Inspector Coptoor wrote: » I think the unions have missed a beat here with them timing of the strike. I think a better idea would have been to call a half day strike from lunch time on We'd 10th Dec and join in the world after charges protest. I don't really give a $h1t€ about having th support of the public, they are largely a shower of race to the bottom, pay peanuts get monkeys, ill informed plebs, who firmly believe they know what a teacher's job entails simply by havung gone to school for 6 years. I don't think striking achieves Anything though. All that had to be done was return the continuous assessment project books to sender and refuse to monitor them. I won't go against the Union directive but once again, I'm left disappointed by Union leadership.
Jamfa wrote: » Teaching the new curriculum is not a breach of a union directive but not teaching it is possibly a breach of contract. You should check this with the Unions or perhaps you have a link to a different directive from them.
Inspector Coptoor wrote: » I completely disagree with this. If any Union came out with this directive, I would leave that union immediately.
Teacher22 wrote: » I think the unions should have called for a stop to extra curricular immediately..all extra curricular. Then people will see what teachers do that they don't get paid for
endakenny wrote: » When I was in first year, the results of our house exams at the end of first year were used to decide whether we did HL or OL in English, Irish and Maths. A similar arrangement with the JCSA could be used to decide whether students are suitable for HL or OL in LC History, Geography and in the science and business subjects.
amacca wrote: » I'm not so sure about that either….why do extra (and most do) when we are not respected, treated like crap by our "overlords" and loaded with what amounts to more and more compulsory work along with pressure to conform on top of the already hugely stressful (at times) work we do…not to mention the extra crap thats due to each particular school as well what else do we have to fight with except our own free time that it more and more seems we foolishly give away when it seems that policy makers etc are deaf to the very real concerns of people doing the job that have years and years of experience of what works and what doesn't work when the same "bolloxolgy" as another poster put it has been tried elsewhere and been exposed as a failure Fine, load us up but well leave behind all the load we voluntarily carried before - we are given very little if any credit for it not to mention payment and its our time……from now on my time is money if I'm having my time wasted sitting in moronically cp meetings listening to the latest educational dogma (without proper resources or environment to implement them) - if were lucky or chasing after students to complete ridiculous project work that ends up having more of a detrimental effect on their education than anything as were not free to let them fail as we should be because ultimately we know it will reflect badly on us despite it not being our fault that they won't do anything its always our fault…were not building a good enough relationship with them etc, its not active enough……..well its hardly our fault when we do what were contracted to do and no more - ---- the more you do the more you're expected to do as far as i can see..its time to stop doing the GAAs and many other organisations work for them as tbh I honestly feel its hard enough to do the teaching part of the job nowadays anyway given the environment most of us have to operate in.
acequion wrote: » A huge bone of contention,as many teachers consider them sacred, which probably shows just how dedicated,committed and talented those teachers are [I don't do any by the way], but I completely agree with you.
Inspector Coptoor wrote: » Can you elaborate on the bone of contention part?
Mrwhite1970 wrote: » Very few young teachers attend branch meetings. Its a chicken and egg scenario They don't go and thus their issues don't get priority .They claim issues not raised so they don't go.We have all been screwed over last few years. Improvement in young teachers conditions will only come through the unions. Nowhere else.
Teacher22 wrote: » I'm wondering how long till the union (asti) will come back with some proposal telling us that this is as far as the minister will go.. Ask us to vote AGAIN, and then the least informed teachers will carry the day
acequion wrote: » Completely agree. And students no longer have any appreciation or respect for all the extras.They start with the clubs in my school at 8am,for crying out loud! Some new teacher just in the door got roped into it. I think it's insanity.
The Letheram wrote: » As an outsider looking in, trying not to be too simplistic, would you all not just award EVERY candidate an A1 in the project assessment. This would imo be a very effective industrial action as it would force the government into having the SEC assess all exam components.
Riamfada wrote: » Ruin a few kids results to prove a point?
acequion wrote: » Not only do you think this JCSA is inevitable,you appear to actively support it. Perhaps you might tell us why? By focusing on the JCSA curriculum, you are most certainly contravening a union directive. The current curriculum and its assessment does not include the term,"learning outcomes", a nothing buzz word dreamt up by the proponents of a narrow education philosophy which is "outcomes" or quite simply, results, obsessed. I also disagree with your earlier comment that the current system needs to change.Certain changes need to be made for sure, but changes and updated syllabus can be incorporated into the present system. I also teach English and you are quite wrong to assume that the majority of teachers have changed the course book.I know for a fact that all the schools in the large town where I teach have stuck with their old texts and have not changed their practice.
1. Not to attend CPD organised in connection with the Junior Cycle Framework Proposals. 2. Not to attend meetings associated with the Junior Cycle Framework Proposals. 3. Not to attend any planning meeting or participate in any planning activities organised in connection with the Junior Cycle Framework Proposals. 4. Not to engage in any aspect of school-based assessment for the purpose of the Junior Cycle Student Award (JCSA). 5. Not to engage in any development of or delivery of Junior Cycle Framework Short Courses. 6. Not to engage in any event, activity or function related to points 1 to 5 above.
gaiscioch wrote: » I look forward to parents saying the likes of "He B]disruptive little lazy bastard[/B would have got an A only for the teacher didn't like him" under the new system. More teachers scapegoated, more abdication of responsibility by bad parents who wilfully persist in being both deluded about their child's capability and in denial about their disruptive behaviour. Nothing but bad blood to be had with this one.
Boober Fraggle wrote: » acequion, I think you are confusing external assessment and external moderation, I was suggesting assessment, as is done currently for home ec, science, music, woodwork, metalwork, etc.
acequion wrote: » Apols if I took you up wrong Boober Fraggle. Do please explain how it is done in those subjects.I teach English and languages. However, we have already argued external monitoring of teacher marking in these threads and I remain firmly against it. Because basically, marking and monitoring is a full time exercise and even for only a small section of overall assessment,I would wonder where the time for this would be found.The month of June perhaps??? Also,having done this difficult work by choice and for payment,I would be outraged that teachers be forced into it for free. As another poster said, it would lead to bad blood all around.
implausible wrote: » Certainly. I am in favour of change in the English curriculum as the current system is outdated and I think it's dreadfully unfair on students to only be assessed on what they can write in one or two papers in June. Assessing their oral capabilities and allowing them to build up a collection of work over 2 1/2 years is fairer on students who may not perform in exams. The option to incorporate ICT into the curriculum is also welcome. What I am not in favour of is the bulldozer way RQ tried to shove this is, the way we were made start a new course before being given full information on assessment and the awful 'inservice'. I think Jan O'Sullivan should have put it off until September 2015. I am not in favour of tonnes of extra paperwork and some teachers giving it all, while others fire a mark down on a page. I am not in favour of the huge time pressure we're going to be under. I am not in favour of inequality between schools, but now that the Govt are offering state certification and a system of external moderation, I am somewhat appeased, as they would have been my biggest gripes. In my school, we have been using learning outcomes and Assessment for Learning for the last seven years. They are by no means new or exclusive to the JCSA. Teachers have always had learning outcomes, you cannot teach a course without knowing what you want the students to learn! The current JC Science guidelines use the phrase 'learning outcomes' 41 times. I am the rep, I am not contravening the union directive. Have you actually read it? I've quoted it here:
endakenny wrote: » It is likely that all of that pupil's teachers would have a problem with them and it's thus unlikely that a group of teachers, as opposed to one teacher, would be scapegoated.
endakenny wrote: » Furthermore, even if a principal put pressure on teachers to give unjustified marks in the JCSA, they can report him or her to the Teaching Council.
endakenny wrote: » Besides, teachers would know that giving unjustified marks in the JCSA would leave pupils unprepared for the Leaving Cert. Surely, parents wouldn't forget about that.
implausible wrote: » Certainly. I am in favour of change in the English curriculum as the current system is outdated and I think it's dreadfully unfair on students to only be assessed on what they can write in one or two papers in June. Assessing their oral capabilities and allowing them to build up a collection of work over 2 1/2 years is fairer on students who may not perform in exams. The option to incorporate ICT into the curriculum is also welcome.
acequion wrote: » However,in my opinion,by actively teaching this new course,you are betraying your fellow union members who voted en masse to not cooperate with it. By teaching the course,you are cooperating with it. Ok, it's a grey area because the union don't want to be accused of instructing members to be in breach of contract,but,in my view,you are either cooperating with this new course or not.And you are.You also talk about it as a foregone conclusion which it is not, while there is such opposition to it. In my school, buzz words like AFL have also been bandied about for years,with our principal in a right tizzy that we be seen to be doing all this during inspections.Two stars and a wish or some such nonsense! Sorry but I have nothing but contempt for such fancy,fluffy ideas and terminology. I have been teaching English for over 25 years and I know exactly what I want each class to learn,how each student learns and how to assess them. I don't need to have to tick any box with frilly terms to that effectively. While I welcome the inclusion of an oral component and ICT into English, I disagree about the final exam.The LC is a terminal exam where all knowledge has to be displayed on the day. Perhaps that is unfair and undoubtedly stressful, but such is life. No point in shielding them from it. The current JC English course is a good one, allowing teachers to choose their own texts, thereby tailoring to each class. The new course takes away that choice with prescribed texts.The current course also tests their ability to write in a variety of registers and definitely separates the wheat from the chaff. Nothing wrong with that and sets them up well for LC. The course in modern languages,on the other hand, is definitely outdated and needs radical change.But overall I would be very satisfied with the current JC English programme and would be very sorry to see it weakened, as I fear it will be if this goes ahead.
