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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

S & S and class periods

12346»

Comments

  • #252
    endakenny
    Closed Accounts Posts: 956 ✭✭✭endakenny


    Peter Flynt wrote: »
    There is no reference to co-operation with inspectors in any teacher contract. In fact this was one of the directives "ready to go" and could easily have been issued along with the other directives issued by the ASTI.

    ASTI members wouldn't have been responsible for closing any schools. Boards of Management would have been. The DES would not have been responsible for employing external personnel. . . They couldn't as they wanted S&S done for free. . . So get the teachers to do it.

    How many "external personnel" would work in a school for free?

    But FEMPI meant that the DES would have docked your salaries for the days on which schools would have been closed due to withdrawal from S&S. In other words, withdrawal from S&S would have been treated as a strike.


  • #253
    teacherhead
    Closed Accounts Posts: 666 ✭✭✭teacherhead


    endakenny wrote: »
    But FEMPI meant that the DES would have docked your salaries for the days on which schools would have been closed due to withdrawal from S&S. In other words, withdrawal from S&S would have been treated as a strike.

    this whole argument has been trotted out before. Regardless of what we wanted or otherwise HRA is here so if's and buts will get us nowhere.

    Also, the circular is pretty clear on most things to be fair but it hasn't addressed what happens in the following circumstances; Teacher on sick leave, week to week, casual sub in with no liability for s&s, will the sick cert cover the s&s portion of the absent teachers work? Its now part of the contract after all?

    interested in finding out, if you cant cover it with paid subbing then the load has to be spread among everyone else, this will exhaust the 43 hours more quickly


  • #254
    Delphi91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭Delphi91


    teacherhead wrote: »
    ...Teacher on sick leave, week to week, casual sub in with no liability for s&s, will the sick cert cover the s&s portion of the absent teachers work? Its now part of the contract after all?

    interested in finding out, if you cant cover it with paid subbing then the load has to be spread among everyone else, this will exhaust the 43 hours more quickly

    I would imagine that, baring exceptions, that you might have a few people slotted in for S&S for each time that your sick teacher is also rostered. In that case, someone else would be assigned the cover. I'm not sure that it would exhaust the 43 hours any faster as you're still only using 1 teacher, whether it be an alternative teacher or the absent teacher (had they been there).


  • #255
    km79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 48,254 ✭✭✭✭km79


    Delphi91 wrote: »
    I would imagine that, baring exceptions, that you might have a few people slotted in for S&S for each time that your sick teacher is also rostered. In that case, someone else would be assigned the cover. I'm not sure that it would exhaust the 43 hours any faster as you're still only using 1 teacher, whether it be an alternative teacher or the absent teacher (had they been there).
    What about the supervision part.....if someone gets hurts etc etc . It's no longer voluntary so the dept needs to clarify that the school should organize this cover in future


  • #256
    solerina
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭solerina


    I would like some information on what is to happen with regard to supervision...currently we are doing 50 mins per week and the extra people being forced into S&S are doing 0....when will they join the rota....and will it mean we can do a little less (40/30mins maybe)...nothing has been mentioned about it in my school at all


  • #257
    teacherhead
    Closed Accounts Posts: 666 ✭✭✭teacherhead


    Delphi91 wrote: »
    I would imagine that, baring exceptions, that you might have a few people slotted in for S&S for each time that your sick teacher is also rostered. In that case, someone else would be assigned the cover. I'm not sure that it would exhaust the 43 hours any faster as you're still only using 1 teacher, whether it be an alternative teacher or the absent teacher (had they been there).

    its more for the supervision rota. The fact that you have made a rote and assigned a teacher to the area/s means that you feel that it needs to be supervised.

    if a teacher is down to do it and is absent it still needs to be covered so who do you look to in that case as you wouldn't have several people available at that time.

    if the teacher is out sick say from Christmas to Easter you potentially have maybe twenty less hours than you need to use. A day here and there if easy to cover but long term sick leave will be a difficult one.

    if its part of the contract now the medical cert should cover it really. Problem is if I have a sub in for 3 hours this week and they're in another school next week they could do 3 more and go way over in a year as there's no mechanism to track it


  • #258
    Delphi91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭Delphi91


    solerina wrote: »
    I would like some information on what is to happen with regard to supervision...currently we are doing 50 mins per week and the extra people being forced into S&S are doing 0....when will they join the rota....and will it mean we can do a little less (40/30mins maybe)...nothing has been mentioned about it in my school at all

    I take it you're referring to ASTI people joining the rota as a result of the recent ballot. They were due to be on the rota by 20th January.

    As for your requirement in terms of time dropping once they join, I doubt it, as irrespective of how many people are on the rota, you are required to do a maximum of 43 hours per year.


  • #259
    Delphi91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭Delphi91


    teacherhead wrote: »
    its more for the supervision rota. The fact that you have made a rote and assigned a teacher to the area/s means that you feel that it needs to be supervised...

    Well yes, that is correct. I suppose in my situation, I am lucky in that as a result of the ballots I now have "extra" people assigned to areas for supervision - original S&S people plus extras under HRA. If that is the case, I just re-assign someone to an area where the normal person is missing (unless there's already enough people there).


  • #260
    solerina
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭solerina


    Delphi91 wrote: »
    I take it you're referring to ASTI people joining the rota as a result of the recent ballot. They were due to be on the rota by 20th January.

    As for your requirement in terms of time dropping once they join, I doubt it, as irrespective of how many people are on the rota, you are required to do a maximum of 43 hours per year.


    Our school is all ASTI and as its a small school we don't need extra people to cover the supervision...therefore we could all possibly do less per week to include more people.
    I know its 43 hours but it doesn't necessarily need to have 50 mins per week of it doing supervision, so my original question still stands. At the moment nothing has changed since Sept in our school.


  • #261
    Delphi91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭Delphi91


    solerina wrote: »
    Our school is all ASTI and as its a small school we don't need extra people to cover the supervision...therefore we could all possibly do less per week to include more people.
    I know its 43 hours but it doesn't necessarily need to have 50 mins per week of it doing supervision, so my original question still stands. At the moment nothing has changed since Sept in our school.

    No, it probably doesn't but that depends on how it was set up under the old system.

    Under the original S&S scheme, teachers were required to do a maximum of 1.5 hours per week. As part of this, you were to be available for 3 class periods, to be called for one. Given that the typical class has an average length of 40 mins, that meant that you supervised for 50 minutes - 2 x10min breaks and 1 x 30min lunch in my school.

    The HRA increases the 1.5 hours to 3.0 with the extra 1.5 hours being substitution only. That to me suggests that the original level of supervision still stands.

    The ASTI website states the following:
    How much supervision and how much substitution will I have to do each week?

    The maximum amount of time a teacher can be called upon to complete S&S duties each week is 3 hours. This is subject to a yearly cap of 43 hours.

    Of a teacher’s 3 hour weekly cap on S&S, 1.5 hours must only be used for substitution. The remaining 1.5 hours must be used for both supervision and substitution.

    I guess it depends on ones interpretation of the last bit. I've seen nothing that says the original 1.5 hours maximum is to be constructed in a specific way as a result of the HRA.


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    rafared
    Registered Users Posts: 634 ✭✭✭rafared


    Can anybody clarify the exact pension implications for those opting out?


  • #263
    Pwpane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 457 ✭✭Pwpane


    rafared wrote: »
    Can anybody clarify the exact pension implications for those opting out?
    It's specified in the Circular, I think? Check it out. As far as I remember, your pension is based on your salary as reduced by the opt-out charge, as is your lump sum.


Advertisement