taught many students who would have performed much better with a reader or scribe, but they were not approved for one. They would need to be graded on the basis of not having one, not on the basis that these accommodations would enable them to do their best!

Leftwaffe

Quick query. Say a teacher in the school has 2 class groups for the same subject, example english. In each class group there is a mix of both higher and ordinary students.

Would the class Id’s for these two groups be as follows:

A1
A2
B1
B2

I think I’m right but up to my eyeballs in paperwork here. Just making sure.

solerina

km79 wrote: »

Of course it is .
How are you going to take this into account when giving your predicted grade if you don’t know whether they would be entitled to RACE or not ?

We were sent a list of the students who had qualified for RACE by our SENCO and what exactly they were entitled to eg special centre - so no real need to make any grade alteration but with a reader/scribe etc then take that into consideration when predicting their grade. It is every teachers job this year to remember this for the students who have entitlements. I ticked not applicable for this except for the small few students that had RACE granted.

Polka_Dot

I'm only a PME but I'm a bit shocked at the discussion above and that teachers would not have been made aware of reasonable accommodations. As others have pointed out, if you were not aware that a student had e.g. a scribe, how can you have accurately predicted a grade for them? Also surely most students would have had these accommodations at the time of the mocks (I'm aware some can take time), so it should have been known from then.

byhookorbycrook

Polka_Dot wrote: »

I'm only a PME but I'm a bit shocked at the discussion above and that teachers would not have been made aware of reasonable accommodations. As others have pointed out, if you were not aware that a student had e.g. a scribe, how can you have accurately predicted a grade for them? Also surely most students would have had these accommodations at the time of the mocks (I'm aware some can take time), so it should have been known from then.

Not all additional needs qualify for RACE . A teacher will be aware of the needs , but the RACE qualification can be narrow , so a list is always good .

Inspector Coptoor

Lindsey Happy Asphalt wrote: »

It’s not up to teachers to check if individual students are receiving accommodations. I told my principal I ticked yes for all and he just nodded.
Our understanding was that it just assumes that each student would have what they need for the exam. e.g. a scribe, a reader...chewing gum. Whatever will help them perform to their optimum.
As I say , I ticked yes for all and I don’t expect to get a call over it.

I agree it’s not up to the subject teachers to check but they should be given a list of who does qualify and only those students should have the RA box ticked yes.
All other students should have the NA box ticked.

Some students are given extra time and rest breaks and a shared Centre and are the same students who would leave after half an hour.

Others have a reader and a scribe and would do better with this help than without it.

I can’t get my head around you ticking the yes box for all students.
Totally inequitable

Treppen

RealJohn wrote: »

The fact that teachers can read a list and check a box proves nothing other than that they have the list.

Yes but the fact that some teachers can't discriminate between those that have and have not RA by blindly ticking yes for EVERY student, is worse than those who take the time to differentiate by ticking the box appropriately.

No RA --} write N/A
Yes RA --} write Yes

How hard is that?

Notorious

Treppen wrote: »

Yes but the fact that some teachers can't discriminate between those that have and have not RA by blindly ticking yes for EVERY student, is worse than those who take the time to differentiate by ticking the box appropriately.

No RA --} write N/A
Yes RA --} write Yes

How hard is that?

I don't understand how this isn't straight forward? IMO the teacher should have been informed of any assistance a student would receive. Is that not commonplace in a school? We're only a small school but we're always informed of assistance given to students.

6am7f9zxrsjvnb

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

I agree it’s not up to the subject teachers to check but they should be given a list of who does qualify and only those students should have the RA box ticked yes.
All other students should have the NA box ticked.

Some students are given extra time and rest breaks and a shared Centre and are the same students who would leave after half an hour.

Others have a reader and a scribe and would do better with this help than without it.

I can’t get my head around you ticking the yes box for all students.
Totally inequitable

Not really when you consider I visited the staff share folder for our RACE candidates on more than one occasion and as recently as April to confirm that NONE of my students qualified for accommodations.

It could be argued that I should have ticked ‘Not Applicable’ for everyone instead. Fair enough.

Either way, the wording is open to interpretation.

r93kaey5p2izun

Trust in the teacher would not be my concern. Some schools treat RACE and even SEN diagnoses like a state secret and don't routinely share the info with teachers. It's utterly ridiculous, but it is common enough in my experience. RACE can also be granted quite late in the day. My concern isn't that teachers would deliberately ignore RAs, but that they may not be aware of it for whatever reason. I think it's in the teacher's best interests to have it clear on their forms whether or not they have been made aware of RAs.

RealJohn

Treppen wrote: »

Yes but the fact that some teachers can't discriminate between those that have and have not RA by blindly ticking yes for EVERY student, is worse than those who take the time to differentiate by ticking the box appropriately.

No RA --} write N/A
Yes RA --} write Yes

How hard is that?

What it says beside the box is

I have based my estimate on the assumption that any approved reasonable accommodations would have been made available.”

It is perfectly acceptable to answer yes to that sentence, whether the student is entitled to reasonable accommodations or not. It says “... any approved reasonable accommodations would ...”, so it gives you two conditions there. I happen to know (as I imagine most of us do) that students who think they should be entitled to reasonable accommodations apply for them and sometimes get rejected, therefore, this section could (conditional) apply to every student. ‘Not applicable’ can really only apply in the case of students we know did not apply. We are, however, not entitled to know if someone applied and was rejected (GDPR, etc.), so the safest, and most logical course of action is to tick ‘yes’ for everyone.

Now, you could definitely argue that what it should say is something like

This candidate has been approved for certain reasonable accommodations, and I have based my estimate on the assumption that these reasonable accommodations would have been made available.

and then, ‘yes’ or ‘not applicable’ would make sense, but that isn’t what it says.

When I ticked ‘yes’ for everyone, what it meant was either ‘yes, and I took the approved reasonable accommodations for this candidate into account’, or ‘yes, but this candidate was not approved for any reasonable accommodations’. In both cases, ‘yes’ is appropriate, based on the wording of the section.

RealJohn

Legend Numerous Fig wrote: »

Trust in the teacher would not be my concern. Some schools treat RACE and even SEN diagnoses like a state secret and don't routinely share the info with teachers. It's utterly ridiculous, but it is common enough in my experience. RACE can also be granted quite late in the day. My concern isn't that teachers would deliberately ignore RAs, but that they may not be aware of it for whatever reason. I think it's in the teacher's best interests to have it clear on their forms whether or not they have been made aware of RAs.

I think the form puts the onus on teachers to make sure they’re aware of any reasonable accommodations. You can’t (in good conscience) tick either box without knowing who is entitled and who’s not. Again, it comes back to professional integrity, but it also means you’re risking showing yourself up in front of management and, in the case of an appeal, potentially the whole school community, if you tick ‘not applicable’ when it is. If you tick yes, it’s still reminding you that the candidate might have reasonable accommodations, and you’d better check before you fill out the form.

LW2018

Redordeadqwwer wrote: »

Quick query. Say a teacher in the school has 2 class groups for the same subject, example english. In each class group there is a mix of both higher and ordinary students.

Would the class Id’s for these two groups be as follows:

A1
A2
B1
B2

I think I’m right but up to my eyeballs in paperwork here. Just making sure.

Yes this is correct. The portal actually isn't the worst. I've began entering the data today to test the system and see what it was like. I've an option subject with 4 class groups (HL and OL mixed) so I have A1/B1/C1/D1 and A2/B2/C2/D2 even though there is only 1 student taking OL in these classes

RealJohn

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I think issues will arise if there is an appeal.

How do you figure? The only issues that could arise on appeal would be in the event that someone who has approved reasonable accommodations has nothing applicable’ ticked on their form. They’re not entitled to see anyone else’s forms, so unless their pal also appeals, picks up on it, and mentions it (which seems unlikely), I don’t see how ticking ‘yes’ for everyone would affect appeals, one way or the other.

And if someone has RAs, and someone ticks the wrong box, surely whoever’s checking the forms in the school before they’re submitted should pick up on it?

Mardy Bum

RealJohn wrote: »

How do you figure? The only issues that could arise on appeal would be in the event that someone who has approved reasonable accommodations has nothing applicable’ ticked on their form. They’re not entitled to see anyone else’s forms, so unless their pal also appeals, picks up on it, and mentions it (which seems unlikely), I don’t see how ticking ‘yes’ for everyone would affect appeals, one way or the other.

And if someone has RAs, and someone ticks the wrong box, surely whoever’s checking the forms in the school before they’re submitted should pick up on it?

The wrong box is ticked so it may be an issue with a sticky parent - " My child did not have access to RA! Why did the teacher even consider that."

I agree with you that it does read ambiguously.

RealJohn

I think the easy out there is for whoever’s overseeing the appeal to say that it’s supposed to be ticked for everyone. No issue then, and as I said, and you agree, it’s certainly not clear that it should only be ‘yes’ if they are entitled to RAs.

Treppen

RealJohn wrote: »

What it says beside the box is

It is perfectly acceptable to answer yes to that sentence, whether the student is entitled to reasonable accommodations or not. It says “... any approved reasonable accommodations would ...”, so it gives you two conditions there. I happen to know (as I imagine most of us do) that students who think they should be entitled to reasonable accommodations apply for them and sometimes get rejected, therefore, this section could (conditional) apply to every student. ‘Not applicable’ can really only apply in the case of students we know did not apply. We are, however, not entitled to know if someone applied and was rejected (GDPR, etc.), so the safest, and most logical course of action is to tick ‘yes’ for everyone.

Now, you could definitely argue that what it should say is something like

and then, ‘yes’ or ‘not applicable’ would make sense, but that isn’t what it says.

When I ticked ‘yes’ for everyone, what it meant was either ‘yes, and I took the approved reasonable accommodations for this candidate into account’, or ‘yes, but this candidate was not approved for any reasonable accommodations’. In both cases, ‘yes’ is appropriate, based on the wording of the section.

That's a fair point

mirrorwall14

ETB school here and we have been told very clearly both in a staff meeting and in writing

Students with no RACE tick not applicable
Students with RACE accommodations (eg spelling and grammar waiver) that do not apply to your subject tick not applicable
Students with RACE accommodations that apply to your subject tick yes

rainbowtrout

Lindsey Happy Asphalt wrote: »

Not really when you consider I visited the staff share folder for our RACE candidates on more than one occasion and as recently as April to confirm that NONE of my students qualified for accommodations.

It could be argued that I should have ticked ‘Not Applicable’ for everyone instead. Fair enough.

Either way, the wording is open to interpretation.

It is in no way open to interpretation. It's laughable that you're still arguing that point.

RealJohn

rainbowtrout wrote: »

It is in no way open to interpretation. It's laughable that you're still arguing that point.

It definitely is.

ngunners

RealJohn wrote: »

It definitely is.

The form is open to interpretation but sheaP said ‘It’s not up to teachers to check if individual students are receiving accommodations.’ which is clearly incorrect.

Leftwaffe

ngunners wrote: »

The form is open to interpretation but sheaP said ‘It’s not up to teachers to check if individual students are receiving accommodations.’ which is clearly incorrect.

Correct. They absolutely should check if they have a reasonable accommodation. A lot of confusion over the wording of one or two questions on Form A.