Correcting 2021

am_zarathustra

Anyone got their letter yet? I don't really mind I guess, I know the conference dates at least but it's very late, I wonder how different that payments are?

History Queen

am_zarathustra wrote: »

Anyone got their letter yet? I don't really mind I guess, I know the conference dates at least but it's very late, I wonder how different that payments are?

I got a phone call last week asking me to correct. I had been told I was on a reserve list when I rang previously to see if I was going to be appointed. She said an appointment letter would be sent shortly, what 'shortly' means is anyone's guess.

Random sample

am_zarathustra wrote: »

Anyone got their letter yet? I don't really mind I guess, I know the conference dates at least but it's very late, I wonder how different that payments are?

Ive heard that there will be an extra payment equivalent to the admin fee (roughly €220) for the inconvenience of the change of routine this year. I think that’s to make up for the lack of an overnight. I don’t think there’ll be an advance this year either, since it usually covers expenses for the conference.

am_zarathustra

Random sample wrote: »

Ive heard that there will be an extra payment equivalent to the admin fee (roughly €220) for the inconvenience of the change of routine this year. I think that’s to make up for the lack of an overnight. I don’t think there’ll be an advance this year either, since it usually covers expenses for the conference.

Interesting the lack of an advance, usually it's so long til you get paid the advance is the only thing that keeps me going, feels at least a bit like I've earned something given the months before the actual money hits your account

They've been improving on payments though I guess and the lack of a JC might make them faster!

Treppen

am_zarathustra wrote: »

Interesting the lack of an advance, usually it's so long til you get paid the advance is the only thing that keeps me going, feels at least a bit like I've earned something given the months before the actual money hits your account

They've been improving on payments though I guess and the lack of a JC might make them faster!

One of the reasons I don't do marking anymore is the crazy delay in payment. I've never known any regular job where you slave away solid for 1 month & give up your weekends & be on call 24/7... Only to be paid over 2 months later.

Fiver says they won't be earlier with final payment.

Random sample

Treppen wrote: »

One of the reasons I don't do marking anymore is the crazy delay in payment. I've never known any regular job where you slave away solid for 1 month & give up your weekends & be on call 24/7... Only to be paid over 2 months later.

Fiver says they won't be earlier with final payment.

Flip side of that is that the work is long forgotten when the money comes in… it’s like a bonus!

am_zarathustra

Random sample wrote: »

Flip side of that is that the work is long forgotten when the money comes in… it’s like a bonus!

End of September in 2019...... it is a bit mad for a job you start at the end of June. I actually shouldn't have checked, I've forgotten how much the tax is and how much real cash you actually end up with! :rolleyes:

And I'd never bet against the incompetence of payments from any facet of the Department of Education. :pac:

Random sample

At one stage it was closer to the end of October, so I am conditioned to think pay in September is an improvement.

am_zarathustra

There was a fair amount of backslapping about it in 2019. Maybe the online marking does make things faster, the paperwork is less onerous and it's clearer what you've done I suppose.

rainbowtrout

am_zarathustra wrote: »

Interesting the lack of an advance, usually it's so long til you get paid the advance is the only thing that keeps me going, feels at least a bit like I've earned something given the months before the actual money hits your account

They've been improving on payments though I guess and the lack of a JC might make them faster!

Ya I never looked at it as covering conference fees, more like an incentive to keep the bag of exam papers and not throw it at the door of the SEC on a high speed drive by

rainbowtrout

am_zarathustra wrote: »

End of September in 2019...... it is a bit mad for a job you start at the end of June. I actually shouldn't have checked, I've forgotten how much the tax is and how much real cash you actually end up with! :rolleyes:

And I'd never bet against the incompetence of payments from any facet of the Department of Education. :pac:

There was a time 15-20 years ago that the payment used to be like clockwork, paid out around the second week of September. One year I got paid on September 2nd, I was so shocked I actually rang them to check if I was paid for something in error.

When the recession kicked in and there was a freeze on hiring in the public sector is when efficiency went out the window, there was a year around 2010 or thereabouts where I got paid in November.

am_zarathustra

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Ya I never looked at it as covering conference fees, more like an incentive to keep the bag of exam papers and not throw it at the door of the SEC on a high speed drive by

Jesus yeah. Like a payment for keeping the hundreds of scripts in my tiny, city centre apartment. And to pay for the nice coffees I used to bribe myself.....

History Queen

Did ye see the controversy over the marking of the oral exams? Absolutely newsworthy but I wish the journalists had waited until after exams to publish.

am_zarathustra

History Queen wrote: »

Did ye see the controversy over the marking of the oral exams? Absolutely newsworthy but I wish the journalists had waited until after exams to publish.

Rough enough given the exam is yet to happen. Inevitable really though, not everyone wants to correct or examine, best people know that about themselves. Younger teachers were definitely put under pressure to do it.

History Queen

am_zarathustra wrote: »

Rough enough given the exam is yet to happen. Inevitable really though, not everyone wants to correct or examine, best people know that about themselves. Younger teachers were definitely put under pressure to do it.

I nearly text a colleague in my school to see if she was the leak :pac: what that examiner complained about was EXACTLY what she told our local tui branch meeting were her concerns as she used to examine orals years ago. Only that I rememberedshe wasn't examining this year I'd have sworn it was her. She took it on herself to help the other MFL teachers in our school prior tothe interviews because (in her words) "that shower of ****s sent on **** all that'd be useful to anyone".

I'm not a language teacher myself but I'd say anyoneinvolved in interviewing is furious, I mean, if you don't get trained, how the hell are you supposed to know?

am_zarathustra

It was unbelievably last minute, even if you wanted to do it correctly you didnt have a lot of time to check or get advice. To say it's comparable to a person who is trained going to multiple schools with experience of the schemes is a complete lie.

I think there is a general disconnect amoung the general public; not all teachers are suited to examining or marking, some simply don't have the attention span or interest. And thats absolutely fine, but the pressure put on inexperienced teachers this year made me very uncomfortable. I can't wait for a "normal" year next year where everyone has a job scope and decent working conditions.

Random sample

History Queen wrote: »

Did ye see the controversy over the marking of the oral exams? Absolutely newsworthy but I wish the journalists had waited until after exams to publish.

I’m shocked by it tbh. I would find anything unusual that comes up in a script I’m told to put it in my report, I’m surprised at attempts to hush this. It sound more to me like the examiner who leaked it was expecting a song and dance but was told to mark what was in front of them.

I don’t understand how a teacher would leave sections out either. I mean, we drill the elements and order of the exam into our students. If a teacher left an element out of the exam there’s a good chance that element wasn’t covered in class.

With language exams all happening this week it wasn’t for the good of the truth or the students that story was published today.

History Queen

Random sample wrote: »

I’m shocked by it tbh. I would find anything unusual that comes up in a script I’m told to put it in my report, I’m surprised at attempts to hush this. It sound more to me like the examiner who leaked it was expecting a song and dance but was told to mark what was in front of them.

I don’t understand how a teacher would leave sections out either. I mean, we drill the elements and order of the exam into our students. If a teacher left an element out of the exam there’s a good chance that element wasn’t covered in class.

With language exams all happening this week it wasn’t for the good of the truth or the students that story was published today.

I'm not a language teacher so I wouldn't have a clue about the ins and outs of it but that examiner made a protected disclosure to the SEC so they must have felt strongly about it. It playing out in the media isn't good enough though.

Random sample

History Queen wrote: »

I'm not a language teacher so I wouldn't have a clue about the ins and outs of it but that examiner made a protected disclosure to the SEC so they must have felt strongly about it. It playing out in the media isn't good enough though.

I hope it makes them identifiable to the sec, rather than them wondering which examiner it was!

Beaulieu

am_zarathustra wrote: »

Interesting the lack of an advance, usually it's so long til you get paid the advance is the only thing that keeps me going, feels at least a bit like I've earned something given the months before the actual money hits your account

They've been improving on payments though I guess and the lack of a JC might make them faster!

Don't think so! I know for a fact that LCVP examiners who would have corrected the LCVP portfolio during April have yet to get paid.

rainbowtrout

Random sample wrote: »

I’m shocked by it tbh. I would find anything unusual that comes up in a script I’m told to put it in my report, I’m surprised at attempts to hush this. It sound more to me like the examiner who leaked it was expecting a song and dance but was told to mark what was in front of them.

I don’t understand how a teacher would leave sections out either. I mean, we drill the elements and order of the exam into our students. If a teacher left an element out of the exam there’s a good chance that element wasn’t covered in class.

With language exams all happening this week it wasn’t for the good of the truth or the students that story was published today.

There’s always gonna be a weakness in the chain somewhere even when you’ve got experienced people involved and it isn’t always apparent under normal circumstances, it’s only when something really unusual happens that it arises. They should have dealt with it. They were probably correct in saying the examiner could only mark what was in front of them but incorrect in saying not to flag the school or put it in the report.

It’s impossible to know if this was an issue that was reported by multiple examiners and it was decided to ignore it or just the one advisor acting alone.

In terms of the untrained teachers. They could have been trained on zoom and should have been. But also, there are teachers out there no matter what training they are given who decide they are going to do their own thing and have the attitude that they’ll choose not to examine a component and assume that the SEC will just have to work with what they’ve got. We see it on this forum from time to time, some teachers are just unprofessional.

Random sample

rainbowtrout wrote: »

There’s always gonna be a weakness in the chain somewhere even when you’ve got experienced people involved and it isn’t always apparent under normal circumstances, it’s only when something really unusual happens that it arises. They should have dealt with it. They were probably correct in saying the examiner could only mark what was in front of them but incorrect in saying not to flag the school or put it in the report.

It’s impossible to know if this was an issue that was reported by multiple examiners and it was decided to ignore it or just the one advisor acting alone.

In terms of the untrained teachers. They could have been trained on zoom and should have been. But also, there are teachers out there no matter what training they are given who decide they are going to do their own thing and have the attitude that they’ll choose not to examine a component and assume that the SEC will just have to work with what they’ve got. We see it on this forum from time to time, some teachers are just unprofessional.

The instructions document was very clear, it would have been no harm to have a zoom, but it would have been a meeting that could have been an email. Principals should be aware of which teachers would go rogue and not asked them to do the interviews. It was written in those instructions that any mistakes made in carrying out the orals were on the candidate, the sec would not be making up for them.

There is a whistleblowing system within the sec, I think this examiner should have used it rather than going to the papers. They have no idea how the sec is dealing with the issue.

History Queen

Random sample wrote: »

The instructions document was very clear, it would have been no harm to have a zoom, but it would have been a meeting that could have been an email. Principals should be aware of which teachers would go rogue and not asked them to do the interviews. It was written in those instructions that any mistakes made in carrying out the orals were on the candidate, the sec would not be making up for them.

There is a whistleblowing system within the sec, I think this examiner should have used it rather than going to the papers. They have no idea how the sec is dealing with the issue.

The original examiner did use the whistleblowing system. It seems several examiners spoke to the Irish Times. The language teachers in my school didn't think the instructions document was very clear, as I said previously, it was brought up at a union meeting such was the level of concern.

Random sample

History Queen wrote: »

The original examiner did use the whistleblowing system. It seems several examiners spoke to the Irish Times. The language teachers in my school didn't think the instructions document was very clear, as I said previously, it was brought up at a union meeting such was the level of concern.

The oral marking hasn’t been finished for long, there hasn’t been any time for the sec to deal with a concern yet.

I think if someone found that document difficult to understand, and they didn’t know the procedure, they should not have offered their services to carry out the interviews.

History Queen

Random sample wrote: »

The oral marking hasn’t been finished for long, there hasn’t been any time for the sec to deal with a concern yet.

I think if someone found that document difficult to understand, and they didn’t know the procedure, they should not have offered their services to carry out the interviews.

I haven't read the document and am not a language teacher, just relaying the conversations in our staffroom. We have a very experienced former SEC examiner on our staff and she deemed the document inadequate. Also the notion of offering services was an issue in a few schools, in that,principals went to teachers and told them that unless they could source someone to do the interviews, that they would have to do them themselves. Remember also, many teachers offered to do the interviews in good faith, having been promised training that didn't materialise.

Edit: just in case it makes a difference my colleague is a German teacher and a lot of her concerns were around how rigid/technical the requirements for the German oral were and I think she felt these requirements weren't made clear to inexperienced examiners

Random sample

https://www.thejournal.ie/leaving-certificate-oral-exams-marking-ongoing-5466632-Jun2021/

I think it’s appalling that Sinn Fein are trying to politicise this.

Normally in July the orals are reviewed by examiners for quality assurance and I’ve heard issues with how occasional examiners have carried out the work, but it’s never made the papers.

I know I keep harping back to it, but if teachers don’t understand the exam structure, how well would they have prepared their classes for the exam? They would probably be down the larks anyway, just for different reasons.

In my large school there are a lot more language teachers than we would have needed as interviewers, so the principal had a choice of who to use.

am_zarathustra

Random sample wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/leaving-certificate-oral-exams-marking-ongoing-5466632-Jun2021/

I think it’s appalling that Sinn Fein are trying to politicise this.

Normally in July the orals are reviewed by examiners for quality assurance and I’ve heard issues with how occasional examiners have carried out the work, but it’s never made the papers.

I know I keep harping back to it, but if teachers don’t understand the exam structure, how well would they have prepared their classes for the exam? They would probably be down the larks anyway, just for different reasons.

In my large school there are a lot more language teachers than we would have needed as interviewers, so the principal had a choice of who to use.

A fair number of middle aged/older teachers have kids and had no intention of coming in during the holidays, compounded by the fact they felt there was insufficient detail and very short notice. Most schools in Dublin would be low on MFL teachers, there's a massive shortage. I know people going half way across the country to do it as favours for people they knew. I'd imagine the age profile skewed young, in smaller schools you may be the only language teacher of that language. Maybe your not CID so you want to seem like you know what's going on. Or you think you do simply due to lack of experience.

And then there are a small minority of simply bad teachers, we all know of schools where half the class is getting grinds because they know we'll the standard of teaching isn't there. A principal could be new, or really stuck and might be forced to use whoever they can get. I'd imagine the majority were carried out well but it in no way suprises me that some weren't, the usual standard of training and preparation wasn't there

rainbowtrout

Random sample wrote: »

The instructions document was very clear, it would have been no harm to have a zoom, but it would have been a meeting that could have been an email. Principals should be aware of which teachers would go rogue and not asked them to do the interviews. It was written in those instructions that any mistakes made in carrying out the orals were on the candidate, the sec would not be making up for them.

There is a whistleblowing system within the sec, I think this examiner should have used it rather than going to the papers. They have no idea how the sec is dealing with the issue.

It did say in the times report that the examiner made a protected disclosure to the SEC. Hard to know what the chain of events was after that.

Hard to predict for a principal if a teacher would go rogue too if they’ve never examined before.

I think it might be a lesson learned for the SEC. Put examiners in place.

rainbowtrout

Random sample wrote: »

The oral marking hasn’t been finished for long, there hasn’t been any time for the sec to deal with a concern yet.

I think if someone found that document difficult to understand, and they didn’t know the procedure, they should not have offered their services to carry out the interviews.

My understanding of it is that the documentation only arrived three days before and that was the weekend going into the Easter holidays. I’d imagine some would have felt it was too late then.

Random sample

rainbowtrout wrote: »

It did say in the times report that the examiner made a protected disclosure to the SEC. Hard to know what the chain of events was after that.

Hard to predict for a principal if a teacher would go rogue too if they’ve never examined before.

I think it might be a lesson learned for the SEC. Put examiners in place.

It sounds like they expected to be kept informed though, when their part in it was over.

The document came 3 days before the Easter holidays, but the exams didn’t have to be carried out straight away.

I just didn’t find the details hard to understand, or the interview difficult to carry out. I am an experienced examiner and I just can’t see what could have been put in a webinar that wasn’t in the document. Examiner training is all about application of marks, there’s no time spent explaining how to ask the questions or on the format, aside from the allocation of marks.

I regularly see complaints from teachers about being infantilised at cpd, we can’t have it both ways.