Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Correcting 2021

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Treppen
    Registered Users Posts: 4,610 ✭✭✭Treppen


    Random sample wrote: »
    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.

    I'm not 100% au fait with the issue. But is it possible that teachers purposefully omitted questions? I was reading on another forum where a student said
    " i was sitting my leaving this year and our teachers told us about it, we were told to silently gesture to the examiner ie point to paper with question that they've missed if we noticed anything missed out…"
    That sounds like it's open to abuse.


  • Options
    #63
    Random sample
    Registered Users Posts: 1,007 ✭✭✭Random sample


    Treppen wrote: »
    I'm not 100% au fait with the issue. But is it possible that teachers purposefully omitted questions? I was reading on another forum where a student said
    That sounds like it's open to abuse.

    I suppose it is possible. There may have been a hope that students wouldn't be disadvantaged by it and that they would gain from the situation.

    That sounds like it was very badly managed in that school. I don't think that would be the norm. Myself and my colleagues followed the instructions to the letter. I would hate to think our students are disadvantaged because of how the process was carried out in another school.


  • Options
    #64
    deiseindublin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,263 ✭✭✭deiseindublin


    There were definitely schools that didn't stick with the instructions, for lots of reasons. I heard of at least two schools that did a 'dry run' with each student first, and then did the exact same oral again with the same student but recorded that one. Very unfair on schools and students that followed the guidelines.


  • Options
    #65
    Treppen
    Registered Users Posts: 4,610 ✭✭✭Treppen


    deiseindublin wrote: »
    There were definitely schools that didn't stick with the instructions, for lots of reasons. I heard of at least two schools that did a 'dry run' with each student first, and then did the exact same oral again with the same student but recorded that one. Very unfair on schools and students that followed the guidelines.

    If the oral is compromised it should be scrapped.


  • Options
    #66
    mtoutlemonde
    Registered Users Posts: 2,134 ✭✭✭mtoutlemonde


    deiseindublin wrote: »
    There were definitely schools that didn't stick with the instructions, for lots of reasons. I heard of at least two schools that did a 'dry run' with each student first, and then did the exact same oral again with the same student but recorded that one. Very unfair on schools and students that followed the guidelines.

    Students have weeks of dry runs in the weeks up to orals. There were three definite topics that had to be asked so that would have been practiced over and over. No different this year to any other only the teacher did the interview.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    ccazza
    Registered Users Posts: 272 ✭✭ccazza


    Letter with dates of conference arrived today. Also a commitment to pay within 18 working days on receipt of the claim form which is to be sent straight to the financials section.


  • Options
    #68
    Random sample
    Registered Users Posts: 1,007 ✭✭✭Random sample


    mtoutlemonde wrote: »
    Students have weeks of dry runs in the weeks up to orals. There were three definite topics that had to be asked so that would have been practiced over and over. No different this year to any other only the teacher did the interview.

    That would have been a huge benefit in an Irish oral. With the poem and the picture sequence it would really increase their marks.


  • Options
    #69
    am_zarathustra
    Registered Users Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭am_zarathustra


    ccazza wrote: »
    Letter with dates of conference arrived today. Also a commitment to pay within 18 working days on receipt of the claim form which is to be sent straight to the financials section.

    Wow, that's seems very quick comparatively. Usually takes a few days for the advising examiner to sign off ect but that would have a lot of people paid by the end of August.

    Was there any changes to the rates of pay if you don't mind me asking?


  • Options
    #70
    spurious
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 27,222 CMod ✭✭✭✭spurious


    No Junior Cert folk to bother with this year I suppose. Speeds things up.


  • Options
    #71
    RealJohn
    Registered Users Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭RealJohn


    ccazza wrote: »
    Letter with dates of conference arrived today. Also a commitment to pay within 18 working days on receipt of the claim form which is to be sent straight to the financials section.
    I presume there’s nothing urgent in it, no? I’m away at the moment and won’t be home for about a week and a half so I have no idea if mine has turned up or not.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    History Queen
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭History Queen


    RealJohn wrote: »
    I presume there’s nothing urgent in it, no? I’m away at the moment and won’t be home for about a week and a half so I have no idea if mine has turned up or not.

    Mine hasn't turned up yet anyway


  • Options
    #73
    am_zarathustra
    Registered Users Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭am_zarathustra


    Got mine today. Nothing major in it. Slight increase in the rate from 2019 but just the 2% due.

    Extra 221.7 for admin on top of normal admin and 150eu extra for each 25 scripts above or below the normal amount. That's an interesting one, probably fair too given some subjects will be way down I'd imagine


  • Options
    #74
    deiseindublin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,263 ✭✭✭deiseindublin


    My understanding of the €150 fee is that it is per 25 scripts, nothing to do with regular amounts other years.


  • Options
    #75
    am_zarathustra
    Registered Users Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭am_zarathustra


    deiseindublin wrote: »
    My understanding of the €150 fee is that it is per 25 scripts, nothing to do with regular amounts other years.

    It says "at a rate of 150 euros per 25 scripts satisfactorily marked and will be paid on a pro rata basis for lower or higher amounts of scripts"

    I'm not 100% on if that means all scripts or above or below the usual amount. Hopefully its on all scripts.


  • Options
    #76
    RealJohn
    Registered Users Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭RealJohn


    am_zarathustra wrote: »
    It says "at a rate of 150 euros per 25 scripts satisfactorily marked and will be paid on a pro rata basis for lower or higher amounts of scripts"

    I'm not 100% on if that means all scripts or above or below the usual amount. Hopefully its on all scripts.
    I’m pretty sure it’s above the usual amount, and the “usual amount” will be a set number (probably varying by subject, since some subjects take more time to mark than others).
    I think it was set at 315 for my subject in 2019, but I might be misremembering.


  • Options
    #77
    deiseindublin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,263 ✭✭✭deiseindublin


    It's all scripts, pro rata part means that if you had 130 allocated scripts you'd get 5 x €150s= €750 + €30 = €780 extra.

    Or at least that's what I was told by an SEC employee.


  • Options
    #78
    RealJohn
    Registered Users Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭RealJohn


    There’s no way that can be right. Why would you get paid extra for doing what you’re contracted to do?


  • Options
    #79
    deiseindublin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,263 ✭✭✭deiseindublin


    I'd presume they were finding it hard to convince people to correct, or maybe they're afraid in case correctors never come back again if they took 2 years off.

    Have to say, I'd be tempted to not bother correcting after being off last summer.

    It's basically €6 extra a scripts, so prob. €3 extra take home per paper. A nice sum if one got the regular number of scripts.


  • Options
    #80
    ccazza
    Registered Users Posts: 272 ✭✭ccazza


    RealJohn wrote: »
    There’s no way that can be right. Why would you get paid extra for doing what you’re contracted to do?

    It is right. It’s to make up for the fact you won’t have as many papers to correct as usual.


  • Options
    #81
    RealJohn
    Registered Users Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭RealJohn


    ccazza wrote: »
    It is right. It’s to make up for the fact you won’t have as many papers to correct as usual.
    I’ll believe it when I see it. It makes no sense (and that wasn’t how it worked last time).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Purefrank128
    Registered Users Posts: 61 ✭✭Purefrank128


    RealJohn wrote: »
    I’ll believe it when I see it. It makes no sense (and that wasn’t how it worked last time).

    This is different from last time. This is 6 euro extra per script, before tax. End of.


  • Options
    #83
    Random sample
    Registered Users Posts: 1,007 ✭✭✭Random sample


    RealJohn wrote: »
    I’ll believe it when I see it. It makes no sense (and that wasn’t how it worked last time).

    We had something similar in 2019 when people agreed to take extra papers as an incentive to take them.

    I’m guessing we will be down papers this year, and without the expenses of the conference travel and overnights, a lot of people might have pulled out without this bonus.

    The unions (TUI especially as far as I can see) have been negotiating with the sec for the past few months on this.


  • Options
    #84
    am_zarathustra
    Registered Users Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭am_zarathustra


    I'll be interested to see how it's calculated. I think normal is around 300 for me usually too. That reads like if I'm over or under I'm getting a bonus. Weirdly ambiguous language. I'm sure they will clarify at some point.


  • Options
    #85
    RealJohn
    Registered Users Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭RealJohn


    Random sample wrote: »
    We had something similar in 2019 when people agreed to take extra papers as an incentive to take them.
    I know that but it was similar, not the same. In 2019, you had a threshold to meet before you got it and it was only on the extra, which makes sense.
    I’m not sure I believe the SEC are being that generous either - I doubt they’re short of examiners in most subjects, given that the people who usually only get JC are almost all free. I hope you’re right, because I’ll be happy to get it, but an extra €6 per script is huge. That’s more than you get for some entire scripts at JC. It’s hard to imagine how they’d justify that extra outlay to the people who’ll have signed off on it.
    “You know the way we’re saving loads of money by not having any junior cycle exams? What do you think about giving most of that saving to leaving cert examiners as a thank you? We’ll get half of it back in tax anyway.”
    I don’t buy it. Still hope you’re right though, obviously.


  • Options
    #86
    rainbowtrout
    Registered Users Posts: 15,382 ✭✭✭✭rainbowtrout


    deiseindublin wrote: »
    I'd presume they were finding it hard to convince people to correct, or maybe they're afraid in case correctors never come back again if they took 2 years off.

    Have to say, I'd be tempted to not bother correcting after being off last summer.

    It's basically €6 extra a scripts, so prob. €3 extra take home per paper. A nice sum if one got the regular number of scripts.

    I’d agree. People who take a year out often don’t come back to it once they get used to having July free. If the SEC were only to employ the number of people needed to mark scripts this year they could lose a lot of experience. If they retain all their experienced examiners this year, some might walk out if the number of papers they get is too low, and it’s impossible to predict how many will sit an exam.

    To be honest I’m not going to complain about the extra money. Enjoy it while it lasts.


  • Options
    #87
    rainbowtrout
    Registered Users Posts: 15,382 ✭✭✭✭rainbowtrout


    RealJohn wrote: »
    I’ll believe it when I see it. It makes no sense (and that wasn’t how it worked last time).

    I marked the winter LC and was surprised to get an admin payment way over and above what I would have expected for the amount of work I did.


  • Options
    #88
    rainbowtrout
    Registered Users Posts: 15,382 ✭✭✭✭rainbowtrout


    RealJohn wrote: »
    I know that but it was similar, not the same. In 2019, you had a threshold to meet before you got it and it was only on the extra, which makes sense.
    I’m not sure I believe the SEC are being that generous either - I doubt they’re short of examiners in most subjects, given that the people who usually only get JC are almost all free. I hope you’re right, because I’ll be happy to get it, but an extra €6 per script is huge. That’s more than you get for some entire scripts at JC. It’s hard to imagine how they’d justify that extra outlay to the people who’ll have signed off on it.
    “You know the way we’re saving loads of money by not having any junior cycle exams? What do you think about giving most of that saving to leaving cert examiners as a thank you? We’ll get half of it back in tax anyway.”
    I don’t buy it. Still hope you’re right though, obviously.

    You’d have got it if you were getting mileage and overnights horsing up and down to athlone for 2-3 day conference. My guess is that it’s not going to. cost the SEC any more than it would to pay examiners in a regular year.

    Given the sh*tshow with predicted grades last year, it’s easier to incentivise examiners to mark and get it over the line rather than lose experience and have serious fall out down the line


  • Options
    #89
    RealJohn
    Registered Users Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭RealJohn


    rainbowtrout wrote: »
    You’d have got it if you were getting mileage and overnights horsing up and down to athlone for 2-3 day conference. My guess is that it’s not going to. cost the SEC any more than it would to pay examiners in a regular year.

    Given the sh*tshow with predicted grades last year, it’s easier to incentivise examiners to mark and get it over the line rather than lose experience and have serious fall out down the line
    You might be right, but even if that’s the logic, €6 per script is huge. They can’t have thought it needed to be that high.


  • Options
    #90
    am_zarathustra
    Registered Users Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭am_zarathustra


    I guess without an actual conference they would prefer to keep more experienced examiners.

    I'm also expecting a serious number of revisions of the marking scheme in my subject, maybe it's a sweetner for that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    rainbowtrout
    Registered Users Posts: 15,382 ✭✭✭✭rainbowtrout


    RealJohn wrote: »
    You might be right, but even if that’s the logic, €6 per script is huge. They can’t have thought it needed to be that high.

    Hard to know how many applied to mark. Everyone had last summer off. Some may not have returned. Given that it’s going to be taxed and mileage isn’t maybe it’s that high to compensate.


Advertisement