Joe Kane wrote: » I have several times over the last fortnight and to date have been completely ignored.
Ectoplasm wrote: » The reality is that it will most likely be used on temporary accommodations which
mirrorwall14 wrote: » Have a look at some of the proposed seating plans. That many of them are for over 30 students tells you exactly what’s being proposed. Add in that several of them include the kids sitting against the bars of the classroom and also are for particularly large rooms.... Send em back and cross your fingers. That’s the plan
wirelessdude01 wrote: » We had discussed a lot prior to closure. Most bases had been closed. The one thing from the document that really pisses me off is the probable redirection of SET teachers to cover children who can't come to school. These teachers deal with the children who most need our attention. The children who have to stay at home should have been provided with a central online portal and teachers not drawn from school staff. This is something I feel very strongly about.
Boggles wrote: » Why? all I see is fair, reasoned, professional, experienced people.Like I said get in contact with your local officials, try get them to get some answers for you. you are wasting your energy having a moan at the wrong people.
Lillyfae wrote: » Sorry, what? You hardly need an extra degree in Nursing to be a primary school teacher, do you? You do apparently need it to have an inflated sense of self importance though. I'm not insulting the qualifications of any primary school teacher, I believe that someone who's just walked out of university is better than someone who's been there for 30 years and thinks they are a health and safety expert, a psychologist, a virologist, an epidemiologist, a parenting expert and a representative for every teacher currently working.
Lillyfae wrote: » The bit in bold I think is very likely. But I still think that individual schools should have had a multitude of plans ready to go in case of all scenarios and it's a case of some do and some don't.
khalessi wrote: » We await an apology too as you are incorrect about how well qualified primary teachers and SNAS are too.
Vicxas wrote: » Can anyone outline what the plan is for primary schools? I tried to read the Journals breakdown of it but still wasnt clear. Are kids going back full time, are they going to be in pods too?
Lillyfae wrote: » Extra staff for cleaning, subs where needed would be 2 such examples. €300,000,000 available for it. Nobody here actually has any idea how many subs are available in the country, there are just random numbers being thrown around. €75,000,000 to improve infrastructure. The schools who need it the most will obviously be prioritised. Do you think that double the budget that is usually available will do nothing to improve things?
Joe Kane wrote: » God help the parents of compromised children that have to now go and engage with some of the teachers & principles on this thread.
wirelessdude01 wrote: » I agree it is an opportunity but it will be wasted. Knee jerk reactions lead to money being wasted. There is no well thought through plan in place. No grand master plan in how to progress things. No objective to be achieved. The only objective is short-term, by hook or by crook get the damn schools open and we'll wing it when the sh!t will be hitting the fan.
Lillyfae wrote: » €75,000,000 to improve infrastructure. The schools who need it the most will obviously be prioritised. Do you think that double the budget that is usually available will do nothing to improve things?
joe40 wrote: » You said a few of your "immunocompromised kids" come from families that will be "overjoyed to throw them back into school as normal" That is still an outrageous comment. As for the week on week off approach it may have some merit but it is not a long term solution. At this stage we need long term solutions, nothing is changing anytime soon.
Boggles wrote: » Your point was pure scutter. Teachers have nothing to do with the plan you are complaining about, but you felt like having a pop anyway. :rolleyes:
Ectoplasm wrote: » 1) What exactly does this plan do to mitigate risk?
Ectoplasm wrote: » 2) How is this plan an opportunity to improve schools? Details for this one in particular please, because you are clearly seeing something I am not.
Icyseanfitz wrote: » Cool your jets, I never said all parents, I implied that there are a select few who can't wait to have their kids back in school come hell or high water, much like teaching, there are good ones and bad ones. Regarding schools, yes they should open, but with reduced students per day (one week on one week off or something similar) and also using remote learning which while not perfect will still work to some degree.
iamwhoiam wrote: » Do you find negativity from parents in your school ? Or are you basing it on this thread ? I must say the vast majority of parents I speak to are very supportive of teachers My own local school where my kids went and now a grandchild have a very good relationship between teachers and parents The same cannot be said about the unions I admit as many parents see unions as being less than supportive of parents and pupils I am just telling it as I see it and not insisting that every school or parent thinks like that
Lillyfae wrote: » What's removed from reality is thinking that because you have all of those qualifications (well done by the way) and are a teacher that everyone has a comparable background. I think you would be a perfect candidate for principal or on a board of management, but a teacher doesn't need half of those qualifications, thankfully. Overqualification for a position only needs to dissatisfaction in my opinion. Poor person/task fit. Whatever people think about my attitude, the groupthink is more than apparent here. If anyone offers an alternative view we have the headless chickens running around ready to peck someone's eyes out. Not to mention the words being put into other people's mouths. My only concern here is children's educational, emotional and social wellbeing. I care less about a teacher who won't go back to the classroom because their cousin in another county has psoriasis. Risks can be mitigated, and like I said this is an opportunity to improve schools for staff and children alike well into the future
thenetherrealm wrote: » We have no idea whether the situation will be better after Christmas or not. I am not suggesting a second lockdown. That would a ludicrous overstep. What I have always said should happen is half classes until Hallowe'en midterm. It would allow for social distancing and monitoring of the situation before a full return in November. To go from entire closure, masks, social distancing, limited interactions outside of the family circle, to a "sure, it'll be grand" approach should never have happened. At the very least, half classes should have be trialed for 4 weeks in June, again to monitor the rise (of lack thereof) in cases associated with school openings. I do vehemently disagree that children "need" the social interactions in secondary school. By that age, children have found their interests, friend groups, hobbies etc. They can continue to work on these outside of the school setting.
Lillyfae wrote: » Risks can be mitigated, and like I said this is an opportunity to improve schools for staff and children alike well into the future
Joe Kane wrote: » My ire? I was making a point. The 'Mé féin' attitude within the teacher fraternity is rife though.
Lillyfae wrote: » What's removed from reality is thinking that because you have all of those qualifications (well done by the way) and are a teacher that everyone has a comparable background. I think you would be a perfect candidate for principal or on a board of management, but a teacher doesn't need half of those qualifications, thankfully. Overqualification for a position only needs to dissatisfaction in my opinion. Poor person/task fit.
