TUI recommend acceptance of new JC

deiseindublin

No surprise here then.
Be interesting to see what happens with ASTI with 2 exec members saying they recommending a NO.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0828/724168-junior-cycle/

km79

deiseindublin wrote: »

No surprise here then.
Be interesting to see what happens with ASTI with 2 exec members saying they recommending a NO.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0828/724168-junior-cycle/

I'm gonna guess we won't get a recommendation from the asti
which is as good as a Yes .........
the end is nigh

acequion

km79 wrote: »

I'm gonna guess we won't get a recommendation from the asti
which is as good as a Yes .........
the end is nigh

Maybe,but let's not give in! What it is is a complete capitulation by the unions [surprise,surpirse!] and just before an election [ahem,ahem!]

But astifightback,ever the warriors for teachers' rights, have a good campaign already underway and I'm certainly rowing in behind them.

km79

acequion wrote: »

Maybe,but let's not give in! What it is is a complete capitulation by the unions [surprise,surpirse!] and just before an election [ahem,ahem!]

But astifightback,ever the warriors for teachers' rights, have a good campaign already underway and I'm certainly rowing in behind them.

ballot without recommendation
complete cop out
all feels so familiar

deiseindublin

Yeah, I'm TUI and the No Recommendation last time really annoyed me. It's a complete cop out. It's in effect recommending a Yes without having the balls to say it.

2011abc

Extremely suspicious that INMO voted Yes by over 70% .They were always one of the more combative unions and Liam Doran WAS a strident defender of his members .

ASTI putting it to members with No recommendation .I wonder which of their hierarchy will be joining the GS this time on the tour of staffrooms trying to persuade vulnerable teachers to vote Yes ?

Jamfa

2011abc wrote: »

Extremely suspicious that INMO voted Yes by over 70% .They were always one of the more combative unions and Liam Doran WAS a strident defender of his members .

ASTI putting it to members with No recommendation .I wonder which of their hierarchy will be joining the GS this time on the tour of staffrooms trying to persuade vulnerable teachers to vote Yes ?

Did the INMO vote Yes to the new JC?

acequion

Jamfa wrote: »

Did the INMO vote Yes to the new JC?

I think it's quite obvious that he's talking about something else there!

acequion

Based on recent trends with campaigns and ballots the most likely scenario is that this JC will get passed. Or maybe not. Maybe teachers will see it for what it really is and finally grow a pair.

I will be retired before it all takes it real toll but what I would say to young teachers is to think long and hard before you vote. You're still doing CP hours,still doing unpaid S&S,still have to contend with worse sick leave than in England,young teachers are still on an inferior scale,we are still the most casualised teaching body in Europe and forget going back to further your education as there's no longer any credit for that. And that's only some of what has happened in recent years.

Are you really going to make it easy for a dying Government to further erode your working conditions by imposing such draconian and unnecessary changes?

political analyst

acequion wrote: »

Based on recent trends with campaigns and ballots the most likely scenario is that this JC will get passed. Or maybe not. Maybe teachers will see it for what it really is and finally grow a pair.

The assessment of pupils by their teachers will not be part of the State examination system. Furthermore, Andrew Phelan's claim that the reform will lead to schools being blamed for poor results - which has happened in England - is incorrect because, in Ireland, it's a straight choice between a voluntary school and a State-run school and the increase in the population means that it is highly unlikely that "league tables" would lead to a school becoming massively under-subscribed.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0825/723386-asti/

acequion wrote: »

I will be retired before it all takes it real toll but what I would say to young teachers is to think long and hard before you vote. You're still doing CP hours,still doing unpaid S&S,still have to contend with worse sick leave than in England,young teachers are still on an inferior scale,we are still the most casualised teaching body in Europe and forget going back to further your education as there's no longer any credit for that. And that's only some of what has happened in recent years.

Are you really going to make it easy for a dying Government to further erode your working conditions by imposing such draconian and unnecessary changes?

I'm aware that the threatened redundancy of over-quota teachers was a factor in the decision to accept HRA but, surely, the integrity of the teaching profession is bigger than any particular member of that profession, i.e. sacrificing the jobs of a few for the greater good. Even if legal action in the event of rejection of HRA had been ultimately unsuccessful, it might have led to an injunction being granted to prevent redundancies, thus causing a delay, which would embarrass the Labour Party in the run-up to the general election.

The teachers' unions must have known that the protection of the CPA against further pay-cuts would not apply to teachers who joined the profession after the passing of the CPA. The acceptance of the CPA meant that new teachers were abandoned by the unions and thus is worthy of comparison to hanging South Vietnam out to dry in 1975.

gaiscioch

It's only a matter of time before the free market fundamentalists organise to demand greater "efficiencies" in our education system by selling it off to a private corporation. I'm surprised it has escaped this long.

There could be distinct economies of scale for a certain Mr O'Brien in that one as he'll then own the privatised Irish Water business and can charge every student for water (and no doubt much more), while ensuring that all other contracts connected with education are lobbied for on his behalf by those totally impartial journalists in Independent Newspapers and a myriad of radio stations. And, indeed, if the annual fee per student is not increased by the government in power, said media outlets will campaign to bring down said government.

I just love where this brave new world of capitalist supremacy over democracy is going in the name of "efficiency". [Anybody who hasn't familiarised themselves with Thomas Piketty's important thesis on the rise of greater inequality, the transfer of public wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people (move towards oligarchy), and the growth of capitalist fundamentalism, can get a summary here.]

Vote No (obviously).

political analyst

gaiscioch wrote: »

It's only a matter of time before the free market fundamentalists organise to demand greater "efficiencies" in our education system by selling it off to a private corporation. I'm surprised it has escaped this long.

There could be distinct economies of scale for a certain Mr O'Brien in that one as he'll then own the privatised Irish Water business and can charge every student for water (and no doubt much more), while ensuring that all other contracts connected with education are lobbied for on his behalf by those totally impartial journalists in Independent Newspapers and a myriad of radio stations. And, indeed, if the annual fee per student is not increased by the government in power, said media outlets will campaign to bring down said government.

I just love where this brave new world of capitalist supremacy over democracy is going in the name of "efficiency". [Anybody who hasn't familiarised themselves with Thomas Piketty's important thesis on the rise of greater inequality, the transfer of public wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people (move towards oligarchy), and the growth of capitalist fundamentalism, can get a summary here.]

Vote No (obviously).

There's no evidence that he is interested in contracts connected to education and schools, unlike Irish Water, are not semi-state bodies.

Actually, voluntary secondary schools are private institutions anyway.

gaiscioch

political analyst wrote: »

There's no evidence that he is interested in contracts connected to education and schools, unlike Irish Water, are not semi-state bodies.

Actually, voluntary secondary schools are private institutions anyway.

1) That individual is interested in anything which involves money or power. particularly when it means risk-free state contracts with payment guaranteed on time.

2) Precisely; which is why the lapdogs of the "privatise everything public" ideology will claim that the entire education system under the control of a private corporation will give more "efficiencies" than having it owned by many organisations.

acequion

gaiscioch wrote: »

It's only a matter of time before the free market fundamentalists organise to demand greater "efficiencies" in our education system by selling it off to a private corporation. I'm surprised it has escaped this long.

There could be distinct economies of scale for a certain Mr O'Brien in that one as he'll then own the privatised Irish Water business and can charge every student for water (and no doubt much more), while ensuring that all other contracts connected with education are lobbied for on his behalf by those totally impartial journalists in Independent Newspapers and a myriad of radio stations. And, indeed, if the annual fee per student is not increased by the government in power, said media outlets will campaign to bring down said government.

I just love where this brave new world of capitalist supremacy over democracy is going in the name of "efficiency". [Anybody who hasn't familiarised themselves with Thomas Piketty's important thesis on the rise of greater inequality, the transfer of public wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people (move towards oligarchy), and the growth of capitalist fundamentalism, can get a summary here.]

Vote No (obviously).

Thanks for the links there,will look forward to reading. And I completely agree with you. But we,Irish make it easy by voting through every right wing proposal. And the same applies within teaching which is why I'm not too optimistic.

The Greeks once said,"We are not the Irish" In fact the reverse is far more true. I had to admire their no to austerity vote in the summer. Even though it got them nowhere because the big boys ultimately laid on the pressure. They don't even need to do that here.

political analyst

gaiscioch wrote: »

1) That individual is interested in anything which involves money or power. particularly when it means risk-free state contracts with payment guaranteed on time.

I don't think there'd be much money for him to make in education.

gaiscioch wrote: »

2) Precisely; which is why the lapdogs of the "privatise everything public" ideology will claim that the entire education system under the control of a private corporation will give more "efficiencies" than having it owned by many organisations.

If you have any evidence that privatisation of schools or of the State exam system is being planned then please share it.

Perhaps you've been watching too many dystopian films.

2011abc

You're not really very au fair with developments in the UK and USA if you don't realise privatisation in education there is snowballing .And of course we always mimic their failing policies generally adopting them just as they are dropping them as chronic failures .
Any recent changes in Irish educational policy have been entirely driven by austerity politics and the governments desire to bail out the bond holders they swore to burn.

evolving_doors

political analyst wrote: »

I don't think there'd be much money for him to make in education.


If you have any evidence that privatisation of schools or of the State exam system is being planned then please share it.

Perhaps you've been watching too many dystopian films.

He owns Independent college no?

2011abc

By the way I gave incorrect info on this thread last night.TheASTI are putting the vote to members without a recommendation. It seems the top table wanted to recommend it .Also they refuse to reveal details of the sort of practical workload on teachers correcting their own students work .There is a fear expressed by ASTI Fightback that a more rigorous regime than is being expected may already be in the pipeline ( to be revealed after the turkeys have voted for Christmas )

political analyst

Gebgbegb wrote: »

He owns Independent college no?

I meant that there wouldn't be much money for him to make in primary or secondary education.

political analyst

2011abc wrote: »

You're not really very au fair with developments in the UK and USA if you don't realise privatisation in education there is snowballing .And of course we always mimic their failing policies generally adopting them just as they are dropping them as chronic failures .
Any recent changes in Irish educational policy have been entirely driven by austerity politics and the governments desire to bail out the bond holders they swore to burn.

Ireland is a much smaller country than the UK or the USA.

Education matters

deiseindublin wrote: »

No surprise here then.
Be interesting to see what happens with ASTI with 2 exec members saying they recommending a NO.


TUI have campaigned steadily since Ruairi Quinns initial announcement to dilute these proposals By recommending acceptance are they not saying that finally after three years of intense negotiations this is a very different proposal? I certainly don't find it surprising that the union would recommend acceptance of a proposal they had massive input into. We have moved the goalposts considerably, from 100% internal assesment to 60 % now to 0%. Yes there are workload implications but any Union who can convince the Department to give every teacher of JC a class a week off has obviously done something right. Initially we were all told this was a cost saving exercise, now it's costing the Department money. In my view the precedent is set, teachers will receive time in lieu of future " initiatives", maybe not ideal but a step in the right direction, never the less

evolving_doors

Education matters wrote: »

deiseindublin wrote: »

No surprise here then.
Be interesting to see what happens with ASTI with 2 exec members saying they recommending a NO.


TUI have campaigned steadily since Ruairi Quinns initial announcement to dilute these proposals By recommending acceptance are they not saying that finally after three years of intense negotiations this is a very different proposal? I certainly don't find it surprising that the union would recommend acceptance of a proposal they had massive input into. We have moved the goalposts considerably, from 100% internal assesment to 60 % now to 0%. Yes there are workload implications but any Union who can convince the Department to give every teacher of JC a class a week of has obviously done something right. Initially we were all told this was a cost saving exercise, now it's costing the Department money. In my view the precedent is set, teachers will receive time in lieu of future " initiatives", maybe not ideal but a step in the right direction, never the less

Where's the 'class a week off' coming from?

katydid

political analyst wrote: »

There's no evidence that he is interested in contracts connected to education and schools, unlike Irish Water, are not semi-state bodies.

Actually, voluntary secondary schools are private institutions anyway.

Only in name. They are state funded.

katydid

km79 wrote: »

ballot without recommendation
complete cop out
all feels so familiar

I think a ballot without recommendation is the best thing. Let people make up their own minds without being influenced.

katydid

acequion wrote: »

Based on recent trends with campaigns and ballots the most likely scenario is that this JC will get passed. Or maybe not. Maybe teachers will see it for what it really is and finally grow a pair.

Are you really going to make it easy for a dying Government to further erode your working conditions by imposing such draconian and unnecessary changes?

How is it unnecessary to give people a chance to get marks that aren't based on one day in June?

Education matters

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Education matters wrote: »

Where's the 'class a week off' coming from?

The time implications were discussed in depth and flagged in the Joint Implementation Document, in response to this the Department issued a further appendix outlining " Time to Support Implementation". This states " Teachers of Junior Cycle classes who are fulfilling a maximum 22 hour class contact contract will have the class contact reduced to a maximum of 21 hours 20 minutes". I'm not sure if this is the answer to your question but this time is paid for by the Department. The time allocation for all subjects is clearly stated in the just published Revised Framework document. The unions also successfully negotiated a clause (7.4 Joint Statement on Principles) which states the " Implementation of this agreement will be monitored by an implementation committee comprised of representatives of the signatories to the agreement", meaning there will be on going monitoring of the situation should the proposals be passed.

mirrorwall14

Theres absolutely no detail on how this is going to work though. This year I have two full JC classes in both 2nd and 3rd year (so within the CA years). Thats four classes. A colleague of mine has one third year group and no second years. I get the same one class period off? How is that supposed to work when I have FOUR times the students!

Jamfa

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

Theres absolutely no detail on how this is going to work though. This year I have two full JC classes in both 2nd and 3rd year (so within the CA years). Thats four classes. A colleague of mine has one third year group and no second years. I get the same one class period off? How is that supposed to work when I have FOUR times the students!

We never got any time off for having leaving cert exam classes so things will no doubt even out over the years. 22 hours off teaching to prepare for a few junior cycle assessments is a lot more than we've ever got before.

mirrorwall14

Jamfa wrote: »

We never got any time off for having leaving cert exam classes so things will no doubt even out over the years. 22 hours off teaching to prepare for a few junior cycle assessments is a lot more than we've ever got before.

We've never had to document and formally prepare and assess our students before so its not really comparable!

katydid

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

We've never had to document and formally prepare and assess our students before so its not really comparable!

You assess and document homework and term tests all the time.

Jamfa

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

We've never had to document and formally prepare and assess our students before so its not really comparable!

They're small class-based assessments and we always formally prepare students for assessment. We also assess all the time & surely this can't be that different and we're getting 22 hours to do it.

mirrorwall14

Ok I'm going to say this once and i'm logging off this thread again because i'm not getting into another tit for tat with you two. We do NOT KNOW what these assessments will be. How do you know they are going to be small? There isn't even syllabi written for most subjects. We CANNOT say that they will be small class based assessments when we don't know what they are. Heck we don't even have examples for the syllabi that are published.

There will be layers of additional assessment on top of what we have always done including two classroom-based assessments, an Assessment Task and Standardised Testing in Maths, English and Science. Two classroom based assessments and another assessment task is going to create one hell of a lot of paperwork and again I repeat: We do not know what these assessments will consist of apart from a generic sentence in the document. We are also to have "moderation meetings" and additional reporting to parents.

That document does not give me any confidence that the workload will be even remotely similar to the current junior cycle. On the contrary it reads like we will spend a ton of time in second and third year not only preparing students for these but documenting every step of the preparation and later the assessment of the two classroom based assessments.

We already have an very very high class contact time so removing one class period but lumping in a ton of paperwork in place of it is not any sort of a good thing in my opinion.

And on that I'm out. I'm voting against.

katydid

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

Ok I'm going to say this once and i'm logging off this thread again because i'm not getting into another tit for tat with you two. We do NOT KNOW what these assessments will be. How do you know they are going to be small? There isn't even syllabi written for most subjects. We CANNOT say that they will be small class based assessments when we don't know what they are. Heck we don't even have examples for the syllabi that are published.

There will be layers of additional assessment on top of what we have always done including two classroom-based assessments, an Assessment Task and Standardised Testing in Maths, English and Science. Two classroom based assessments and another assessment task is going to create one hell of a lot of paperwork and again I repeat: We do not know what these assessments will consist of apart from a generic sentence in the document. We are also to have "moderation meetings" and additional reporting to parents.

That document does not give me any confidence that the workload will be even remotely similar to the current junior cycle. On the contrary it reads like we will spend a ton of time in second and third year not only preparing students for these but documenting every step of the preparation and later the assessment of the two classroom based assessments.

We already have an very very high class contact time so removing one class period but lumping in a ton of paperwork in place of it is not any sort of a good thing in my opinion.

And on that I'm out. I'm voting against.

But you have your mind made up that it's going to be onerous. Good one.

Education matters

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

Theres absolutely no detail on how this is going to work though. This year I have two full JC classes in both 2nd and 3rd year (so within the CA years). Thats four classes. A colleague of mine has one third year group and no second years. I get the same one class period off? How is that supposed to work when I have FOUR times the students!

The Appendix clarifies some of these issues, it mentions double time for SLAR meetings etc. I understand your query but maybe you should ask the union for clarification of this issue. The CBA will replace your house exams so that eliminates some of your work load, and as this years Third Years are doing the old exam you've no worries there. The students also have to be prepared for a 2 hour exam now rather than the two papers they had previously, that too would surely help in May when exam angst is upon us all.

Education matters

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

Ok I'm going to say this once and i'm logging off this thread again because i'm not getting into another tit for tat with you two. We do NOT KNOW what these assessments will be. How do you know they are going to be small? There isn't even syllabi written for most subjects. We CANNOT say that they will be small class based assessments when we don't know what they are. Heck we don't even have examples for the syllabi that are published.

There will be layers of additional assessment on top of what we have always done including two classroom-based assessments, an Assessment Task and Standardised Testing in Maths, English and Science. Two classroom based assessments and another assessment task is going to create one hell of a lot of paperwork and again I repeat: We do not know what these assessments will consist of apart from a generic sentence in the document. We are also to have "moderation meetings" and additional reporting to parents.

That document does not give me any confidence that the workload will be even remotely similar to the current junior cycle. On the contrary it reads like we will spend a ton of time in second and third year not only preparing students for these but documenting every step of the preparation and later the assessment of the two classroom based assessments.

We already have an very very high class contact time so removing one class period but lumping in a ton of paperwork in place of it is not any sort of a good thing in my opinion.

And on that I'm out. I'm voting against.

English Teachers know what their assessments are. Other subjects need to get their union reps to demand at NCCA meetings that the tasks are doable within the timeframe. The paperwork is to be issued in template form and appears innocuous enough from what I've seen. It's new, it's different but it's still a hell of a long way from Ruairi Quinns proposals and I genuinely think the unions have achieved a tremendous amount to date. Yes I have reservations too but I think the Implementation Committee will play a huge role.

implausible

The forty minute class time is going to make a big difference in some schools if it goes through. In my school, we have 35, 36 and 40 minute classes. Apart from it being easier to calculate and timetable, in my case it'll mean fewer classes per week.

To be honest, I'm amazed that the DES are proposing ceding 40 minutes per week and have agreed to something as commonsense as 40 minute classes.

Education matters

implausible wrote: »

The forty minute class time is going to make a big difference in some schools if it goes through. In my school, we have 35, 36 and 40 minute classes. Apart from it being easier to calculate and timetable, in my case it'll mean fewer classes per week.

To be honest, I'm amazed that the DES are proposing ceding 40 minutes per week and have agreed to something as commonsense as 40 minute classes.

Think it's gonna be a huge issue for some schools. Practical subjects in my school are already very concerned and a few schools in our area now have one hour classes...that's madness in my opinion

katydid

Education matters wrote: »

Think it's gonna be a huge issue for some schools. Practical subjects in my school are already very concerned and a few schools in our area now have one hour classes...that's madness in my opinion

But don't you assess already on a regular basis?

Education matters

katydid wrote: »

But don't you assess already on a regular basis?

Not sure what you mean, talking about 40 minute classes

katydid

Education matters wrote: »

Not sure what you mean, talking about 40 minute classes

I got the impression that you were saying that the length of the classes had some relevance to the difficulty of assessment.

Education matters

Not at all, I do know that as Implausible said 40 minutes may be a slight hurdle. We currently have say 5x35 minute classes for practicals and the feeling is at there might only be 4x40. Just complicates things further for some subject areas. Makes a time table very simple though, lands bang on 22 hours

katydid

Education matters wrote: »

Not at all, I do know that as Implausible said 40 minutes may be a slight hurdle. We currently have say 5x35 minute classes for practicals and the feeling is at there might only be 4x40. Just complicates things further for some subject areas. Makes a time table very simple though, lands bang on 22 hours

You just tailor your assessment to the time you have to carry it out.

Education matters

katydid wrote: »

You just tailor your assessment to the time you have to carry it out.

No I'm not referring to assessment at all, just that some people might lose class contact time. others may gain it.

katydid

Education matters wrote: »

No I'm not referring to assessment at all, just that some people might lose class contact time. others may gain it.

Ok.

acequion

Education matters wrote: »

deiseindublin wrote: »

No surprise here then.
Be interesting to see what happens with ASTI with 2 exec members saying they recommending a NO.


TUI have campaigned steadily since Ruairi Quinns initial announcement to dilute these proposals By recommending acceptance are they not saying that finally after three years of intense negotiations this is a very different proposal? I certainly don't find it surprising that the union would recommend acceptance of a proposal they had massive input into. We have moved the goalposts considerably, from 100% internal assesment to 60 % now to 0%. Yes there are workload implications but any Union who can convince the Department to give every teacher of JC a class a week off has obviously done something right. Initially we were all told this was a cost saving exercise, now it's costing the Department money. In my view the precedent is set, teachers will receive time in lieu of future " initiatives", maybe not ideal but a step in the right direction, never the less

Are you talking about the same unions who have allowed working conditions to significantly deteriorate over the past years?

And yes they have campaigned and negotiated but is that not what union officials are [well] paid to do?

Ruari Quinn's 100% assessment was never going to get anywhere. Everyone knew that including Quinn himself. By starting from a ludicrously extreme position any concession looks good by comparison. Oldest trick in the book.

It may cost the DES money to get this up and running,but they will recoup it down the line with much smaller state exams. It also sets up the mechanism for more school based assessment down the line,perhaps even completely phasing out the state exams. With the new trend towards shrinking the state budget, a trend all over Europe, you would want to be a tad naive not to realise that that is ultimately what politicians of the right want.

For those who say the workload won't increase,I feel that's also naivete or at best wishful thinking. Compare your workload now with five years ago!

I'll be retired in a few years so personally it won't hugely affect me but I think a teacher would be crazy to vote for this. It's not even as if jobs are being threatened as was the case with HRA. We vote no,they have to go back to the drawing board. Make it an election issue. The unions should flat out refuse to implement anything new until an incoming Government pledges to make a proper commitment to investing in education. Such as reduce the PTR, reverse the cuts in guidance,restore parity of pay scales. When some or all of this has been achieved,then let's talk reform. It's not rocket science and meantime we continue to teach as before. There is absolutely no urgency to make sweeping changes to junior cycle and everyone knows that. But the spin sounds better as it always does.

Education matters

acequion wrote: »

Education matters wrote: »

Are you talking about the same unions who have allowed working conditions to significantly deteriorate over the past years?

And yes they have campaigned and negotiated but is that not what union officials are [well] paid to do?

Ruari Quinn's 100% assessment was never going to get anywhere. Everyone knew that including Quinn himself. By starting from a ludicrously extreme position any concession looks good by comparison. Oldest trick in the book.

It may cost the DES money to get this up and running,but they will recoup it down the line with much smaller state exams. It also sets up the mechanism for more school based assessment down the line,perhaps even completely phasing out the state exams. With the new trend towards shrinking the state budget, a trend all over Europe, you would want to be a tad naive not to realise that that is ultimately what politicians of the right want.

For those who say the workload won't increase,I feel that's also naivete or at best wishful thinking. Compare your workload now with five years ago!

I'll be retired in a few years so personally it won't hugely affect me but I think a teacher would be crazy to vote for this. It's not even as if jobs are being threatened as was the case with HRA. We vote no,they have to go back to the drawing board. Make it an election issue. The unions should flat out refuse to implement anything new until an incoming Government pledges to make a proper commitment to investing in education. Such as reduce the PTR, reverse the cuts in guidance,restore parity of pay scales. When some or all of this has been achieved,then let's talk reform. It's not rocket science and meantime we continue to teach as before. There is absolutely no urgency to make sweeping changes to junior cycle and everyone knows that. But the spin sounds better as it always does.

You know what I agree with a lot of what you've said and I understand your points but my point is we have been given time off to carry out this work only because we have vehemently campaigned against the assault on our profession. Where things go from here is any bodies guess, vote no and make it an election issue and continue the fight with another government who take these proposals on board. I'm certainly not advocating acquiescing to government dictat I was simply replying to the remark referring to the TUI s recommendation. Have people the energy for more strike action, can anyone afford another day's wages lost? I suppose the question is how far can we take it? What more can be achieved? We opposed this change by taking the moral stance, we would not assess our students...has that not been removed from the document? I know it's playing with words but the Junior Cert will now be marked totally by the SEC.

katydid

Education matters wrote: »

acequion wrote: »

? We opposed this change by taking the moral stance, we would not assess our students...has that not been removed from the document? I know it's playing with words but the Junior Cert will now be marked totally by the SEC.

It may have been a moral stance, but it undermined the status of our profession by your insistence that some teachers don't consider themselves professional enough to be objective and able to resist pressure.

acequion

Education matters wrote: »

acequion wrote: »

You know what I agree with a lot of what you've said and I understand your points but my point is we have been given time off to carry out this work only because we have vehemently campaigned against the assault on our profession. Where things go from here is any bodies guess, vote no and make it an election issue and continue the fight with another government who take these proposals on board. I'm certainly not advocating acquiescing to government dictat I was simply replying to the remark referring to the TUI s recommendation. Have people the energy for more strike action, can anyone afford another day's wages lost? I suppose the question is how far can we take it? What more can be achieved? We opposed this change by taking the moral stance, we would not assess our students...has that not been removed from the document? I know it's playing with words but the Junior Cert will now be marked totally by the SEC.

Interesting musings there but I detect a certain weariness /resignation in your tone which I feel is one of our problems. We give in too easily,we get defeatist,fatalistic and where has it got the profession? Morale is at an all time low and that's fact. The DES is inundated with unprecedented enquiries about retiring. At one end people are desperate to get out and at the other,clamouring to get in.All frantic. It shouldn't be like that. We have done a mere three strike days since the start of the recession,that is three strike days in six years against a tsunami of attacks! We can surely afford more than that when so much is at stake!

What more can be done,what more can be achieved? Well that's what we pay the unions for and that is their headache in the event of a no. I really believe that the unions should have insisted on stalling this when Jan O Sullivan came in and insisted too,as I said above, on the restoration of several cuts before entertaining reform talks. The unions are too soft,cynics would say they have their own agenda.I really don't know.

I also think the campaign was fought too narrowly. Teachers' objections were more complex than not marking their own students,though obviously that was a big part. So that now that that is off the table the unions have perhaps backed us into a corner. But is that a reason to vote yes?

It's too vague,too rushed,too bureaucratic and if it goes through it will fall squarely on our shoulders as everything does. Why take the risk? Vote no and let the unions sort it out.

Education matters

katydid wrote: »

It may have been a moral stance, but it undermined the status of our profession by your insistence that some teachers don't consider themselves professional enough to be objective and able to resist pressure.

Im certain that at no point did any party in the negotiations insist that teachers were not professional enough to be objective. Maintaining the integrity of the exam was what was called for and parity of treatment due to anonymity.

katydid

Education matters wrote: »

Im certain that at no point did any party in the negotiations insist that teachers were not professional enough to be objective. Maintaining the integrity of the exam was what was called for and parity of treatment due to anonymity.

You have been insisting that you don't want to grade your students because you can't be objective and you might come under pressure from outside influences.

Your colleagues in FE and third level, and your counterparts in other countries manage to design and administer and grade. By saying you can't, you are undermining your own profession.

Education matters

acequion wrote: »

Education matters wrote: »

Interesting musings there but I detect a certain weariness /resignation in your tone which I feel is one of our problems. We give in too easily,we get defeatist,fatalistic and where has it got the profession? Morale is at an all time low and that's fact. The DES is inundated with unprecedented enquiries about retiring. At one end people are desperate to get out and at the other,clamouring to get in.All frantic. It shouldn't be like that. We have done a mere three strike days since the start of the recession,that is three strike days in six years against a tsunami of attacks! We can surely afford more than that when so much is at stake!

What more can be done,what more can be achieved? Well that's what we pay the unions for and that is their headache in the event of a no. I really believe that the unions should have insisted on stalling this when Jan O Sullivan came in and insisted too,as I said above, on the restoration of several cuts before entertaining reform talks. The unions are too soft,cynics would say they have their own agenda.I really don't know.

I also think the campaign was fought too narrowly. Teachers' objections were more complex than not marking their own students,though obviously that was a big part. So that now that that is off the table the unions have perhaps backed us into a corner. But is that a reason to vote yes?

It's too vague,too rushed,too bureaucratic and if it goes through it will fall squarely on our shoulders as everything does. Why take the risk? Vote no and let the unions sort it out.

Again, it's difficult to disagree. I just think people need to be aware what they are voting for ( I'm certainly not referring to you here). I just think the unions deserve a little bit of credit here, yes, they are paid officials but when one takes the initial document and compares it to what's on the table now it is beyond recognition. Personally, I'm going to attend the information meetings and weigh up the pros and cons and try lose the obviously detectable tone of weariness and resignation!,