RealJohn wrote: » Smacruairi wrote: » What a rant. Where did I attack your character. What accusation did I make? There you go. Whether you're going to admit that's an accusation or not dependings on your integrity, which "you seem to" be lacking. (That's an accusation.) I refused to answer it because it's irrelevant, and I only refused once. I ignored it initially, because it was irrelevant and I'm not interesting in answering irrelevant questions. The second time you asked, I addressed it, but I'm still not answering it, because it's no more relevant now than it was last night. If you're that interested, I'm pretty sure I've said how I feel about masks elsewhere in the thread. Except that if it's in the entrance policy that they'll accept students from certain primary schools, and then those students refuse to sign that because of the mask issue, they'll find it very hard to prevent them from attending, especially depending on the local circumstances (only school in the area, only suitable school in the area, other schools at capacity etc), but they might get away with that. However, if students who have already enrolled refuse to sign it because they've already signed one in first year (that had nothing about masks), they'll have awful trouble excluding them until they do. At no point have I disputed any of your "facts" about masks. Again, that's an attempt on your part to attack my character, not my argument. My argument is that it's not workable to make masks mandatory for students in schools, and probably not constitutional. Now, can you stick to the discussion points please, so we don't get further off topic. I'm not speculating about your motives, so maybe you should think about not speculating about mine. That's fair, I made an allegation, and I now 100% stand by it. Anyone who doesn't agree with the CMO in positing face coverings as a central part of guidelines for the most bare minimum of preventing the spread of the disease is foolish and peddling their own agenda. Everything else you say is rhetoric designed to deflect.Your statements of "they might.. They will have awful trouble" etc show that you are not fully sure of the legal validity of your own argument and giving yourself space,which is fine, I presume you are not from a legal background,and this isn't a legal forum. We will see in 3 days which approach is the one supported by everyone,but I would advise you to wear a mask and to follow through on your own schools policy on mask wearing. Everything else about character and integrity is bombastic overreaction.
Smacruairi wrote: » What a rant. Where did I attack your character. What accusation did I make? There you go. Whether you're going to admit that's an accusation or not dependings on your integrity, which "you seem to" be lacking. (That's an accusation.) I refused to answer it because it's irrelevant, and I only refused once. I ignored it initially, because it was irrelevant and I'm not interesting in answering irrelevant questions. The second time you asked, I addressed it, but I'm still not answering it, because it's no more relevant now than it was last night. If you're that interested, I'm pretty sure I've said how I feel about masks elsewhere in the thread. Except that if it's in the entrance policy that they'll accept students from certain primary schools, and then those students refuse to sign that because of the mask issue, they'll find it very hard to prevent them from attending, especially depending on the local circumstances (only school in the area, only suitable school in the area, other schools at capacity etc), but they might get away with that. However, if students who have already enrolled refuse to sign it because they've already signed one in first year (that had nothing about masks), they'll have awful trouble excluding them until they do. At no point have I disputed any of your "facts" about masks. Again, that's an attempt on your part to attack my character, not my argument. My argument is that it's not workable to make masks mandatory for students in schools, and probably not constitutional. Now, can you stick to the discussion points please, so we don't get further off topic. I'm not speculating about your motives, so maybe you should think about not speculating about mine.
Bananaleaf wrote: » Has anyone else contacted the reopening schools helpline email? Wow, it's a serious patience tester!!
Health officials in Tayside have disclosed that 17 teachers at a special school in Dundee have contracted Covid-19, alongside two pupils and three community contacts. NHS Tayside shut Kingspark school last Wednesday for deep cleaning after the outbreak emerged, and on Friday closed it to allow staff and pupils to self-isolate for 14 days because of the pupils’ complex needs. The board said on Sunday that 22 people were infected, up from 12 on Friday. It said contact tracing had identified links to two other schools in Dundee, with one positive case at St Peter’s and St Paul’s primary, and another at Happy Times out-of school club at Downfield primary. All the pupils in the affected class at St Peter’s and St Paul’s have been asked to stay at home and self-isolate. In a further outbreak, two primary school classes at High Blantyre primary school in Lanarkshire have been told to stay at home after a teacher and two pupils tested positive over the weekend.
mirrorwall14 wrote: » Can anyone tell me where the 1m is to be measured from?
rainbowtrout wrote: » I would imagine that the vast majority of teachers ranked their students accurately. I would imagine there were a significant cohort who did not grade their students accurately. The teacher who has a really good student who always hits high 80s, but has never got more than 87 in any exam, but they've given them the benefit of the doubt and put them down as a 92. It doesn't take many of them to skew the curve. No point having a meeting based on non existant results. May as well wait until 7th September. I'd imagine that not only will they be looking at how the results play out in different scenarios but how it plays out with the CAO too.
Bananaleaf wrote: » I don't think it is teachers taking it personally. It certainly isn't in my case. It is more about pointing out the obvious bull that comes out of the mouths of these people on a daily basis. They live to contradict. 3 months ago (when it suited them) we were being hailed as professionals who know our students well and could absolutely do the job objectively. Now (that it suits them) we can't. Exact same scenario is playing out now with how they present the seriousness of the virus, depending on whether the agenda is getting us to open schools or wear masks in shops.
Bananaleaf wrote: » They are requesting a meeting. Anyone know itself TUI in on this? I think we should me getting our concerns across to them asap. I had a phone conversation with a TUI rep and they seem totally disinterested in communicating with government on the matter. So true
khalessi wrote: » I listened back and he said that if you leave it to the results in the schools the likelyhood is that you will have very very significant grade inflation. Talk about having confidence in teachers as professionals
khalessi wrote: » ASTI talking to Clare on rte radio 1
Mardy Bum wrote: » This is what happens when people with no expertise in assessment dictate policy. They change their tune quickly. Imagine if NPHET was made up of journalists and pub owners...
Mardy Bum wrote: » He is not wrong. It has been demonstrated internationally and teachers shouldn't be taking it personally. Some teachers will have done the job right others were a victim of their bias. Unfortunately, the algorithm will not be able to account for the teachers who did it right and will further punish them if it is similar to England and Scotland's.
Bananaleaf wrote: » Did Michael Martin just say on Radio 1 that he expects that there will have been large scale inflation of LC grades this year? Did I hear that right?
Smacruairi wrote: » What a rant. Where did I attack your character. What accusation did I make? Smacruairi wrote: » ... you seem to not believe they are necessary, and that if people want to not wear them that thst should be allowed. There you go. Whether you're going to admit that's an accusation or not dependings on your integrity, which "you seem to" be lacking. (That's an accusation.) Smacruairi wrote: » I asked if you believed in wearing masks.if you think that is an attack on your character you are majorly projecting,my friend. Where is my lack of integrity while we are at it? You refused to answer a simple question twice, I refused to answer it because it's irrelevant, and I only refused once. I ignored it initially, because it was irrelevant and I'm not interesting in answering irrelevant questions. The second time you asked, I addressed it, but I'm still not answering it, because it's no more relevant now than it was last night. If you're that interested, I'm pretty sure I've said how I feel about masks elsewhere in the thread. Smacruairi wrote: » So when schools put masks in their codes, as they can do when the guidelines states masks are a must when distancing is less than 2m for staff, then that is it. Except that if it's in the entrance policy that they'll accept students from certain primary schools, and then those students refuse to sign that because of the mask issue, they'll find it very hard to prevent them from attending, especially depending on the local circumstances (only school in the area, only suitable school in the area, other schools at capacity etc), but they might get away with that. However, if students who have already enrolled refuse to sign it because they've already signed one in first year (that had nothing about masks), they'll have awful trouble excluding them until they do. Smacruairi wrote: » But if you want to take those facts as an affront to your character there, Jim, then play away. At no point have I disputed any of your "facts" about masks. Again, that's an attempt on your part to attack my character, not my argument. My argument is that it's not workable to make masks mandatory for students in schools, and probably not constitutional. Now, can you stick to the discussion points please, so we don't get further off topic. I'm not speculating about your motives, so maybe you should think about not speculating about mine.
Smacruairi wrote: » ... you seem to not believe they are necessary, and that if people want to not wear them that thst should be allowed.
Smacruairi wrote: » I asked if you believed in wearing masks.if you think that is an attack on your character you are majorly projecting,my friend. Where is my lack of integrity while we are at it? You refused to answer a simple question twice,
Smacruairi wrote: » So when schools put masks in their codes, as they can do when the guidelines states masks are a must when distancing is less than 2m for staff, then that is it.
Smacruairi wrote: » But if you want to take those facts as an affront to your character there, Jim, then play away.
RealJohn wrote: » No, you don’t, and you don’t have the integrity to admit it. You know that you’re on questionable ground, so you’re attacking my character instead of my argument. My position on masks, or any ppe is not relevant because I’m not arguing whether or not I should have to wear them. What I will say is it’s people like you, who make groundless accusations of anyone who disagrees with them, that encourage the people who actually are anti-mask. Can you give me an example of a parent taking a case against a school because they think black shoes are causing their child to have breathing difficulties? The two aren’t remotely comparable, and you know they’re not, and even then, if a school expelled/indefinitely suspended a child for refusing to wear black shoes, they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on, and you know it. The fact that nobody would take a stand like that over shoes is the reason you haven’t seen it, but they might well take it over masks.
Smacruairi wrote: » Because I believe masks are a very important part of ppe, particularly when social distancing can't be maintained. I wonder what your opinion on masks is as you seem to not believe they are necessary, and that if people want to not wear them that thst should be allowed. I think it's a fair question to be honest.
Smacruairi wrote: » The code of behaviour says you ain't coming in if you don't wear black shoes for example. Haven't seen a judge strike that one down yet,let alone something which is suggested by every health professional in the country, our minister for health, and our cmo.
Smacruairi wrote: » Because I believe masks are a very important part of ppe, particularly when social distancing can't be maintained. I wonder what your opinion on masks is as you seem to not believe they are necessary, and that if people want to not wear them that thst should be allowed. I think it's a fair question to be honest. The code of behaviour says you ain't coming in if you don't wear black shoes for example. Haven't seen a judge strike that one down yet,let alone something which is suggested by every health professional in the country, our minister for health, and our cmo.
RealJohn wrote: » Why do you care about my position on masks? It’s irrelevant to what’s being discussed. The code of behaviour is unenforceable (and probably unconstitutional) if it insists children must wear masks, unless their parents support it (and even then, it might not be enforceable).
