Towards a Better Future

Recommendations

Info

Chapter Four: Assessment: Primary and Junior Cycle involvement of the teachers in this process. The Board, through its publications and engagement in discussions with interested groups, generated lively interest and debates across the system on its proposals, and the feedback was both supportive and critical, especially in relation to the structure of the curriculum. However, the CEB was abolished in 1987 and replaced by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) which, unlike its predecessor, was given an advisory role (Coolahan, B, (2014); Heywood, J. (2012); Hyland, A (2014b). Subsequently, both the Day Group and the Intermediate Certificates programmes and examinations were abolished in 1989 and replaced by a new Junior Certificate programme. The NCCA undertook a review of the new Junior Certificate programme in 1993 and again reiterated the view that a system of assessment based solely on terminal written examinations served neither the curriculum it was intended to support, nor the students who took the examination. The narrow range of assessment modes and techniques, it was contended, discouraged the changes in methodologies required for the successful implementation of the curriculum objectives. However, little change emanated from this review (NCCA, 1993). The publication of The Junior Cycle Review (NCCA, 1999) again outlined the inadequacies of the current system of assessment, with its reliance on a narrow range of assessment techniques and terminal written examinations. However, this time the review did not fall on deaf ears. As Coolahan, B. (2014, p. 24) observes, a change of approach became evident on the part of the DES with the publication of a report on the Junior Certificate, in which the mismatch between the curriculum objectives and the system of assessment was acknowledged, and the use of a broader range of assessment techniques was proposed (DES, 2000). NCCA submitted its proposals for the reform of the programme to the DES(NCCA, 2011). Heywood (2012, p. 90) draws parallels between the ICE proposals and those of the NCCA, adding that the NCCA proposals were “a small step in the direction recommended by the Intermediate Certificate Committee”. Based on his own experience as Director of PEEP and other projects, he concludes that the proposals “should raise the level of professionalism among teachers, and lead to the development of higher-order thinking.” Following on from the NCCA report, the DES published its own proposals, A Framework for Junior Cycle (DES, 2012c), in October 2012. In the introduction to the document, Minister Ruairi Quinn stated that a school-based model of assessment would replace the Junior Certificate Examination. While the Framework was based on the NCCA report Towards a Framework (NCCA, 2011), it proposed a somewhat different model of assessment that, it states (p.vi), “will include formative and summative assessments and involve schools and teachers in ongoing assessment and reporting of students’ progress and achievements.” In addition to the school-based model of assessment, the introduction from 2014 of standardised testing in English reading, Mathematics, and Irish reading in Irish-medium schools towards the end of second year, and of Science by 2016 was also proposed (p. vi). Certification would be limited to a minimum of eight subjects and a maximum of ten, with some minor modifications for students with special educational needs. Schools would be free to offer up to a maximum of four short — 65 —
Towards a Better Future: A Review of the Irish School System courses, each equivalent to half a subject, in place of full subjects. Schools would also be provided with an assessment and moderation toolkit, and would be assisted by both the State Examinations Commission (SEC) and the NCCA in both the planning and assessment processes. In the initial years, it was proposed that the final assessment of subjects at the end of the cycle would be set by the SEC but administered and marked by the schools, while final assessments in the case of English, Mathematics and Irish would be administered and marked by the SEC. The school-based component (comprising a range of tasks including assignments, projects, performances, oral and aural skills, and practical tasks as appropriate for each subject) would receive a weighting of 40% and the final assessments 60%. The teachers in the school would mark the short courses. The Framework represented a radical shift in policy by the DES, from dismissing all previous reviews dating back to the ICE report of 1975, to proposing a reform that embraced both the curriculum and assessment, and recognition of the limitations of terminal written examinations. The reform proposals could be said to represent a reasonable response to addressing the well-articulated and universally-agreed limitations of the existing system of assessment and at the same time a major change to an assessment system that had largely remained unchanged for decades. It was almost certain to be resisted. A move from a centrally-administered public examination system, in which teachers traditionally have had little or no involvement, to one in which they would play a major role in the assessment of the work of their own students for certification purposes, was more than likely to face stern opposition. Perhaps, it was a step too far, too soon, for a system that was unprepared for such a major overhaul of the assessment system. It could be argued, on the other hand, that the approach presented in the Framework at least alerted those concerned to the serious intent of the Department in implementing a long-overdue reform of the system and in this sense captured their engagement with the proposals. Perhaps, a more nuanced approach in which a phased introduction of the proposals leading to the end stage outlined by the DES might have had a better chance of acceptance. In effect, this is what emerged. Following long and protracted discussions between the Department and the teacher unions, a way forward was agreed. Minister Jan O’Sullivan outlined “five immutable principles which must underpin any reform of the Junior Cycle.” These included: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ The need to recognise a broad range of learning A requirement to considerably reduce the focus on one terminal examination as a means of assessing our students The necessity of giving prominence and importance to classroom-based assessment Greater professional collaboration between teachers to be a feature of our schools Both parents/guardians and students to get a broader picture of students’ learning throughout the whole of Junior Cycle. — 66 —
Page 1 and 2:
Towards a BETTER FUTURE A Review of
Page 3 and 4:
Published in Ireland by IPPN (the I
Page 5 and 6:
Towards a Better Future: A Review o
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30: Towards a Better Future: A Review o
Page 79: Towards a Better Future: A Review o
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
show all

Towards a Better Future

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?