Inspector Coptoor wrote: » I'm all for having astronomy in the new syllabus but not at the expense of human biology, the one part of science most kids are actually interested in
rainbowtrout wrote: » Well I feel there is no other option other than to reply to this on thread so other teachers who post on the forum can see it.
rainbowtrout wrote: » Mods may feel that the trolling is low level, but clearly the teachers on the forum who post here regularly do not.
rainbowtrout wrote: » The charter is fed by the opinion of the posters on the forum, the majority of whom are teachers, and it is a forum for teaching (and lecturing). I can't speak for everyone who posts on here, but in my personal opinion I don't think the bans or infractions go far enough, particularly when there are persistent offenders. Maybe the current charter is not fit for purpose and needs to be updated with input from teachers - a bit like the Junior Cert really.
rainbowtrout wrote: » I would imagine that many posters do not report posts because they see mods posting in the same threads and assume the mods will take action. Two mods have posted in this thread in the last 24 hours so I assume have read the posts.
rainbowtrout wrote: » It is in the charter that posters are not to make sweeping generalisations, yet they are made wholesale on this forum by non teachers on a regular basis, and again in my opinion should not be tolerated.
rainbowtrout wrote: » This specific thread is here to discuss strike action and has veered somewhat off topic on to JCSA assessment but seeing as strike action is because of JCSA assessment they are related. Strike action has been mandated by teachers. The unions represent those teachers including the posters here. We are employees discussing our working conditions and what the ramifications are of the impending strike action and JSCA assessment. So it's a bit hard to take when posters come onto the thread and constantly make generalisations about what they saw when they were students. We are discussing our working conditions, and their contribution should have no bearing on that.
rainbowtrout wrote: » If the nurses or the guards were on strike I wouldn't head over to the health sciences forum or the garda recruitment forum and tell them that the changes proposed to their working conditions were fine because I was once in hospital or got my passport form signed in the local station.
rainbowtrout wrote: » As for responding to 'non-teacher' posts. Well we are basically vilified by much of the public and the amount of teacher bashing that goes on in the media is unbelievable. Teachers have few outlets to represent their point of view, and challenging non-teachers online is often the only way. Only yesterday the journal posted their article about our impending strike on Facebook accompanied by the comment 'Christmas shopping has just got busier for two days.' the implication being that we will all be off shopping on the 2nd instead of picketing. Of course many of the comments in response were of the 'there'll be traffic jams all the way to Newry with all the teachers in them' Should we have to tolerate similar in his forum? Personal Issues and The Ladies Lounge have zero tolerance style charters, why can't we?
km79 wrote: » the asti released a statement end of sept saying that any union member who completed this survey was in breach of non compliamce directive ABSOLUTELY DAFT luckily I had already completed it
implausible wrote: » Which is what happened with English - wait until it starts and then kick up a fuss.
Armelodie wrote: » It's ok speaking for others but until folk start reporting the nature of the trolling then as I said it'll get kicked right back to the mods in a DRP case. We can't go on 'feelings'.
killbillvol2 wrote: » Well I reported a particularly vivid example of sweeping generalisation/general BS in the last few hours. I could probably report every post by the same poster but what's the point?
acequion wrote: » That is not correct either. I really want to make it clear to everybody reading this that the idea of the JCSA being "in" is a perception,not a reality on the ground. Yes,the DES will say it's in,but nothing is in unless it's fully implemented. To repeat what I said earlier. I teach in a large school in a large town. Not one English teacher in this town is recognising or implementing the JCSA in first year English. In my school, all English teachers agreed at the end of last year after the first ballot to continue as normal with the old book and that is exactly what we are doing.If some English teachers around the country have thrown in the towel or decided to start implementing the new course despite the concerns and opposition of the majority,then that is very regrettable. But as far as we are concerned the JCSA has not started and that is why we have voted to take strike action. I would urge my collegues in science to put up one hell of a fight.
Caiseoipe19 wrote: » The revised payscale for new entrants and abolition of allowances were brought in for future entrants to the profession. So how could they have stood up for themselves at meetings before they were even qualified? The people worst affected at present are those that qualified in 2012, 2013 and 2014, non of whom could have been members of the ASTI at the time of the cuts. Yes, they should attend meetings after qualifying in order to fight for the cuts to be reversed, but the ASTI shouldn't have accepted them in the first place. They have every right to feel aggrieved.
acequion wrote: » That is not correct either. I really want to make it clear to everybody reading this that the idea of the JCSA being "in" is a perception,not a reality on the ground. Yes,the DES will say it's in,but nothing is in unless it's fully implemented.
The new specification for Junior Cycle English will be implemented in all schools from September 2014. The specification is available at www.juniorcycle.ie.
4. Not to engage in any aspect of school-based assessment for the purpose of the Junior Cycle Student Award (JCSA).
Mrwhite1970 wrote: » Not really my point. Im not talking about the past. Im talking about the future. The ASTI was against all of those proposals. All. The CEC told members to reject HR. Only about 10% of CEC are under 30. What did the members do-accept it! Many young teachers voted for HR to get CID and to avoid a strike. You cant say they all voted against as I know that many did. They told me. So the future is all we have. Trust me if one more young teacher turned up at a branch meeting you would have change. I appreciate people have mortgages and kids-but its like an operation you must have. Keep putting it off and off and it will get you in the end.Im tired of excuses-get off your backsides and take over the union.
Jamfa wrote: » I wonder is there any precedence for a group of teachers not teaching the new curriculum and following one that doesn't exist anymore. Something needs to be sorted out soon because there won't be a Junior Cert English exam in 2017 for your students to sit.
implausible wrote: » The Dept has instructed teachers to teach it; the unions have not told teachers not to teach it. Our conditions of service oblige us to carry out the instructions of the Minister for Education.
acequion wrote: » I really am beginning to wonder what language I've been posting in or perhaps what planet some posters are living on! :rolleyes: Are certain posters not aware that there has been widespread opposition to the JCSA,not least by the very unions we love to lambaste? Are certain posters not aware that the unions appealed to the DES to postpone the introduction of the JCSA to allow time to reach a more workable and mutually acceptable solution? Are certain posters not aware that the DES has persistently refused that reasonable request, despite the retiring of the architect of the JCSA? Are certain posters not aware that last May [or perhaps April?] the unions passed a vote of non compliance with the JCSA as a result of DES intransigence? And finally,are certain posters not aware that unions passed another recent vote to ratchet up the industrial action,again as a result of DES intransigence? Now,yes there are some grey areas in the above questions.Another poster has already posted the exact union directive,which technically does not ban members from teaching the new course. However,in the light of what I have just clarified above,how can anyone claim that there is a new course up and running when there patently is not? If we must split hairs on this, we are talking about first year English .Period. The actual practice of the JCSA doesn't really kick in until second year English.So it's not as though we are revolutionising the wheel by carrying on as before. There isn't really a first year English course,to speak of,it's mainly an introduction to what they will later study in depth.And some vitally important work on overall literacy. It is also not as if a particular group of teachers decided to get all bolshy. Even if I,personally,were not very opposed to the JCSA,you can't teach a new course without the proper infrastructure and proper training. The in services we were receiving were a joke,at best, and there is zero infrastructure or forward planning in place for the new course. So,like sensible people, the |English teachers in my school,and to my knowledge,around my town and county [source:branch meeting] decided to continue as normal,while awaiting a solution. In my opinion,any teacher,who despite all that,is actually following this new course either out of fear of breach of contract,or total disregard for majority concerns,should hang his/her head in shame. While HR concerned teachers working conditions for the foreseeable future,this concerns the future of Irish education,the education of our children and grandchildren. It has enormous consequences for our society and goes much further than the kids sitting junior English in 2017.
Jamfa wrote: » That's all fine but who decides the curriculum in schools? From what you're saying you & other teachers have chosen to teach a curriculum which whether you like it or not doesn't exist anymore according to the DES. Has this happened before where teachers continue with a curriculum despite it being changed? Are some maths teachers in <MOD SNIP> still teaching the old Maths coyrse?
acequion wrote: » Are you a teacher?
Jamfa wrote: » Yes
Pwpane wrote: » Well said. I figure that in the Celtic Tiger that unions just went out of fashion - 'sure we don't need them anymore, they're just cranks that are trying to bring down good employers.' Young people stopped joining unions and the gains made previously by unions more or less continued in place. There were some cracks, as with Irish Ferries, but the proverbial didn't hit the fan until the recession when employers were now free to do what they liked, up as far as the govt with it's FEMPI act. Unions are about members of the union acting collectively for their own good when one person on their own has no power. They're not all-powerful or all-good. But they're one hell of a lot better than facing the system on your own. When I joined the union in the eighties, everybody joined. And we achieved a hell of a lot. Young teachers and part-time teachers need to take on the system and do the same. Those that I've spoken to seem to feel paralysed. Some are still not in the union so are totally powerless. Some have joined but won't attend meetings so their voices are not heard and their abilities are not used. A few do attend and help but often they cannot speak openly as peer pressure is still negative. This means that the union is ineffective even their own schools - where it can do a lot. You need to do what we did and achieve what you want.
gaiscioch wrote: » Now that state certification is reinstated and that 60% of the JC will be externally assessed, I'm going to put my head above the parapet here and ask: what's so bad about 40% of the students' results being continuous assessment? Surely it would help teachers facing discipline issues in their classroom, while also assisting those weak kids who cannot take the burden of exam pressure? (yes, of course it is being done to save money but that doesn't necessarily mean it has no merit) Actually, as second years usually seem to be the bane of teachers in all schools, perhaps if we had some sort of link between 2nd and 3rd year results we might have a general improvement in behaviour in 2nd years also?
amacca wrote: » I think its naive to think that any of this in its current form will improve our lot at all or benefit educational outcomes…. Project work in science certainly didn't seem have that effect. Not overwhelming majority but certainly the majority of students in my experience (not just my classes in the past) refuse to make anything resembling a genuine effort or take responsibility for their own work….I don't agree that its down to the way they were taught either….simple things were being asked for and not complied with….its mostly a cultural thing afaic…..there is a widespread culture of entitlement, laziness and blame anyone but yourself if the going gets hard out there. I would suspect many teachers are caught in a catch-22 situation where they have to "guide" them sleepwalking through it….it gobbles up vast quantities of teaching time with very questionable benefit imo…..even the layout of the reporting booklet looks to me as if it was cobbled together by a simpleton with a buzzword booklet and no real world experience of actually teaching an average group of 13-15 year olds. I wouldn't have any problem with a component of continuous assessment from first year on if theres a way to assess it 100% externally (potentially costly though I suppose without investment in some sort of automation, proper ICT infrastructure and computer techs etc to keep things running)…I think theres a place for that and a final written exam in every subject tbh but i would be against the way the clowns (as I see it, although they do seem to manage to feather their own nests quite well) at the top are organising/pushing things through…..I think its fair to say the whole thing is an ill thought out mess….it smacks of reform for reforms sake…or reforms that perhaps should take place but the practicalities and the long term consequences in this system haven't been thought through properly at all……………. I'd also be very wary of agreeing to or supporting anything where the full details of exactly what is planned are not being made public….syllabi + details are very vague….worryingly vague (at least to me)…..training non-existent afaic and the only place it seems you have a voice is in biased online surveys.
gaiscioch wrote: » Now that state certification is reinstated and that 60% of the JC will be externally assessed, I'm going to put my head above the parapet here and ask: what's so bad about 40% of the students' results being continuous assessment?
acequion wrote: » In my opinion,any teacher,who despite all that,is actually following this new course either out of fear of breach of contract,or total disregard for majority concerns,should hang his/her head in shame.
acequion wrote: » No point in asking you to read my last post because you and other posters are only interested in doggedly obeying orders. Talk about tunnel vision! Certain people would obey anything because being obedient is more important to them than sticking their necks out and standing up for what is right. My big fear is that such people with their compliance and narrow minded obedience will roll over and allow this JCSA and worse down the line,to come in,as indeed,they have already.
implausible wrote: » Don't get so personal. You know nothing about any other element of my life, so don't generalise that my desire to get on with a new course is some kind of a character flaw. If the only reason I was introducing new elements in to my teaching was out of fear, then I would perhaps deserve emotive descriptions such as "narrow-minded obedience" and "doggedly obeying orders." You seem to have missed the point that I argued my point and made my views known, but the course is now in, my concerns seem to have been addressed by the new proposals, and I can see the merits in the new course. I am enjoying teaching my students and I can see how it will benefit them. But I suppose this is pure selfishness and "total disregard for majority concerns.":rolleyes:
Armelodie wrote: » I'll agree to disagree with you on your standpoint and the union directive etc... But what I am wondering about is the 'time element' that would be given over for assessment (and the paperwork that would inevitably ensue)... Do you know what sort of paperwork demands are expected of Junior cert teachers for the JCSA... Is it to be done on weekends? When we go home? Do we get time off or substitution provided (or can we offset it against CP hours)? I simply can't see why I should accept this until I know how much more I'm going to spend correcting/logging/reflecting/writing reports/dealing with appeals/dealing with angry parents/resetting tests for the ones who didn't do so well or couldn;t give a sh%%e/ re-adjusting grades to get me in line for a promotion. It's tantamount to telling us "right folks ye're all coming in in June" and some folk say.. "grand ya shur there's nothing we can do about it". Unless I'm missing something, because it sure wont be a case of 'just give them the tests you normally give them and enter the results on a special database.. only take a few mins extra, whats the fuss'. I'd just like to know.. whats the projected time cost on this?
byhookorbycrook wrote: » I'm primary, so here's my two cents. Since results of standardised tests started to be sent home, suddenly, they are, to some parents, the be all and end all. The DES asked us to submit results for different classes and we were assured it was only for statistical reasons. Roll on a few years and now we learn that there is a proposal that these results will be used in part to calculate SEN support for schools and in doing so will punish schools that are doing "well." If secondary schools accept the 40% , the year after it may well be 50% , the following year 60% etc. Why must we ape the failed English system constantly ? I know a number of teachers in England and they have teaching assistants who take over the class to allow the teachers time for the crazy amount of paperwork they have to do. Seeing as we can't even fund meaningful SNA provision, we won't be getting TAs any time soon. Fair play to the secondary teachers for standing up for their pupils and themselves.
