Govt attempt to restart Croke Park talks

RealJohn

That's all well and good Powerhouse and you're right to feel aggrieved. I would too. It has nothing to do with what's being discussed here though.

the_syco

doc_17 wrote: »

If the government move to legislate then I can see the Labour Party being ripped apart by the issue.

The Labour Party were great in opposition; when they could promise the world and demand the moon. It seems they've found this not so easy to do when in power.

=-=

In the current climate of unemployment, I'm not are how the public will react to the teachers striking. We'll probably tell the bankers to go f**k themselves, but I'd wonder what sort of response the teachers will get from the unemployed?

=-=

Forced redundancies were mentioned; apart from Irish, what is there to stop the government importing subs in from england? Will teachers from a different grading system be worse than no teachers?

tayto lover

the_syco wrote: »

The Labour Party were great in opposition; when they could promise the world and demand the moon. It seems they've found this not so easy to do when in power.

=-=

In the current climate of unemployment, I'm not are how the public will react to the teachers striking. We'll probably tell the bankers to go f**k themselves, but I'd wonder what sort of response the teachers will get from the unemployed?

=-=

Forced redundancies were mentioned; apart from Irish, what is there to stop the government importing subs in from england? Will teachers from a different grading system be worse than no teachers?

Are you for real?
If that happened the entire PS would walk out en mass.

klairondavis

the_syco wrote: »

Forced redundancies were mentioned; apart from Irish, what is there to stop the government importing subs in from england? Will teachers from a different grading system be worse than no teachers?

There are plenty of unemployed teachers out there too thanks to measures taken by successive governments to turn the profession into a yellow-pack one. There is a shortage of teachers in England and a big proportion of Irish NQTs will emigrate to fill those posts after being trained here.

Ruairí Quinn seems happy to export a generation of teachers yet at the same time he hopes to attract higher quality graduates to the profession? :rolleyes:

the_syco

tayto lover wrote: »

Are you for real?
If that happened the entire PS would walk out en mass.

I did find it odd that the government mentioned it, and wondering why they mentioned it. Also, if it was at all possible for them to do it? Have they mentioned/threatened this sort of thing before?

Trotter

They threaten ridiculous things so that people who are public servants and have no interest in the situation and dont read up on any of it will see it in the paper and think Oh no I better vote the way they want..

Powerhouse

the_syco wrote: »

Forced redundancies were mentioned; apart from Irish, what is there to stop the government importing subs in from england? Will teachers from a different grading system be worse than no teachers?

What a wacky suggestion. This puts me in mind of Black and Tans and Auxies being brought in from England in 1920. That didn't go so well either. That's leaving aside the fact that England can hardly fill its own teaching jobs never mind Ireland's.

Powerhouse

RealJohn wrote: »

That's all well and good Powerhouse and you're right to feel aggrieved. I would too. It has nothing to do with what's being discussed here though.

I think this is very unfair. In the first instance I answered a question about S&S (which I assumed was relevant to CP2) and Croke Park hours - as to whether I would be okay to forego them and nothing else. Then I was asked by another poster for some detail on what informs my attitude to S&S. I think it's unfair to be told that it has nothing to do with what's being discussed here when I merely answered other posters.

RealJohn

You're right Powerhouse, I apologise. I might have been more blunt there than I should have been and in fairness, I applaud the fact that you did actually answer. My reply was directed more towards your previous post and my point stands. Those not pulling their weight in your school are irrelevant to the discussion. If they're not pulling their weight doing it now, why would they when they're not being paid for it? If anything, you'd expect them to get worse.
(You don't need to answer that by the way.)
(And that came across as a bit catty. I didn't mean it to be.)

Powerhouse

RealJohn wrote: »

1) Those not pulling their weight in your school are irrelevant to the discussion.

2) If they're not pulling their weight doing it now, why would they when they're not being paid for it? If anything, you'd expect them to get worse.

1) They are relevant to why I hold my opinion. It is reasonable to cite personal experiences where they inform our views isn't it?

2) Why would they pull their weight then? Because as I already outlined in a previous post they would be specifically timetabled for supervision for a particular class period and would be responsible for that period every week and could not get all shy if they didn't like the look of the class or just couldn't be arsed, and leave it to another teacher that they share the roster with.

That system operates in the school my other half teaches in and she says it works a treat. She knows every week going in that if a class needs supervision during a certain period/periods during that week she alone is, in the first instance, responsible. To not show up is like not showing up for your class.

Our Vice Principal told us recently that when subtly raising this issue that one teacher had done zero supervision periods since September. That's my context even if it is deemed irrelevant, and why I would have no issue with changes to S&S.

RealJohn

Powerhouse wrote: »

1) They are relevant to why I hold my opinion. It is reasonable to cite personal experiences where they inform our views isn't it?

That's fair enough but whether it colours your views or not, it shouldn't. It's irrelevant.

Powerhouse wrote: »

2) Why would they pull their weight then? Because as I already outlined in a previous post they would be specifically timetabled for supervision for a particular class period and would be responsible for that period every week and could not get all shy if they didn't like the look of the class or just couldn't be arsed, and leave it to another teacher that they share the roster with.

That system operates in the school my other half teaches in and she says it works a treat. She knows every week going in that if a class needs supervision during a certain period/periods during that week she alone is, in the first instance, responsible. To not show up is like not showing up for your class.

Our Vice Principal told us recently that when subtly raising this issue that one teacher had done zero supervision periods since September. That's my context even if it is deemed irrelevant, and why I would have no issue with changes to S&S.

Why would making it compulsory mean your school will change the way it's rostered though? The system we have sounds the same as the system in your wife's school. I know when I might have to cover a class and when I definitely won't. A sort of "who's free right now?" type of system sounds like a nightmare, especially for whoever's organising it but adding more hours and making everyone do it doesn't sound like a reason to change it.

Anyway, we're sidetracking the discussion. You've explained why you think it's relevant. I still disagree. Let's leave it at that.

Susie120704

Powerhouse wrote: »

1) They are relevant to why I hold my opinion. It is reasonable to cite personal experiences where they inform our views isn't it?

2) Why would they pull their weight then? Because as I already outlined in a previous post they would be specifically timetabled for supervision for a particular class period and would be responsible for that period every week and could not get all shy if they didn't like the look of the class or just couldn't be arsed, and leave it to another teacher that they share the roster with.

That system operates in the school my other half teaches in and she says it works a treat. She knows every week going in that if a class needs supervision during a certain period/periods during that week she alone is, in the first instance, responsible. To not show up is like not showing up for your class.

Our Vice Principal told us recently that when subtly raising this issue that one teacher had done zero supervision periods since September. That's my context even if it is deemed irrelevant, and why I would have no issue with changes to S&S.

it is unreal that a teacher in the scheme can get away with that. I recently showed up five minutes late for yard supervision because I was doing project work at lunch with students. There was such a look from the principal that I felt the need to apologise. In any school I taught not being there when you should be for S&S simply was not tolerated.

Powerhouse

RealJohn wrote: »

That's fair enough but whether it colours your views or not, it shouldn't. It's irrelevant.

Why would making it compulsory mean your school will change the way it's rostered though? The system we have sounds the same as the system in your wife's school. I know when I might have to cover a class and when I definitely won't. A sort of "who's free right now?" type of system sounds like a nightmare, especially for whoever's organising it but adding more hours and making everyone do it doesn't sound like a reason to change it.

Anyway, we're sidetracking the discussion. You've explained why you think it's relevant. I still disagree. Let's leave it at that.

That's fair enough but whether it colours your views or not, it shouldn't.

I don't understand this. How can personal experience not 'colour' one's views? You'd have to live in a vaccuum for it not to wouldn't you? What's the point of this forum at all if people's personal experiences are irrelevant? Most and probably all threads are started because someone has formed a personal opinion or is trying to elicit those of others.

Why would making it compulsory mean your school will change the way it's rostered though?

Because there will be enough teachers in the school to have everyone do at least one period so it will have to change in the view of many teachers.
The current system, incidentally, is not a nightmare for the people running it. Classes are almost always covered. It is for the people who end up having to cover maybe all three classes they are provisionally rostered for during the week while others do none or one that it's unfair.*

*Naturally there is a random element to all of this anyway and depending on who is out and at what time there is no way to guarantee that everyone will do the same substitution but that's not what I am talking about. I can accept the vagaries of real life.

Powerhouse

Susie120704 wrote: »

In any school I taught not being there when you should be for S&S simply was not tolerated.

But in this case things are vague enough to get away with not putting their name down at all. There are two/three names down for every class and if someone is cute enough not to show in the staffroom too early in the day they can avoid getting caught perhaps at all that day or even week. Chances are they also will be down with different teachers for all three classes so it will be noticed less. There's also a kind of informal 'I'll do this class this week and you can do it next week' with some teachers which on the face of it is reasonable but the problem with that is that when you might be getting nailed for the other two every week as well. In a system where people have a specific period to cover then at least if people don't show or get involved it should be obvious.

Fizzical

Powerhouse wrote: »

But in this case things are vague enough to get away with not putting their name down at all. There are two/three names down for every class and if someone is cute enough not to show in the staffroom too early in the day they can avoid getting caught perhaps at all that day or even week. Chances are they also will be down with different teachers for all three classes so it will be noticed less. There's also a kind of informal 'I'll do this class this week and you can do it next week' with some teachers which on the face of it is reasonable but the problem with that is that when you might be getting nailed for the other two every week as well. In a system where people have a specific period to cover then at least if people don't show or get involved it should be obvious.

I don't understand this. You only do one substitution per week. How could you possibly be doing three??

Miss Lockhart

Fizzical wrote: »

I don't understand this. You only do one substitution per week. How could you possibly be doing three??

You can do up to 1.5 hours per week, up to a maximum of 37 hours per year for the standard payment.

RealJohn

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

You can do up to 1.5 hours per week, up to a maximum of 37 hours per year for the standard payment.

But that 1.5 hours includes lunchtime supervision too. In my place, we get one lunchtime, one break and then a maximum of one free class, barring exceptional circumstances.

And Powerhouse, yes, experience will colour your view but most of us are able to then analyse the situation rationally and say "well that annoys me but it doesn't actually have any bearing on the situation so I'll try not to take it into account when I make my decision".

Miss Lockhart

RealJohn wrote: »

But that 1.5 hours includes lunchtime supervision too. In my place, we get one lunchtime, one break and then a maximum of one free class, barring exceptional circumstances.

Yes. But how the 1.5 hours is divided is up to local agreement in the school. So you can be doing more than one supervision.

Fizzical

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

You can do up to 1.5 hours per week, up to a maximum of 37 hours per year for the standard payment.

According to the agreement:

Supervision duties should first be timetabled over the course of the school year. Residual hours available after the timetabling of supervision will be available for substitution.

If classes are 30 mins long and the max time per week is 1.5 hours then that allows for 3 classes of substitution - but only if no supervision is being done. And 1.5 hours per week over the whole year exceeds the yearly max by over 13 hours.

In our school we do 30 mins of supervision and one class (40 mins) of substitution, which if fully implemented over the year would bring us to 2 hours over.

Miss Lockhart

Fizzical wrote: »

According to the agreement:

If classes are 30 mins long and the max time per week is 1.5 hours then that allows for 3 classes of substitution - but only if no supervision is being done. And 1.5 hours per week over the whole year exceeds the yearly max by over 13 hours.

In our school we do 30 mins of supervision and one class (40 mins) of substitution, which if fully implemented over the year would bring us to 2 hours over.

Yes, but there can be a choice given to teachers whether they want to opt for supervision or for substitution, once the supervision needs of the school will be met. This is common enough in schools I know. Some people prefer supervision and others prefer substitution.

Not all schools have big supervision needs - not all schools have students in for lunch time.

Powerhouse

RealJohn wrote: »

And Powerhouse, yes, experience will colour your view but most of us are able to then analyse the situation rationally and say "well that annoys me but it doesn't actually have any bearing on the situation so I'll try not to take it into account when I make my decision".

This is getting increasingly bizarre. There is no abstract 'situation'. There is a person's experience that's all. I cannot comment or be informed by what happens with you or anyone else as I don't know about it. I have no idea what 'decision' you are talking about at this stage either but my work-related decisions will be informed by my work-related experience. Same as everyone really.