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.
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.
rainbowtrout wrote: » I 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.
mirrorwall14 wrote: » Can anyone tell me where the 1m is to be measured from?
Bananaleaf wrote: » In our school it is shoulder to shoulder
mirrorwall14 wrote: » Yeah I got that later on. It’s mental. There is actually more space for the state exams than between the students now. I’m so not reassured at all. And our school has a mountain of work to do. I didn’t see a single classroom ready or any part of the buildings Covid compliant. The sanitiser still the door is still sitting on a table
ethical wrote: » Easy solution to all the worry and concern about going back to school:test every student and teacher! It would possibly be money well spent,if not the Covid test then the anti body test. Perhaps some of us have had it already. I think it would get rid of all the uncertainty.
Bananaleaf wrote: » Our place is in a shocking state. It's really disconcerting. And meanwhile, I'm spending my last few days flying around getting my own masks, santisers, wipes, gloves etc. The very thing I said I wouldn't do They've left me with no choice
mirrorwall14 wrote: » We are being given one visor apparently. One. My room hasn’t even been hoovered never mind deep cleaned. The place looks like a bomb site. Hopefully it all comes together
am_zarathustra wrote: » 170 million was obviously well spent on a useless visor and one mask. Looks like we are def keeping our base classes. Makes even more sense in light of the numbers from the UK on staff transmission. Are many schools doing this?
rainbowtrout wrote: » Combined with a reluctance to give fail grades, that's more grade inflation at the other end.
mirrorwall14 wrote: » Off topic quick one, how does S and S work at post primary if you are covering a maternity until Christmas. Are you in the scheme or out of it? Could you be asked to do the full 43 in half a year? It’s fairly relevant due to the high demands Covid is going to place on S and S
combat14 wrote: » the slippery slope already started: Coronavirus Ireland: Parents can send children to school if they are sneezing or have a runny nose, government adviseshttps://m.independent.ie/irish-news/...-39474011.html combat14 is online now Report Post
soso02 wrote: » Can the DoE really fail students though ? The reprecussions for students would be immense. Management would have raised eyebrows had we predicted lower than 30.0 and rightly so, you can bet at least 50 % of schools were doing likewise. I don't know how colleges are happy to receive these estimates. I still maintain a later intake maybe November to facilitate some sort of assessment. Or have multiple courses reaching 625 *.
Mardy Bum wrote: » Of course you can fail students. Students fail every year. This is why the system doesn't work. Teachers and management not doing their job. If you give a H1 you can give a H8.
Smacruairi wrote: » Fails in the system though usually come from someone making a hames of it, or cracking under pressure, or being ill or whatever. Very very rarely from failing all year and doing the test anyway. It can happen but I've never seen it bar once. That's why fails will be underrepresented and should be allowed to be underrepresented. You can't calculate someone will crack.
Treppen wrote: » That's impossible without a time machine. The results are well on the system and I'm sure the minister knows what the story is. The time for meetings is now.
rainbowtrout wrote: » Well they do expect us to answer Ireland's call so would it be any other way?:rolleyes:
