The way forward for LC2021

rainbowtrout

How about this for a solution. Let the teachers make predicted grades for each and every student. Mark them out of 100 like last year. Have the students sit the exams. If the students score higher on the written exam obviously they keep that grade. If the predicted grade is higher by 5% then they can be awarded the predicted grade, if it is in a higher grade band. Anything else prediction wise is just pie in the sky.

rainbowtrout

History Queen wrote: »

Look up the #LC2022 on twitter, there's already calls not to forget about them.

noplacehere

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Totally off topic but I have JUST discovered Derry girls and binge watched the first two seasons in the last two weeks. It was AMAZING and I now totally understand this gif

History Queen

noplacehere wrote: »

Totally off topic but I have JUST discovered Derry girls and binge watched the first two seasons in the last two weeks. It was AMAZING and I now totally understand this gif

:pac::pac: :pac:

Also @rainbowtrout, my sentiments exactly! Now there's not a lot of them to be fair, but that's how it starts.

am_zarathustra

deiseindublin wrote: »

I don't know how two different bell curves can work? Do you make CG fit the bell curve, and the do same for those sitting exams? Honestly, it'll be a mess.

@Random sample - as much as I don't agree with or want a free pass for any cohort of students, I don't agree with your line on class of 22. LC20 and LC21 haven't chosen this option. A world pandemic and a badly prepared DES have foisted it upon them. Whatever solution of sorts that is announced might not be equitable with LC19 or LC22, depending on how long this goes on, but we are where we are, and a solution, however unequitable has to be found.

Lots of LCs would prefer to have had exams, along with a full year in school, 20k less CAO applicants, and next to no CAO points inflation - not to mention the sheer unpredictability of how they'll fare in CGs.

I really don't think it's any walk in the park for them, and the LC living here sure as hell wouldn't pick it.

That's what they did last year, they used a "standardising formula" to hit a standard curve until it looked mostly reasonable, with a little inflation and that's was fine. And it was they do for the exams every year normally. The issue if everyone doesn't sit the exams or get predictive grades is these curves could be off but will still need to be applied or grades go insane. We had 5 revsisions of the marking scheme the last time I corrected the LC before we got the curve.

My issue would be that if the downgrading is random, and it pretty much was late year from what I could see, then it's a risk not to take the exam if it's offered and you don't have your final PG then you are risking a downgrade, and there will be more this year, if they've any intention of not letting the points run away with themselves

deiseindublin

Yeah, I correct every year so know how tricky the bell curve can be.

Impossible to 'bell' CGs though. CGs aren't as reliable as the hard copy of a written exam that can be scrutinised to check that the MS was fairly applied. You have hard line markers, and just so markers, and give 'em all a H1 markers. Honestly, it's a mess.

I really HATE the idea of CG, as both a parent and as a teacher. No winners imo. I'd rather get what I'm due than take a chance on the system being fair, generous or downright unfair. After 2 years of hard graft, your result should be a lot more scientific.

r93kaey5p2izun

How would a small group choosing to sit exams be fit to the bell curve? It's unlikely a group choosing exams is representative of a normal population so the curve would be skewed in reality. Like, if its almost all high fliers who have legitimate expectation of a H1 who choose an exam, how could they allow for that?

am_zarathustra

That's the problem, last year they were standardising a single group, this year it may be two groups with an overlap if the media is to be believed or a set and a subset.

So student A is given a CG of 73% way too many H3s so downgraded are needed. After the high court ruling there may be even more issues with this but for now assume it's some gross calculation based on a national curve depending on JC predictions (and maybe schools history, remains to be seen) student A is unlucky. They get hit with a downgrade. They didn't sign up to sit the exams H4 it is

Student B, same situation as before but signed up for the exam and sat it. Got their 73% and get the grade. Or sat and got H4 and nothing changed, or H5 and still got to keep their downgraded H4.

Why wouldn't you sit the exam? It's worth a shot. Maybe a few looking for very high points or with a subject they really hate might drop one or two and opt for CG but it's not like they have anything else to do.

Without the "calculated" grade in front of them or a clear indication of weighting of factors I can't see how I could tell a student not to sit the exam to be honest. It could always go your way on the day. I did a question worth a quarter of a HL paper with a couple of students the day before a LC exam a few years ago, same diagram, same format, same numbers........the same question, a difficult one at that. All those kids went up a grades because they stayed behind after another exam to go through stuff with me. Exams can fall so many ways, it's worth a shot if there's no penalty surely

Obviously ignoring the 10% who don't want to be there at all

r93kaey5p2izun

How did they standardise the few sitting in November? What statistical process was applied? It can't have been the normal curve surely? I think it's ok in theory to apply the bell curve to predicted grades as a whole, the issue being how the individuals moved up or down are chosen. But I cannot see how the curve could apply to a small cohort who opted to sit an exam.

Wombatman

Nyla Worried Son wrote: »

How did they standardise the few sitting in November? What statistical process was applied? It can't have been the normal curve surely? I think it's ok in theory to apply the bell curve to predicted grades as a whole, the issue being how the individuals moved up or down are chosen. But I cannot see how the curve could apply to a small cohort who opted to sit an exam.

Yeah. In theory a successful PG standardisation model should be able to adjust grade inflation downward in line with grade distributions of previous years. Even if standardisation isn't successful in adjusting, CAO points will just rise to match the new point level.

The real problem is the edge cases that the standardisation model misrepresents, like an average student who is brilliant at one subject or a student who has progressed remarkably in a short space of time.

rainbowtrout

Nyla Worried Son wrote: »

How would a small group choosing to sit exams be fit to the bell curve? It's unlikely a group choosing exams is representative of a normal population so the curve would be skewed in reality. Like, if its almost all high fliers who have legitimate expectation of a H1 who choose an exam, how could they allow for that?

Looking at the stats I posted earlier that's quite likely, the number of students who sat chemistry is way out of whack with the rest of the subjects. 474 sat chemistry in November, 380 sat English. Typically 9500 take Chemistry each year, where 55k take English. I'd take a wild guess that quite a lot of those were going for high points courses like Medicine, Veterinary, Dentistry etc and banked on Chemistry being a course they could pull up a grade in.

Wombatman

am_zarathustra wrote: »

Why wouldn't you sit the exam? It's worth a shot. Maybe a few looking for very high points or with a subject they really hate might drop one or two and opt for CG but it's not like they have anything else to do.

The only reason the majority of students wouldn't sit exams, is if they have already received their PGs, and feel they have more than enough points for their CAO choices.

The department wants to swerve the difficulty and risk (might be another lockdown) of hosting large scale exams in a Covid world. They want reduced sittings to save on hosting and marking. This is why I believe that PG results will be awarded before students have to elect to sit exams.

Without knowledge of PG results before sitting exams, students would be beyond crazy not to sit exams in all their subjects. No matter how badly they are prepared, with PGs as a safety net, they have nothing to lose. I can't see DES wanting this. This is why they were promoting PGs and relegating exams, which lead the ASTI to walk, last week.

am_zarathustra

Do you think part of the walking was down to pushing the exams again? If LC is in June the kids will not have the grades so most will sit the exams and then it's all a bit self defeating.......but it'll be obvious which kids deserved what grades and which teachers over/under predicted (and I use the word lightly)

I'm not sure, timeline wise, both can happen by June, maybe that's the sticking point for the ASTI. And if calculated grades do start even earlier than last year foni cut contact with kids. That's going to be another sticking point.

There are so many more issues with this than last year.

am_zarathustra

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Looking at the stats I posted earlier that's quite likely, the number of students who sat chemistry is way out of whack with the rest of the subjects. 474 sat chemistry in November, 380 sat English. Typically 9500 take Chemistry each year, where 55k take English. I'd take a wild guess that quite a lot of those were going for high points courses like Medicine, Veterinary, Dentistry etc and banked on Chemistry being a course they could pull up a grade in.

Actually the breakdown of grades is on examinations.ie

24% of students who sat the winter biology paper got a H1. Clearly it was worth their while given that all of them had to be upgrades.


Actually I just did another calculation. By their nature all H1/O1 grades achieved in the winter LC were upgrades as no one would have sat an exam that already had a Grade 1. Going by the spreadsheet, across all subjects (and levels) there were 571 grade 1s. There were 4698 grades awarded in total across all subjects and levels. So Grade 1s account for 12% of all grades awarded. I think the reports in the media said that 40% of grades were upgrades, which is about 1879 grades overall. So those H1s/O1s are a significant portion of that. 30% to be exact.

As predicted a lot of students sitting that exam were medicine/vet/physio bound. Harsh again for this year's and next year's points race, it's such a bad system

rainbowtrout

am_zarathustra wrote: »

As predicted a lot of students sitting that exam were medicine/vet/physio bound. Harsh again for this year's and next year's points race, it's such a bad system

Ya, Chemistry being such an outlier there certainly points that way.

Morris Garren

Having listened to the news yesterday I think I heard the reporter say that the ISSU are also involved in the current LC negotiations. If I understand that literally, does it mean that some Leaving Cert students are actually sitting in Government Buildings around a table with the other stakeholders? All the stress of the current situation would make double jobbing like that really challenging I would presume. Or are they involved at some remote level?

Wanderer78

Morris Garren wrote:

Having listened to the news yesterday I think I heard the reporter say that the ISSU are also involved in the current LC negotiations. If I understand that literally, does it mean that some Leaving Cert students are actually sitting in Government Buildings around a table with the other stakeholders? All the stress of the current situation would make double jobbing like that really challenging I would presume. Or are they involved at some remote level?

Fair play to them if they are, it's their futures, what do us adults know about what they want

km79

Morris Garren wrote: »

Having listened to the news yesterday I think I heard the reporter say that the ISSU are also involved in the current LC negotiations. If I understand that literally, does it mean that some Leaving Cert students are actually sitting in Government Buildings around a table with the other stakeholders? All the stress of the current situation would make double jobbing like that really challenging I would presume. Or are they involved at some remote level?

I would assume all parties except the Minister are not in the buildings. They meet remotely

shesty

Morris Garren wrote: »

Having listened to the news yesterday I think I heard the reporter say that the ISSU are also involved in the current LC negotiations. If I understand that literally, does it mean that some Leaving Cert students are actually sitting in Government Buildings around a table with the other stakeholders? All the stress of the current situation would make double jobbing like that really challenging I would presume. Or are they involved at some remote level?

They might just be getting updates for comment, either.

Random sample

Such absolute rubbish here from Brian Mooney. https://www.newstalk.com/news/convincing-teachers-to-sign-up-for-leaving-cert-duties-this-summer-will-be-a-huge-problem-1151033?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3hQtDoH_QPNH2SaN2q2ZdMAiAmoNBgSMhs1cLwSp1xXUCAwLZ6htImlkk#Echobox=1613464969 Why not advertise for examiners and bleat about teachers being unwilling to do the work if they can’t be found?

As for the weekly tests and body of work.... I didn’t have time for weekly tests, I was preparing my students for a leaving cert.

Barbeapapa

"I can’t get my head around giving everyone a free pass, when in 2019 a concession was to get 3 days off if your mother died during the exams."

But a) we have not lived through a pandemic before. Nothing is normal. These young people (in my experience) are missing any downtime from study, missing normal socialising. There is no comparison to 2019.
And most importantly b) it was never acceptable that if someone died or a student got sick they had to repeat the year or accept missing out. This was always a flawed aspect to the LC.

In 2019 I went on holiday, hugged friends and family, travelled wherever I could afford and never wore a mask. There is no comparison and it takes away from the very valid discussion of how best to handle the exams in 2021.

Also, in my experience, the leaving certs I know are working away but if predictive grades will get them their college entry then they are delighted to take that route. More to do with wanting to be able to focus on something other than exam study/believe there will be a better future than their present than being lazy or chancers. There's a tone of derision towards 6th year students on this thread. The students didn't opt for this situation and want a resolution as much as everyone else. Who wouldn't want the least stress option. Everyone has been short changed by this pandemic, giving one group a boost or a "pass" shouldn't be begrudged by other groups.

Treppen

History Queen wrote: »

Look up the #LC2022 on twitter, there's already calls not to forget about them.

Ok, so far I think I'm not supposed to be forgetting about these groups:

#JC2020
#LC2020
#JC2021
#LC2021
#LC2022

That's just the exam years... Lest we forget:

#1stYear2020
#TY2020
#2ndYears2020
.
.
.
.
.
.
#WontSomebodyEverThinkOfTheTeachersWeCanNeverLeaveThisHollywoodSequalTrainCrash

Random sample

Barbeapapa wrote: »

"I can’t get my head around giving everyone a free pass, when in 2019 a concession was to get 3 days off if your mother died during the exams."

But a) we have not lived through a pandemic before. Nothing is normal. These young people (in my experience) are missing any downtime from study, missing normal socialising. There is no comparison to 2019.
And most importantly b) it was never acceptable that if someone died or a student got sick they had to repeat the year or accept missing out. This was always a flawed aspect to the LC.

In 2019 I went on holiday, hugged friends and family, travelled wherever I could afford and never wore a mask. There is no comparison and it takes away from the very valid discussion of how best to handle the exams in 2021.

Also, in my experience, the leaving certs I know are working away but if predictive grades will get them their college entry then they are delighted to take that route. More to do with wanting to be able to focus on something other than exam study/believe there will be a better future than their present than being lazy or chancers. There's a tone of derision towards 6th year students on this thread. The students didn't opt for this situation and want a resolution as much as everyone else. Who wouldn't want the least stress option. Everyone has been short changed by this pandemic, giving one group a boost or a "pass" shouldn't be begrudged by other groups.

But that’s your experience. Not everyone went on holiday in 2019, not everyone had downtime and socialised. My point is that when a minority had difficult times we offered them a very limited concession. Now that it affects more people it has been decided that limited concessions are not enough.

Some students went to Athlone to sit exams in late June 2019 because they were too sick themselves to sit an exam, or because they had lost a parent during the exams. If that was acceptable then and will be acceptable again next year then I think it should be acceptable this year for students who are not directly in danger in June to sit an exam, especially if it is shorter and with more choice.

Treppen

Barbeapapa wrote: »

Also, in my experience, the leaving certs I know are working away but if predictive grades will get them their college entry then they are delighted to take that route. More to do with wanting to be able to focus on something other than exam study/believe there will be a better future than their present than being lazy or chancers. There's a tone of derision towards 6th year students on this thread. The students didn't opt for this situation and want a resolution as much as everyone else. Who wouldn't want the least stress option. Everyone has been short changed by this pandemic, giving one group a boost or a "pass" shouldn't be begrudged by other groups.

What do you mean by giving a group a boost or a "pass".... Like just giving them a make up grade and not asking them to sit an exam even if it's possible to run?

Put it this way, a student on RTE last night said "I don't even know whether to keep learning or not".

Students have only one solution at the moment, keep learning. Yes, done have done many continuous small tests.. but many have not.

Wombatman

Random sample wrote: »

But that’s your experience. Not everyone went on holiday in 2019, not everyone had downtime and socialised. My point is that when a minority had difficult times we offered them a very limited concession. Now that it affects more people it has been decided that limited concessions are not enough.

Some students went to Athlone to sit exams in late June 2019 because they were too sick themselves to sit an exam, or because they had lost a parent during the exams. If that was acceptable then and will be acceptable again next year then I think it should be acceptable this year for students who are not directly in danger in June to sit an exam, especially if it is shorter and with more choice.

Appels and oranges. The 2019 students would have received the required quantity of class based teaching hours to prepare them to sit a LC.

km79

Treppen wrote: »

Ok, so far I think I'm not supposed to be forgetting about these groups:

#JC2020
#LC2020
#JC2021
#LC2021
#LC2022

That's just the exam years... Lest we forget:

#1stYear2020
#TY2020
#2ndYears2020
.
.
.
.
.
.
#WontSomebodyEverThinkOfTheTeachersWeCanNeverLeaveThisHollywoodSequalTrainCrash

All joking aside last years 1st years are the worst affected imo
They haven’t had one full year of a “normal “ Secondary school experience .

Random sample

Wombatman wrote: »

Appels and oranges. The 2019 students would have received the required quantity of class based teaching hours to prepare them to sit a LC.

You think a child with a dying parent makes all classes?

am_zarathustra

Random sample wrote: »

But that’s your experience. Not everyone went on holiday in 2019, not everyone had downtime and socialised. My point is that when a minority had difficult times we offered them a very limited concession. Now that it affects more people it has been decided that limited concessions are not enough.

Some students went to Athlone to sit exams in late June 2019 because they were too sick themselves to sit an exam, or because they had lost a parent during the exams. If that was acceptable then and will be acceptable again next year then I think it should be acceptable this year for students who are not directly in danger in June to sit an exam, especially if it is shorter and with more choice.

Absolutely the situations many of the students I have taught over the years is far worse than the reality the majority are living through now. No one made consessions for them them was the point the poster was making. I have relatives sitting the LC, they should be fine, they have safe and supportive homes, everything they need, access to as many resources as they like. This is not true for the students I teach. But this is true every year, not just this year. Just like additional needs and the lack of social care and S and L and physio etc is an issue every year. These are massive societal issue but they effect a minority so people don't care, not enough to make it an election issue anyway. Covid effects the majority so now we get temporary focus on these issues but only to push the agenda of the majority, it won't change voting patterns.

For most students sitting a modified exams is possible. For the ones that have been more negatively affected, in the vast majority of cases, the school will step in as usual and try and make up the shortfall that out social services should be addressing.

And the media have tens of thousands of current LC teachers who's opinion they could ask with their names hidden.......why they are asking a retired guidance counselor is bewildering

jimmytwotimes 2013

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1361612918320738304?s=19

He sounds so genuine. Pity this concern didn't extend itself to proper contingency planning since last Sept.

Wombatman

jimmytwotimes 2013 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1361612918320738304?s=19

He sounds so genuine. Pity this concern didn't extend itself to proper contingency planning since last Sept.

Clarity from Norma later this week: "I'd like to take this opportunity to make this very, very clear, we have no idea what we are going to do."

Smacruairi

We have consulted extensively with stakeholders and appreciate the mental wellbeing of our students and their supports. We will deliver clarity for those who want it and we want to assure everyone that we are working tirelessly to see their concerns tsckled.

End transmission.

There, saved you a week of speculation.

wirelessdude01

jimmytwotimes 2013 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1361612918320738304?s=19

He sounds so genuine. Pity this concern didn't extend itself to proper contingency planning since last Sept.

Clarity had been coming since Christmas. His mumbled garbage doesn't exactly fill anyone with confidence.

Rosita

Random sample wrote: »

Such absolute rubbish here from Brian Mooney. https://www.newstalk.com/news/convincing-teachers-to-sign-up-for-leaving-cert-duties-this-summer-will-be-a-huge-problem-1151033?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3hQtDoH_QPNH2SaN2q2ZdMAiAmoNBgSMhs1cLwSp1xXUCAwLZ6htImlkk#Echobox=1613464969 Why not advertise for examiners and bleat about teachers being unwilling to do the work if they can’t be found?

As for the weekly tests and body of work.... I didn’t have time for weekly tests, I was preparing my students for a leaving cert.

It'd be great to have the time to do these weekly tests some teachers do.

Rosita

By the looks of things we not be back in school as early on Monday morning next as the Sunday Independent thinks.

Covid-19: New variant with potentially worrying mutations found in UK

Variant detected in 10 countries, with 32 cases identified in United Kingdom, say researchers

Researchers at the University of Edinburgh say the new variant contains a worrying mutation that is thought to make the virus better able to evade neutralising antibodies produced by the body. File photograph: iStock
Researchers at the University of Edinburgh say the new variant contains a worrying mutation that is thought to make the virus better able to evade neutralising antibodies produced by the body. File photograph: iStock

Another coronavirus variant with a potentially worrying set of mutations has been detected in 10 countries, including the UK.

Researchers at the University of Edinburgh said the variant, known as B1525, has been detected through genome sequencing in countries including Denmark, the United States and Australia. Some 32 cases have been identified in the UK so far.

The earliest sequences were dated to December and cropped up in the UK and Nigeria, the scientists said.

The team reported the variant has similarities in its genome to the Kent variant, B117, and it contains a number of worrying mutations, including the E484K mutation to the spike protein – found on the outside of the virus that plays an important role in helping it enter cells.

This mutation is present in variants that emerged in South Africa and Brazil and is thought to make the virus better able to evade neutralising antibodies produced by the body.

Dr Simon Clarke, an associate professor of cellular microbiology at the University of Reading, said that while it was unclear what effect many of the mutations may have on the ability of the coronavirus to establish an infection or on the severity of disease, the presence of the E484K mutation was known in the South African variant to confer a degree of resistance to some vaccines.

“We don’t yet know how well this [new] variant will spread, but if it is successful it can be presumed that immunity from any vaccine or previous infection will be blunted,” he said.

Surge testing

Dr Clarke added that the new variant should be included in efforts to boost testing to pick up variants of concern: “I think that until we know more about these variants, any variants which carry E484K should be subject to surge testing as it seems to confer resistance to immunity, however that is generated.”

Surge testing is the rollout of additional community testing of people who do not have symptoms of coronavirus, with the aim of helping scientists learn more about different variants of Covid-19.

Prof Ravi Gupta, a professor of clinical microbiology at the University of Cambridge, agreed surge testing for the new variant was warranted. He said as well as the E484K mutation, the variant had another change “that likely helps it escape from our antibodies”.

But Prof Jonathan Stoye, a group leader at the Francis Crick Institute, said that while the variant was clearly spreading, surge testing had problems, including that those most at risk of spreading Covid may not come forward, for example because they cannot afford financially to test positive.

Prof Stoye said it was not surprising that the new variant contained some familiar mutations. “The minute you start putting selection pressure on this virus, you start selecting particularly for things that give it the ability to escape immune responses, and I think that is what we are seeing here,” he said.

Vaccine tweaks

But the discovery that several variants of concern share the same mutations means tweaks to the current Covid vaccines would be expected to offer protection against multiple new variants. “This [E484K] change seems to be the key change at the moment to allow escape, so that’s the one you put into the tweaked vaccine,” said Prof Stoye.

Dr Lucy van Dorp, from the Genetics Institute at University College London, said rapid detection of new variants was crucial. “One of the major advantages of genomic surveillance is to pick up lineages of potential concern early, while still at low frequency, to allow quick assessment and evaluation of their impact and prevalence in other regions of the world,” she said. – Guardian

wirelessdude01

RTE reporting 6th year back on March the 1st.

Pringles123

"The department plans for a phased return on the 1st of March"

The department plans a lot of things. Half of them dont happen. Again another useless article. Just announce what has been agreed when it has been agreed on. I no longer want to hear about what Norma Foley thinks is going to happen.

am_zarathustra

I remember when the news would report things and I would assume they were based on facts in the real world. This doesn't apply to anything they have published on this mess. 1st of March is a reasonable date provided the numbers keep reducing and it's only 6th years and provided they will now be giving out proper ppe. N95 masks are expensive, I have bought a few but they aren't something staff should be expected to provide.......although neither is paper or markers or sports gear or food but that's never stopped it being the schools problem I suppose

rainbowtrout

Barbeapapa wrote: »

"I can’t get my head around giving everyone a free pass, when in 2019 a concession was to get 3 days off if your mother died during the exams."

But a) we have not lived through a pandemic before. Nothing is normal. These young people (in my experience) are missing any downtime from study, missing normal socialising. There is no comparison to 2019.
And most importantly b) it was never acceptable that if someone died or a student got sick they had to repeat the year or accept missing out. This was always a flawed aspect to the LC.

In 2019 I went on holiday, hugged friends and family, travelled wherever I could afford and never wore a mask. There is no comparison and it takes away from the very valid discussion of how best to handle the exams in 2021.

Also, in my experience, the leaving certs I know are working away but if predictive grades will get them their college entry then they are delighted to take that route. More to do with wanting to be able to focus on something other than exam study/believe there will be a better future than their present than being lazy or chancers. There's a tone of derision towards 6th year students on this thread. The students didn't opt for this situation and want a resolution as much as everyone else. Who wouldn't want the least stress option. Everyone has been short changed by this pandemic, giving one group a boost or a "pass" shouldn't be begrudged by other groups.

Working towards an exam has value. Whether they like it or not, students that go on to college next year will possibly have some of it online, like this year's cohort who had almost everything online. There won't be a fallback of 'give us predicted grades'. Universities will not be giving predicted grades. They will give exams and other forms of assessment like online MCQs and projects etc. And students will be expected to study and complete the assessments. If they don't do them they will fail.

It may not be a normal year, but they do have to learn to adapt to online learning in the medium term. Also, if they down tools this early in response to predicted grades they may learn a whole lot less this year in LC, which may impact them in college next year in those subject areas.

E.g. if you go into a Science degree, in first year you will generally do physics, chemistry, biology and maths modules. There will always be a large group of students who only studied one of the three sciences, and a smaller number who studied two of them. So the crash course of what is essentially the entire LC course is covered in the first semester and a bit more is completed in each of the three. Students with a good grounding in one or two of them can devote some extra time to the new subject as they are familiar with the material on the ones they did for LC. Not so next year if their knowlege is weak because they didn't finish they course as they opted for a predicted grade.

Rosita

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

RTE reporting 6th year back on March the 1st.

Where did you see that? Saw a report on the RTÉ website with usual "phased return" thing which is up there with "acknowledging", "providing clarity", "giving priority", and "in terms of" as part of the standard verbal kit. But it stops short of saying 6th years back on March 1st.

shesty

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Working towards an exam has value. Whether they like it or not, students that go on to college next year will possibly have some of it online, like this year's cohort who had almost everything online. There won't be a fallback of 'give us predicted grades'. Universities will not be giving predicted grades. They will give exams and other forms of assessment like online MCQs and projects etc. And students will be expected to study and complete the assessments. If they don't do them they will fail.

It may not be a normal year, but they do have to learn to adapt to online learning in the medium term. Also, if they down tools this early in response to predicted grades they may learn a whole lot less this year in LC, which may impact them in college next year in those subject areas.

E.g. if you go into a Science degree, in first year you will generally do physics, chemistry, biology and maths modules. There will always be a large group of students who only studied one of the three sciences, and a smaller number who studied two of them. So the crash course of what is essentially the entire LC course is covered in the first semester and a bit more is completed in each of the three. Students with a good grounding in one or two of them can devote some extra time to the new subject as they are familiar with the material on the ones they did for LC. Not so next year if their knowlege is weak because they didn't finish they course as they opted for a predicted grade.

To be honest though Rainbow Trout - while obviously I can understand PG affect teachers because they have to set them, and I personally do not think they are the solution - once they get to college they are adults and have to learn to cope or fall. You can't be responsible for that in the here and now. And to be fair, I don't think you take responsibility for it, but I guess at the end of the day if there is a cohort who chose PG for the easy life, then that falls on them and it's a life lesson for them to learn.

Wombatman

rainbowtrout wrote: »

It may not be a normal year, but they do have to learn to adapt to online learning in the medium term. Also, if they down tools this early in response to predicted grades they may learn a whole lot less this year in LC, which may impact them in college next year in those subject areas.

Tell that to a student with zero internet, out in the sticks in Donegal, who wouldn't dream of signing up to an online course.

rainbowtrout

shesty wrote: »

To be honest though Rainbow Trout - while obviously I can understand PG affect teachers because they have to set them, and I personally do not think they are the solution - once they get to college they are adults and have to learn to cope or fall. You can't be responsible for that in the here and now. And to be fair, I don't think you take responsibility for it, but I guess at the end of the day if there is a cohort who chose PG for the easy life, then that falls on them and it's a life lesson for them to learn.

Oh I agree with that, and there has always been a cohort of people across society who will take the easy way out, but it has a greater knock on effect down the line if it becomes the dominant way of thinking. There was a post on here last week of someone reporting that their son was in an IT and 50% of the first years had dropped out so far this year. There is an opportunity in school to teach some level of resilience and personal responsibility to students, which can help them to thrive in college.

rainbowtrout

Wombatman wrote: »

Tell that to a student with zero internet, out in the sticks in Donegal, who wouldn't dream of signing up to an online course.

No one here can solve the poor infrastructure of this country. Students who want to attend third level have two options: attend in person or attend online. Currently option 1 is not available.

And as you clearly know, that's not the point I was making.

shesty

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Oh I agree with that, and there has always been a cohort of people across society who will take the easy way out, but it has a greater knock on effect down the line if it becomes the dominant way of thinking. There was a post on here last week of someone reporting that their son was in an IT and 50% of the first years had dropped out so far this year. There is an opportunity in school to teach some level of resilience and personal responsibility to students, which can help them to thrive in college.

Yes, that was my post. I agree, and actually I was only thinking this morning that it would be nice..."nice" .... if the Department were also considering how this year's plans might be used or shaped for use as a contingency for next year, in the event that things go pear-shaped on us again and taking the current cohort of 5th years into account......in which case leaning heavily towards the traditional exam would also be of benefit to them because overhauling the entire LC system under the current circumstances is not ideal. Too rushed and emergency planning.



However given that they are working under time pressure, and they are only doing it now instead of when it should have been done last summer, it is probably safe to assume that they haven't thought about next year at all.

km79

http://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1361764648094171144

Looks like the TUI are trying to get ahead of things again
I would say LC teachers will be predicting grades very soon and that orals , practicals etc are also going to go ahead

Smacruairi

The junior is done, finished. No way it goes ahead, and to be honest, can't see it ever happening again.

History Queen

Smacruairi wrote: »

The junior is done, finished. No way out goes ahead, and to be honest, can't see it ever happening again.

I'm thinking the same and horrified. Think of the financial savings. JCT would be repurposed in to training us how to assess our students and the CBAs would be put on steroids. The absolute horror.

Barbeapapa

Which would make sense given that the two principals interviewed on RADIO 1 this evening both said that the JC results could not be counted in any sort of predicted grades. Because lots of students didn't get their act together til 6th year 😮. Surely any education system depends on consistent work, not cramming like this would imply.

deiseindublin

Can only be counted on if you've been warned in advance that it's a possibility. You can't just change the goal posts after the event. Lots of teens, especially teen boys don't settle down to do a bit of work until end 5th or even 6th year.

If you're changing the goal posts, flag it in advance.

A real pity if JC exams cancelled long term, and JCT is put on speed, as HQ said above, the absolute horror.

Rosita

km79 wrote: »

http://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1361764648094171144

Looks like the TUI are trying to get ahead of things again
I would say LC teachers will be predicting grades very soon and that orals , practicals etc are also going to go ahead

Have to smile at the use of official-speak and how it distorts reality. I mean in this case the bit about (for JC 2020) teachers, including Deputy Principals and Principals, "successfully implemented alternative assessments".

It was in fact a farcically arranged online exam significantly lesser in value than any house exam they had ever sat in their time in school. That was no fault of anyone's but the language here makes it sounds a far more serious undertaking than it was.

A proper alternative to a sat state JC exam in June would hardly be citing last year as a guide. Unless of course we don't go back at all or a fourth wave closes schools again before May and it actually is the same scenario. Anyway, it's the least of our concerns at the moment, just thinking aloud.