ASTI Ballots

implausible · 24-09-2015 11:34pm

acequion wrote: »

What worries me is that TUI are always so quick to tow the Govt line and have no compunctions about leaving their collegues in ASTI to battle alone.

This TUI member is not leaving the ASTI to battle alone; she doesn't think there's anything to battle about anymore.

acequion · 24-09-2015 11:49pm

implausible wrote: »

This TUI member is not leaving the ASTI to battle alone; she doesn't think there's anything to battle about anymore.

You've felt like that for a long time implausible! I suspect you've always been in favour of these reforms.

How anyone can be in favour of reforms forced in by a Govt with a proven lack of concern for education is completely beyond me. Reforms which:

Dumb down standards with common papers.
Stop catering for the very weak by removing foundation level.
Introduce a thick layer of bureaucracy so that teachers waste time covering their tracks and doing more sitting around talking to collegues than teaching and educating.
Ape a failed English system.
And then after all that we all trot merrily back into the traditional LC.

katydid · 24-09-2015 11:49pm

acequion wrote: »

.

What worries me is that TUI are always so quick to tow the Govt line and have no compunctions about leaving their collegues in ASTI to battle alone.

.

Has it crossed your mind that the TUI people are intelligent people with minds of their own, who are capable of thinking for themselves just as you are, but simply have a different opinion to yours?

Is that remotely possible?

Your attitude in incredibly patronising.

acequion · 25-09-2015 12:01am

katydid wrote: »

Has it crossed your mind that the TUI people are intelligent people with minds of their own, who are capable of thinking for themselves just as you are, but simply have a different opinion to yours?

Is that remotely possible?

Your attitude in incredibly patronising.

I actually find it hilarious that you are calling somebody else "patronising". Psychologists call that a projection complex.

Now where is the "ignore" button?

implausible · 25-09-2015 12:10am

acequion wrote:

You've felt like that for a long time implausible! I suspect you've always been in favour of these reforms.

I'm sure I've said previously that I have. The current system of three years learning only being assessed by one terminal exam is outdated. I don't think it's fair on students and I don't think it reflects the way we learn and communicate today. Weaker students might actually get a chance when everything doesn't depend on one exam, their confidence might not be shattered by the time they get to Leaving Cert and they might actually get to Leaving Cert.

I'm no fan of paperwork, but if doing some and having professional conversations with colleagues is the price of taking the emphasis off one final exam, then it's a price I'm willing to pay.

acequion · 25-09-2015 12:27am

implausible wrote: »

I'm sure I've said previously that I have. The current system of three years learning only being assessed by one terminal exam is outdated. I don't think it's fair on students and I don't think it reflects the way we learn and communicate today. Weaker students might actually get a chance when everything doesn't depend on one exam, their confidence might not be shattered by the time they get to Leaving Cert and they might actually get to Leaving Cert.

I'm no fan of paperwork, but if doing some and having professional conversations with colleagues is the price of taking the emphasis off one final exam, then it's a price I'm willing to pay.

And it's a price I'm not willing to pay. But I do agree on continuous assessment.So if the minister weren't so bullish to have it her way or weren't perhaps following some other agenda, compromise could be reached.

katydid · 25-09-2015 9:00am

acequion wrote: »

I actually find it hilarious that you are calling somebody else "patronising". Psychologists call that a projection complex.

Now where is the "ignore" button?

And I find it interesting that you chose to ignore the substance of my post, addressing your attitude to your colleagues in TUI, whom you seem to believe are unable to think for themselves.

Deflection.

clunked · 25-09-2015 9:18am

Stop being a troll Katydid. You add nothing to a considered debate on the matter. Instead you manage to entrench opinions which does nobody any good.

Please don't use the Troll word on thread. Member has been warned.
MOD

gaiscioch · 25-09-2015 12:00pm

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

How are the ASTI ballots run? Our TUI staff vote in school and the rep posts back the ballot papers so the turn out tends to be decent.

Perhaps the ASTI should start organising ballots like this, with the shop steward taking responsibility for following up each teacher. A 38% turnout is shameful.

"September 24, 2015: Ballot results: TUI: 60% turnout. 69% Yes, 31% No. ASTI: 38% turnout. 55% No, 45% Yes." (Source)

Icsics · 25-09-2015 1:08pm

POR passed 89 - 11

Alex Meier · 25-09-2015 4:41pm

gaiscioch wrote: »

Perhaps the ASTI should start organising ballots like this, with the shop steward taking responsibility for following up each teacher. A 38% turnout is shameful.

"September 24, 2015: Ballot results: TUI: 60% turnout. 69% Yes, 31% No. ASTI: 38% turnout. 55% No, 45% Yes." (Source)

For the last ballot, on Haddington Road Part 3, the turnout for the ASTI was very high . . . approaching 70% I think.

That it would fall to 38% is due, in my view, to the willingness of the leadership of the union to bend over backwards for their "partners in Government" and to keep running ballots until the "right result" is produced.

You reap what you sow.

Members have disengaged from the union due to poor representation.

The ASTI, like other public sector unions, have been found out.

feardeas · 25-09-2015 4:43pm

Turnout was poor. Why these ballots can't be held in schools is beyond me.

I voted yes. I'm not a huge fan of it all but I see merit in the specification for English and frankly think it's time there was a change. I also think that professional conversations should be had about assessment. Surely this could feed into better teaching or at least trying to change methodologies from time to time.

I noticed on fight back's page that they included less teaching time. The idea has merit but I'm not sure how it could fly.

I have no idea where this goes now. I do not want to 've faced with strike nor the idea that teachers of one of my subjects should be used as some kind of guinea pigs to test the mettle of the government.

I would like to see , in plain English, what those that voted no would like to see happen. Surely it is time for them to say it clearly and perhaps spell out how their version of utopia can be realised in this country where the money to keep our wages paid is still effectively being borrowed. That might take more than a loudspeaker at a meeting.

katydid · 25-09-2015 5:53pm

Alex Meier wrote: »

For the last ballot, on Haddington Road Part 3, the turnout for the ASTI was very high . . . approaching 70% I think.

That it would fall to 38% is due, in my view, to the willingness of the leadership of the union to bend over backwards for their "partners in Government" and to keep running ballots until the "right result" is produced.

You reap what you sow.

Members have disengaged from the union due to poor representation.

The ASTI, like other public sector unions, have been found out.

This was one ballot on one issue. The union did the negotiating and organised the ballot. It was up to the members to vote yay or nay.

The fact is that a minority of teachers voted against it, in terms of the overall teaching body, but a majority of the minority who bothered to vote.

You can look for all the excuses you like, but the majority were either in favour, or not exercised enough about it to vote.

katydid · 25-09-2015 5:56pm

clunked wrote: »

Stop being a troll Katydid. You add nothing to a considered debate on the matter. Instead you manage to entrench opinions which does nobody any good.

Please don't use the Troll word on thread. Member has been warned.
MOD

I don't flatter myself that I can entrench opinions - I have every faith in my colleagues that they can make up their own minds.
I just put forward another side of the issue that is less presented.

I'm not sure what you are afraid of in being presented with another point of view than the one you hold. But despite what you think, people who put forward other points of view are not trolls, just people with other points of view.

Alex Meier · 25-09-2015 7:06pm

katydid wrote: »

This was one ballot on one issue. The union did the negotiating and organised the ballot. It was up to the members to vote yay or nay.

The fact is that a minority of teachers voted against it, in terms of the overall teaching body, but a majority of the minority who bothered to vote.

You can look for all the excuses you like, but the majority were either in favour, or not exercised enough about it to vote.

I'm not looking for excuses for people voting any way.

I'm looking for reasons as to why the turnout was so low.

evolving_doors · 25-09-2015 7:41pm

Alex Meier wrote: »

I'm not looking for excuses for people voting any way.

I'm looking for reasons as to why the turnout was so low.

Have a look at the initial consultation process on 'rebalancing the Junior Cert' in 2008. HERE

In the whole country just 53 English teachers responded! And even then their (and other subject teachers') concerns about a possiblie disparity between JC and LC proposed syllabi were ignored.

The report makes for interesting reading.

Jamfa · 25-09-2015 8:16pm

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Have a look at the initial consultation process on 'rebalancing the Junior Cert' in 2008. HERE

In the whole country just 53 English teachers responded! And even then their (and other subject teachers') concerns about a possiblie disparity between JC and LC proposed syllabi were ignored.

The report makes for interesting reading.

How were they ignored? The new English specification is arguably a better fit for the leaving cert syllabus. The issue of the exam which is set by the SEC is a different one.
I still don't know why the unions haven't capitalised on the lack of a revised English spec from the NCCA or the full Assessment Toolkit which was promised two years ago?

acequion · 25-09-2015 8:18pm

feardeas wrote: »

Turnout was poor. Why these ballots can't be held in schools is beyond me.

I voted yes. I'm not a huge fan of it all but I see merit in the specification for English and frankly think it's time there was a change. I also think that professional conversations should be had about assessment. Surely this could feed into better teaching or at least trying to change methodologies from time to time.

I noticed on fight back's page that they included less teaching time. The idea has merit but I'm not sure how it could fly.

I have no idea where this goes now. I do not want to 've faced with strike nor the idea that teachers of one of my subjects should be used as some kind of guinea pigs to test the mettle of the government.

I would like to see , in plain English, what those that voted no would like to see happen. Surely it is time for them to say it clearly and perhaps spell out how their version of utopia can be realised in this country where the money to keep our wages paid is still effectively being borrowed. That might take more than a loudspeaker at a meeting.

feardas,you are obviously not fully following this thread because if you were you would see that your questions as to what the No voters would accept was answered in full by me from my perspective as a no voter. I will re-post and you can evaluate. What I would add to that post is that I would also hold out to have levels reinstalled in all subjects as vital preparation for LC.

Quite frankly though, your servile remark about "utopia" and about borrowing to pay our wages is irritating in the extreme,given that we live in a country which can find money for whatever looks good in Europe's eyes,yet we can continue to treat our teachers and their young charges like shyte.I didn't spend my entire life perfecting my craft to be told I should shut up and accept crap for possibly decades cos bigger guys out there are paying my wages. Sorry but those who collapsed the economy of this greedy little country are out there too with impunity.

So why not give your own worth and those of a collegues a higher grade!

acequion · 25-09-2015 8:25pm

I am re-posting this for those who accuse people of voting No without stating what they would accept. It is a pity that people don't read threads in their entirety before posting. So below is what I,personally, would accept and let me add that reinstating levels to all subjects to pave the way for LC would be non negotiable.

You ask what we would accept and that is really what must be sorted out at this point. I think the unions were always wrong to fight it on the narrow issue of marking our own students when opposition on the ground clearly went much further than that and yes I can understand why the public would be confused. So our position must be clarified.

Personally I will be very honest and say it is largely a case of "we got rode for the last 5 years so **** off with your reform until you sort that out" as you suggest above. However, I also feel that this reform is not necessary,that the long term goal is to save money,with a longer term goal of shrinking the public service which will eventually lead to teachers marking their own students at Junior level. I'm neither impressed nor convinced that these proposals will in any way improve standards,so I would leave well alone,except for an updating of the curriculum which in most subjects is long overdue.

But that is not going to happen. So compromise for me would be a CBA in second followed by one in third marked by the teacher as a form of continuous assessment and then a separate smaller exam in June. None of all this time wasting and bureaucratic malarky of SLARS, nor written assessment task,nor radical overhaul of reporting. Apart from everything else there is no point in making such sweeping changes at JC level when the LC remains the same.

acequion · 25-09-2015 8:38pm

Alex Meier wrote: »

For the last ballot, on Haddington Road Part 3, the turnout for the ASTI was very high . . . approaching 70% I think.

That it would fall to 38% is due, in my view, to the willingness of the leadership of the union to bend over backwards for their "partners in Government" and to keep running ballots until the "right result" is produced.

You reap what you sow.

Members have disengaged from the union due to poor representation.

The ASTI, like other public sector unions, have been found out.

Alex,what do you mean by "found out"?. If you have a look at the fightback page on facebook you will see some interesting statistics about recent voting trends. The most telling for me is that the final capitulation on HR had a turn out of 38%,exactly the same as in this one. But were the Govt bemoaning the low turn out or questioning the democratic veracity of the ballot? Not at all! So likewise with this. Let's quit beating ourselves up here and put our energies into making this No work to our interest.

I do agree re the the democracy deficit in this country and the shameful carry on of the top echelons in the union. But this no is ours,the members, and we must now make it matter!

feardeas · 27-09-2015 12:52pm

acequion wrote: »

feardas,you are obviously not fully following this thread because if you were you would see that your questions as to what the No voters would accept was answered in full by me from my perspective as a no voter. I will re-post and you can evaluate. What I would add to that post is that I would also hold out to have levels reinstalled in all subjects as vital preparation for LC.

Quite frankly though, your servile remark about "utopia" and about borrowing to pay our wages is irritating in the extreme,given that we live in a country which can find money for whatever looks good in Europe's eyes,yet we can continue to treat our teachers and their young charges like shyte.I didn't spend my entire life perfecting my craft to be told I should shut up and accept crap for possibly decades cos bigger guys out there are paying my wages. Sorry but those who collapsed the economy of this greedy little country are out there too with impunity.

So why not give your own worth and those of a collegues a higher grade!

Thank you for your remarks. What one might perceive as servility another might consider pragmatic realism. I was not talking about any poster on here just in a general sense.

I'm unsure about allowing marking of work to be done in splendid isolation including for continuous elements. As anyone who has marked for the SEC will know there are methods of checks to ensure uniformity. The lack of such checks on a national basis was something I found most objectionable about the proposals by Ruairi Quinn.

I agree with all your sentiments about the last five years and the people who hold responsibility for these. However being unwilling to engage in discussion of reform is not really an option. Especially now that the TUI have accepted on a far greater turnout. The train has left the station.

As an aside I think the turnout for acceptance of HRA was higher than the one that originally rejected it. Open to correction.

implausible · 27-09-2015 9:39pm

acequion wrote: »

So compromise for me would be a CBA in second followed by one in third marked by the teacher as a form of continuous assessment and then a separate smaller exam in June. None of all this time wasting and bureaucratic malarky of SLARS, nor written assessment task,nor radical overhaul of reporting. Apart from everything else there is no point in making such sweeping changes at JC level when the LC remains the same.

Now perhaps I have not been paying attention and I apologise if this is the case, but that is the first time I have seen clearly posted what is actually acceptable.

From the perspective of a TUI member in a TUI school, all that's been heard from the ASTI is that the whole new JC is not acceptable, the finer detail has been drowned out by No. I would've had the impression that a return to the exam-only assessment was what was being demanded.

That said, I see the need for professional conversations and some paperwork around assessment, at the very least as a very diluted form of oversight. I personally do not trust that every English teacher in the country (for example) will do the CBAs properly and adhere to a national standard. I've seen how easy it is to manipulate projectwork and other non-exam assessments in other subjects, both in secondary and at further education level.

evolving_doors · 27-09-2015 9:51pm

My simple reason.

I look at our language teachers doing the JC orals off their own bat.

No way Im voting for that.

They get treated like dogsbodies trying to accommodate every single student . Invariably its lunch, before and after school to get all students seen to so they can keep regular classes going.

No way.

Set a date. Bring in dept examiner. Students take it seriously. Results count into their overall JC. Examiner gets reasonably well remunerated and knows the standard of most schools.

Why the heck would I vote for more work at this stage of the game.

Get rid of CP/S&S then I might give it consideration... maybe.

rainbowtrout · 27-09-2015 9:51pm

Alex Meier wrote: »

I'm not looking for excuses for people voting any way.

I'm looking for reasons as to why the turnout was so low.

Honestly, I think apathy is endemic in modern society and teachers are not immune.

No matter what staff room you go into in the country you'll hear teachers complaining about pension levy/Croke Park hours/ FEMPI/ LRA/HRA/ differing pay scales/ new Junior Cert etc etc.

Yet when it comes to it, they were balloted on all of these issues and typically voter turnout is low and there is no excuse. My understanding from this thread is that ASTI members get their ballot papers sent to their homes. TUI get theirs in school.

Either way, they are provided with a prepaid envelope. It takes less than 30 seconds to fill in, and throw it into a postbox in passing. Yet most can't be bothered. I'd imagine that it would take something really radical like a 50% pay cut, or teachers forced to correct JC/LC examinations for free as part of their teaching contracts before some teachers would actually get up off their arses and vote. Even then some wouldn't bother.

acequion · 27-09-2015 10:31pm

implausible wrote: »

That said, I see the need for professional conversations and some paperwork around assessment, at the very least as a very diluted form of oversight. I personally do not trust that every English teacher in the country (for example) will do the CBAs properly and adhere to a national standard..

No That is a very slippery slope. That is RQ's proposals coming in down the line by the back door. If the DES wants the CBA's to be that important well then they should pay to have them externally examined. If they want them done internally, well they should trust the teachers to do a professional job. And I don't think it's your place or mine to decide whether or not we trust our collegues.

That said a lot of teachers are interested in assessment upskilling, so obviously I'd have no problem with that and subject teachers devoting some of their meetings to this area. But those SLARS are a new departure and I do like the possible destination. That was a big part of my no vote.

MrJones1973 · 28-09-2015 2:41pm

Why I voted No
Three main reasons
Not enough hours given for planning. I spent about 12 doing a second year plan with another teacher. An hour a week wont cut it for the whole thing or correcting/modulating
No Posts- We need posts to supervise and implement this. The Department live in disney if they think there are real department structures out there for subjects. Yeah I know ambitious young types are putting themselves forward but eventually the penny will drop that there are hardly any promotion posts out there. I know temporary staff feel obligated .
Skills Vs Knowledge -I think the curriculum is a ton of shyte. This is my weakest argument as the Department have a right to peddle whatever bull they want and get me to teach it but Im not going to do it half arsed with a lovely plan on colored paper perhaps that has fxxx all chance of being implemnted due to lack of resources

MrJones1973 · 28-09-2015 2:46pm

As for those who didnt vote?
Ok some might not bother as they see Government bullying until we give in but that is self defeating. You keep sayying NO. Its a fxxx private ballot. No one need know .
There are those who might have been away/ sick. I was on a TY trip. Only got to post ballot on Monday last. Might not have made it in.
There are those who are just too stupid and should not be in teaching because they cant figure out an opinion after all this time or think five minutes is too much to take out of their lives. Even if you think ASTi types are crazy-ask yourself what life would be like without them?
I hope the last bit does cause offence. I know sometimes in a General Election-you feel the EU calls the shots so why bither voting-but in this case your vote does have influence.

Jamfa · 28-09-2015 8:43pm

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

Why I voted No
Three main reasons
Not enough hours given for planning. I spent about 12 doing a second year plan with another teacher. An hour a week wont cut it for the whole thing or correcting/modulating
No Posts- We need posts to supervise and implement this. The Department live in disney if they think there are real department structures out there for subjects. Yeah I know ambitious young types are putting themselves forward but eventually the penny will drop that there are hardly any promotion posts out there. I know temporary staff feel obligated .
Skills Vs Knowledge -I think the curriculum is a ton of shyte. This is my weakest argument as the Department have a right to peddle whatever bull they want and get me to teach it but Im not going to do it half arsed with a lovely plan on colored paper perhaps that has fxxx all chance of being implemnted due to lack of resources

So you broke the Union directive and spent 12 hours planning outside of school time with a colleague. It begs the question why you'd need much more time this year and if teachers plan & meet anyway why should 22 hours a year be provided. Also as a result of the union directives you've had no CPD for over a year & seem to be getting on with it so are they wasting money providing for it in the future.

implausible · 28-09-2015 8:45pm

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

There are those who are just too stupid and should not be in teaching because they cant figure out an opinion after all this time or think five minutes is too much to take out of their lives.

Well, of course it's going to cause offence! You cannot equate apathy with stupidity. There are plenty of highly intelligent teachers out there who simply do not see or care about the big picture. They just want to get on with their job week to week, get their pay cheques and go home to their families or get on with whatever they are into outside of their job. And shock, horror - many people only see their job as a part of their lives. Sure, they'll complain about CP hours and s/s, but they'll get on with it. A ballot is not a big deal, especially one that will not affect most of them for quite a few years.

I go to union meetings, I've been rep and a branch officer in the past and I have an interest in education generally, I see it as more than just a job. However, many of my friends and colleagues don't. Their priorities lie elsewhere. It's not stupidity.

Alex Meier · 28-09-2015 8:50pm

I opened a thread on this but it's also relevant to this thread:

Embedded in Haddington Road are increment delays for public servants.

Taking myself, as a pre-2011 teacher, without these delays I would currently be on an annual salary which is €1356 greater than my current salary since 01 September 2015.

I do not receive this salary until 01 March 2016. . . So that's a loss of €678.

Now on 01 September 2016 my salary would have risen by €1796 without Haddington Road. . . But I will not receive this until 01 June 2017. . . Some nine months later.

This is a loss of €1347 giving a total loss of €2025.

The only pay restoration for me, and 80% of the public sector, is a pay "rise" of €1000 on 01 September 2017 whilst I keep working Croke Park/Haddington Road.

This means my pay "rise" comes to MINUS €1025

Surely this is a con?

ASTI Ballots

Comments