Latest from Croke Park Agreement

M.Pool

Here's a link to the outcomes from the ASTI's latest talks on Croke Park

http://www.asti.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/Documents/Document_Croke_park_outcome.pdf

As I'm a newish teacher the section on redeployment was of most interest. Junior teachers are in line to be redeployed in schools which are over surplus. If redeployed from a voluntary secondary school to another voluntary secondary school, years of service will not be taken into account, so bascially back to year zero in a new school.

The agreement is to be put to a ballot, again. Remind anyone of Nice? If it's rejected then junior teachers in over surplus schools will be given compulsory redundacy.

So is it damned if we do and damned if we don't?

Pwpane

Thanks for putting up this post with the link to the document - I've just read about it in the newspaper and it's good to have the official text.

To answer your question, of course it's damned if we do and damned if we don't. That's my automatic response to anything the govt generates these days, I'm afraid! I'll have to read the document again a couple of times to really figure out what I think.

In the meantime, anyone know why non-recognition of length of service only applies to redeployment between voluntary secondary schools? Is it due to difference in promotion procedures?

Also, does anyone know what this means - "A procedure in relation to redeployment of post primary teachers, surplus to requirements in school closure situations, was agreed under the provisions of the Towards 2016 agreement. The scheme set out in this document will apply to permanent/C.I.D. post primary teachers surplus to requirements in situations other than school closure. It will also apply to other persons employed as teachers in a permanent/ C.I.D. capacity and who are surplus to requirements." Am I reading it wrongly, or is a teacher different to someone employed as a teacher....??

rainbowtrout

M.Pool wrote: »

Here's a link to the outcomes from the ASTI's latest talks on Croke Park

http://www.asti.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/Documents/Document_Croke_park_outcome.pdf

As I'm a newish teacher the section on redeployment was of most interest. Junior teachers are in line to be redeployed in schools which are over surplus. If redeployed from a voluntary secondary school to another voluntary secondary school, years of service will not be taken into account, so bascially back to year zero in a new school.

The agreement is to be put to a ballot, again. Remind anyone of Nice? If it's rejected then junior teachers in over surplus schools will be given compulsory redundacy.

So is it damned if we do and damned if we don't?

Not true. Read the text of the document

Teachers redeployed in consequence of these arrangements will transfer their reckonable teaching service for
promotion purposes in the previous school to the receiving school and this service will be reckonable for
promotion purposes in the receiving school. This is subject to one exception that a teacher being redeployed
from a voluntary secondary school to a receiving voluntary secondary school will not transfer reckonable
teaching service for promotion purpose

Your years of service will not count for promotion purposes, i.e. posts of responsibility. That was always the case anyway. So it's not back to year zero, if you have served 12 years in a school and are on point 15 when you are redeployed, you will go onto point 16 the following year in your new school. You will just be bottom of the pecking order when it comes to posts.

rainbowtrout

Pwpane wrote: »

Thanks for putting up this post with the link to the document - I've just read about it in the newspaper and it's good to have the official text.

To answer your question, of course it's damned if we do and damned if we don't. That's my automatic response to anything the govt generates these days, I'm afraid! I'll have to read the document again a couple of times to really figure out what I think.

In the meantime, anyone know why non-recognition of length of service only applies to redeployment between voluntary secondary schools? Is it due to difference in promotion procedures?

Also, does anyone know what this means - "A procedure in relation to redeployment of post primary teachers, surplus to requirements in school closure situations, was agreed under the provisions of the Towards 2016 agreement. The scheme set out in this document will apply to permanent/C.I.D. post primary teachers surplus to requirements in situations other than school closure. It will also apply to other persons employed as teachers in a permanent/ C.I.D. capacity and who are surplus to requirements." Am I reading it wrongly, or is a teacher different to someone employed as a teacher....??

It possibly refers to teachers who became permanent in the VEC system without a formal teaching qualification and that their status as a teacher would still be recognised if they had to be redeployed.

M.Pool

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Not true. Read the text of the document




Your years of service will not count for promotion purposes, i.e. posts of responsibility. That was always the case anyway. So it's not back to year zero, if you have served 12 years in a school and are on point 15 when you are redeployed, you will go onto point 16 the following year in your new school. You will just be bottom of the pecking order when it comes to posts.

Thanks for your reply. I didn't assume they would take our increments away (although anything seems possible these days). I do however think it is grossly unfair that your seniority is automatically taken away when you are forced into a new school. Remember the teachers who will be redeployed will have a minimum of 4 years in their current school and probally many more years experience before that.

M.Pool

Pwpane wrote: »

In the meantime, anyone know why non-recognition of length of service only applies to redeployment between voluntary secondary schools? Is it due to difference in promotion procedures?

I'd also like to know why voluntary secondary schools are to be treated differently.

drusk

This re-deployment agreement really bugs me. It goes against every school management's ability to choose the staff that best suit the needs of the school.

I believe that the reason there are so many woeful teachers out there - giving ALL teachers a bad rep - is because the ability of school management to control who remains in employment year after year has been compromised. It is now pretty much impossible for a principal to get rid of a teacher that is underperforming, and even downright useless. If a principal was given more autonomy with regards to the hiring, monitoring of performance and firing of staff, then a lot of bad teachers would be weeded out pretty effectively.

What this proposed agreement does is further diminish the ability of a principal to ensure his/her school is populated with good, hard-working teachers. What little autonomy principals have regarding the hiring and firing of teachers becomes even less.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it really bothers me to see colleages who do absolutely nothing day-in day-out move up the pay-scales every year. There's no accountability. Yet everyone in the staff-room knows who these teachers are. What's more, so do the principals.

So here we have the Croke Park Deal - we're supposed to be getting reform to better the system in return for no further pay cuts. Yet it's only going to make the system worse. This "Director of Redeployment" will place teachers in whatever school he/she sees fit, and there's nothing the principal at the receiving end can do about it. Total bullshit.

Pwpane

Redeployment in schools is not new.

I don't think any principal relished having a staff member imposed on them in the past but principals never had full control over the composition of school staff anyway (thank God!). Management hire and fire staff.

The principal is but one member of the school staff. Due to their role, underperforming principals cause far more damage to a school than individual teachers. I'd like to see a scheme for evaluating and removing principals before any such is introduced for teachers.

Back on topic, redeployment will hardly affect the underperforming teachers who irritate you by doing nothing and still moving up the pay scales. Those to be moved are junior staff who have worked their fingers to the bone in order to get that precious permanent/CID status and have impressed their principal enough to get it. Schools on the receiving end will be lucky to get them.

Donegaljack

Hi, new to the forum.

Does anyone know if the Croke Park agreement applies to Further Ed. teachers sector as well as primary and second level, thanks.

Pwpane

Follow the link given in the first post. Check Appendix 1.

Donegaljack

Pwpane wrote: »

Follow the link given in the first post. Check Appendix 1.

Thanks, but what about the redeployment bit?

rainbowtrout

M.Pool wrote: »

I'd also like to know why voluntary secondary schools are to be treated differently.

I'd imagine it's because voluntary secondary schools get their own individual allocation where as VECs get a county/city allocation. Two teachers were redeployed from my school within my VEC at the end of last year because we were over quota but there were hours available in another school.

rainbowtrout

Donegaljack wrote: »

Thanks, but what about the redeployment bit?

All of the conditions of redeployment are in the Appendix. Read the whole thing.

Further Ed.

The proposals apply to the FE/PLC sector and will, accepted by the Unions, mean a move to the new FETAC procedures.

In the case of VECs and redeployment my reading of the proposalsgive me to understand that it wont only mean within a VEC but between VECs with the 50 mile radius starting from the school/centre at the edge of the VEC boundary and not the VEC school/centre you are currently assigned to. As a VEC employed teacher you are assigned to the VEC not to a centre or school. This will have major implications in that it may mean no vacancies or new positions will arise anywhere in the country with reployment used to fill all vacancies.

drusk

Pwpane wrote: »

Redeployment in schools is not new.

I don't think any principal relished having a staff member imposed on them in the past but principals never had full control over the composition of school staff anyway (thank God!). Management hire and fire staff.

The principal is but one member of the school staff. Due to their role, underperforming principals cause far more damage to a school than individual teachers. I'd like to see a scheme for evaluating and removing principals before any such is introduced for teachers.

Back on topic, redeployment will hardly affect the underperforming teachers who irritate you by doing nothing and still moving up the pay scales. Those to be moved are junior staff who have worked their fingers to the bone in order to get that precious permanent/CID status and have impressed their principal enough to get it. Schools on the receiving end will be lucky to get them.

I agree with you that a principal has the potential to do far worse damage to a school. However, having worked in three schools, I've worked with an extraordinary amount of incompetent teachers but I've yet to meet a principal that wasn't excellent. I'm not saying they don't exist, I just believe that incompetent teachers are a bigger problem.

You say that schools on the receiving end of redeployed teachers will be lucky to get them, but that's such a broad brush-stoke on a painting of marvelous, fresh-faced young teachers. Not all new-entrants to teaching work their fingers to the bone, and such an assumption can have disastrous consequences.

You say that management hire and fire staff. Yes, they hire them, but NO they do not fire them. It is virtually impossible to fire a teacher. Which is incredibly unfortunate with respect to the teachers (and we all know a few) who are simply in the wrong profession. If this agreement is implemented, then management's control over hiring will be destroyed.

Anyone can do a PGDE if they've got enough money and enough points. The amount of people who are totally unsuited to the profession and enter it for the wrong reasons is staggering. Management need to be given total control over who gets hired. And I believe management should have more control over who gets fired, but pigs will fly before that ever becomes a reality judging my this agreement.

Pwpane

I've worked with an extraordinary amount of incompetent teachers but I've yet to meet a principal that wasn't excellent.

You see, there's where we differ, drusk! You have a faith in principals, I have a faith in teachers. You identify strongly with the principal's role - I take it you have your eye firmly on the career ladder?

I'm teaching quite a while and I've met only one incompetent teacher but two mediocre principals who did most of their damage while they were learning on the job and one dreadful principal who deteriorated as time went on.

The incompetent teacher was very hard to get rid of but did no lasting damage as all stops were pulled out to compensate for her until she was dismissed. There were other teachers that were idiosyncratic but not underperforming - they did the job and added spice to the life of the school. They also added to the life education of the pupils!

However, the staffs tried their best to compensate for the poorly performing principals but little could be done as they were oblivious of what they were doing and could not be told. The damage is still flourishing after them.

As for young teachers, I have never seen people work so hard as the new teachers that have started work in recent years. They are extremely professional and efficient, do a huge amount of extra-curricular work and CPD. Any that don't reach that standard don't last long. Those that last for the 4 years necessary to get that CID of a few hours a week are excellent. Yes, maybe after several years of being over-used and abused by a focussed principal they may change their tune but if treated with respect there is no reason they should change.