"Invitation to schools to reflect in silence on Friday 9th September 2011"

Godge

deemark wrote: »

And the poster was including the Famine silence in amongst these things.

I'm confused now - so we should take on board every single whim of the Govt, but you, who presumably is not in the education sector, can disagree with bits and pieces of it i.e. Religion. You are giving out to teachers for disagreeing with the same things you disagree with

As for the "exam payments gravy train" comment - any teacher of any subject can apply to superintend the exams. The vast majority of Religion teachers have a second subject and are free to mark the exams if they wish. It being an exam subject is irrelevant.

Why do you presume I am not in the education sector? Is it because I don't share the general insular attitude?

implausible

Godge wrote: »

Why do you presume I am not in the education sector? Is it because I don't share the general insular attitude?

No. Dissent is good, there's plenty of it on this thread amongst teachers.

I presume you aren't because you suggested that teachers, who didn't agree with every change that has been foisted upon them, should

find something else useful to do in society, that is, if you are able to catch up with the rest of the world out there who have been living with all the things foisted on them for the last thirty years

and you think that Religion was made into an exam subject

so the religion teachers can jump on the exam payments gravy train.

These comments to me sound like the typical cynical teacher-bashing sentiments of a non-teacher, who has no awareness of the exam system. My apologies if I'm wrong.

evolving_doors

Rosita wrote: »

Okay, let's be practical about this. I will refuse to have the minute's silence do when the time comes and I'll let you know what happens. That is the best test of whether it is voluntary or not. I will be surprised if anybody cares less, but maybe you're right.

I agree with you alright there Rosita that in the overall scheme of things it's a small annoyance at the worst, however I still do resent being put in a possible situation of other 'easily led' teachers tut-tutting if I decided not to do the minutes silence, purely because I'm dubious of the motives of the politician behind it.

I'm not too sure what you mean by teachers not being subjected to a paycut over the next 3 years though!! Fair enough if you're permanent but the days of permanency seem at an end.What about hours being cut for non permanent teachers because of the pupil teacher ratio changes. What about an increase in income tax, water charges, property tax, universal service charge etc...

E.T.

Godge wrote: »

This is the type of attitude that gives teachers such a bad reputation.

If we took away all the stuff that has been foisted on schools for the last thirty years, children would be taught the same way and the same stuff at thirty years ago. What would be the point in that?

Have you noticed from your cocoon that the world is changing faster than ever? As a result schools need to change faster than ever and that can mean doing something about all the new and old problems from headlice to drinkdriving and everything else.

You know, if you are fed up, maybe you should change jobs and find something else useful to do in society, that is, if you are able to catch up with the rest of the world out there who have been living with all the things foisted on them for the last thirty years.

You seem to be missing the point completely. What people are talking about here is the idea that every time there's a problem in society, or an issue to be dealt with, it seems to be a great idea to get schools to deal with it. Obesity/Healthy eating, sex education, road safety, internet safety, Stay Safe, etc etc etc. I've got a cupboard with shelves full of (usually outdated and insufficient) folders and packs from every body/group under the sun, to be taught in an already overloaded curriculum.

Issues need to be dealt with at home as well as in school, but much of the time, that's not happening. Sure why bother educating your own child on any of these issues when the schools should be dealing with it? Unfortunately that's quite a common attitude at this stage.

Regarding your comment about headlice - I'm totally confused? Most schools send home a leaflet/note if headlice are reported. What on earth else can schools do? Do you expect teachers to use delousing treatments on children themselves? Drink-driving? In all fairness, this is one issue that really needs to be dealt with as a society, and not just in schools.

Rosita

Armelodie wrote: »

I'm not too sure what you mean by teachers not being subjected to a paycut over the next 3 years though!! Fair enough if you're permanent but the days of permanency seem at an end.What about hours being cut for non permanent teachers because of the pupil teacher ratio changes. What about an increase in income tax, water charges, property tax, universal service charge etc...

I am referring to the Croke Park agreement. My understanding is that pay (not just for teachers in fairness) for those involved is guaranteed not to be cut until 2014.

But it's important to put my remarks in context - I wrote this because somebody remarked along the lines that the 'paper shufflers' (I think that was the phrase) had nothing better to do in a time of economic crisis than think up of wacky ideas. I thought that was unfair and remarked on it because I believe that teachers are often subjected unfairly to the underworked/overpaid jibes and should know better than to similarly denigrate other workers unnecessarily and unfairly. Slag off the policy if people wish but withering remarks about people probably doing an honest day's work are not necessary I believe anyway.

As for "income tax, water charges, property tax, universal service charge" - well, they apply to all workers and would not normally be described as pay cuts even if they have the same net effect. Anyway, I am not slagging off teachers or their conditions - far from it.

But the reality that thousands of teachers are unemployed, or on short hours, and/or in positions of very little security, or deal with unteachable numbers of students in class would hold little water for the type of uninformed loudmouth who would routinely blather on about our huge salaries/secure and handy jobs and the current economic climate. I think we should bear that in mind when commenting on our colleagues in the public sector who are another soft target for critics. Calling them 'paper shufflers' is like calling teachers 'glorified baby sitters' (as I have heard in the past) and as we know the latter is a pathetically inaccurate depiction of what is a stressful job.

Godge

E.T. wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point completely. What people are talking about here is the idea that every time there's a problem in society, or an issue to be dealt with, it seems to be a great idea to get schools to deal with it. Obesity/Healthy eating, sex education, road safety, internet safety, Stay Safe, etc etc etc. I've got a cupboard with shelves full of (usually outdated and insufficient) folders and packs from every body/group under the sun, to be taught in an already overloaded curriculum.

Issues need to be dealt with at home as well as in school, but much of the time, that's not happening. Sure why bother educating your own child on any of these issues when the schools should be dealing with it? Unfortunately that's quite a common attitude at this stage.

Regarding your comment about headlice - I'm totally confused? Most schools send home a leaflet/note if headlice are reported. What on earth else can schools do? Do you expect teachers to use delousing treatments on children themselves? Drink-driving? In all fairness, this is one issue that really needs to be dealt with as a society, and not just in schools.

(1) I didn't make the original comment on headlice and dirnk-driving, that was in a rant by a previous poster complaining about impositions on teachers, look back in the thread to find it, not something I was making a point about, just an ironic reference on my part to the previous post.

(2) Maybe we should add "educating children how to be future parents" to the list of things to be taught in school as you have identified this to be something lacking in society.

(3) Is education about learning for the exam or is it about educating a rounded personality? If it is the former, leave out all the other stuff. If it is the latter, then children do need to learn, in a peer setting, about issues like obesity, internet safety, road safety etc. So yes, it is a great idea to get schools to deal with this. Maybe it is easier for some teachers just to deal with the exam stuff.

E.T.

Godge wrote: »

(1) I didn't make the original comment on headlice and dirnk-driving, that was in a rant by a previous poster complaining about impositions on teachers, look back in the thread to find it, not something I was making a point about, just an ironic reference on my part to the previous post.

(2) Maybe we should add "educating children how to be future parents" to the list of things to be taught in school as you have identified this to be something lacking in society.

(3) Is education about learning for the exam or is it about educating a rounded personality? If it is the former, leave out all the other stuff. If it is the latter, then children do need to learn, in a peer setting, about issues like obesity, internet safety, road safety etc. So yes, it is a great idea to get schools to deal with this. Maybe it is easier for some teachers just to deal with the exam stuff.

Yes, I saw the original post - I didn't see any irony in "that can mean doing something about all the new and old problems from headlice to drinkdriving and everything else." That's the kind of thing that's posted here regularly by non-teachers, so I don't think many of us would see irony it.

Is your second point meant to be ironic too?

Your third point - I do believe education should be about a rounded personality. If you are really interested in this then you can read the primary and secondary curricula at ncca.ie This might give you an idea of what's already being dealt with in schools.

jonseyblub

Godge wrote: »

Is education about learning for the exam or is it about educating a rounded personality? If it is the former, leave out all the other stuff. If it is the latter, then children do need to learn, in a peer setting, about issues like obesity, internet safety, road safety etc. So yes, it is a great idea to get schools to deal with this. Maybe it is easier for some teachers just to deal with the exam stuff.

I firmly believe that education is about educating a rounded personality and I believe most people would agree with that too. However these ideas are thrown out the window come Leaving Cert result time when everybody from the media, parents groups, IBEC etc are complaining about Maths, Science results etc. Therefore no matter what you may think, teachers when it comes down to it must have the exam at the back of their mind at all times when teaching, because for most people outside of the education sector results is what it comes down to. Therefore less time to discuss the important things kids need to know.

Rosita

Armelodie wrote: »

My main argument is that it is not really voluntary and it IS an unreasonable request , not for the issue of famine but for the motives behind the ' voluntary' request.

Just for the record, this issue was never mentioned at all in my school. So whatever this was or was not it certainly appears to have been voluntary in the true sense of the word.

evolving_doors

Rosita wrote: »

Just for the record, this issue was never mentioned at all in my school. So whatever this was or was not it certainly appears to have been voluntary in the true sense of the word.

Ah well, maybe ministerjimmy d got what he wanted,,, name in paper etc..I wonder will the gaa follow through with his request?
Just goes to show that nobody was foolish enough to play his game....

rainbowtrout

They did it in my school over the intercom at 12, which was in the middle of a class. I was off at the time and in the staffroom. So I don't know what the kids thought of it because the chaplain made the announcement and was going on about the famine etc, so it did seem a bit of a random thing to come on the intercom about in the middle of a class, as I'm sure none of the students were aware that this was going to happen.

Rosita

Armelodie wrote: »

Just goes to show that nobody was foolish enough to play his game....

Which is strange considering that (according to you a few weeks back) it was a compulsory game.

evolving_doors

Rosita wrote: »

Which is strange considering that (according to you a few weeks back) it was a compulsory game.

No I think your wrong there, I never wrote the word 'compulsory' the closest I got to it was " almost obliged". However I did put forward the argument that with an issue such as this you can never "voluntarily" say that your not going to do it without being called a "churl" our being told that you "don't give a sh1t about the famine".therefore it's not 100% voluntary , also the motives behind it are dodgy coming from a politician...

spurious

It's quite possible the letter hasn't been opened yet in our school.
Nothing was mentioned about it anyway.

Rosita

Armelodie wrote: »

No I think your wrong there,

Ah look, if it's that important for you to be 'right' fair enough. Not much point is discussing it if you will fight on your back on the head of a semantic pin rather than acknowleding your predictable misjudgment on the matter.

evolving_doors

Rosita wrote: »

Ah look, if it's that important for you to be 'right' fair enough. Not much point is discussing it if you will fight on your back on the head of a semantic pin rather than acknowleding your predictable misjudgment on the matter.

No I don't mind being proven wrong at all, and really and truly it's not that important to me, but I will argue the point that an invitation to volunteer is null and void when everyone is asked to volunteer. The expectation is that everyone will say yes. In a sense it's almost compulsory/ obligatory.
here's my final analogy...(it's a teaching one).

Teacher : "I'd like all the class to volunteer to help me clean the room"
Or
Teacher: "I'd like some volunteers to help me clean the room"

the difference is ,as you say "semantic", but for me I should have the right to say no without being called a "churl" or being told I "don't give a sh1t about the famine", our whatever else a politician wants to waste my time with to keep him in the news.
Fair enough if people want to do it ( although ill admit I did call them a sap for which I was wrong) but it should also be equally fair enough if people don't want to do the minutes silence thing, no?

Why is my viewpoint misjudged? And of course it's predictable, that's because I've taken a certain side in the matter, it'd be a pretty weak debate if I was being unpredictable and changing sides every so often.

Rosita

Armelodie wrote: »

Why is my viewpoint misjudged?

Simple. Because your view was that there was in effect no choice in the matter, yet many schools exercised choice by completely ignoring the circular.

Retrospective semantic contortionism about the difference between 'almost obliged' and/or 'non-voluntary' and/or 'almost compulsory' or whatever it is does not change that misjudgment. You were wrong, end of.

And the question of predictability is not about you being an incorrigible old devil and creating strong debate for our entertainment and intellectual challenge. It was that any reading of the circular and its wording made it predictable that you would be wrong. This was never going to be an issue that would be a source of a major stand-off between government and schools.

looksee

I have no idea what the official thinking was in my school, but out of nowhere the intercom suddenly said 'there will now be one minute's silence in commemoration of the famine'. There was silence and then 'thank you'. and that was it!

I was working in the staff work room and immediately after the 'thank you' everyone looked baffled at each other and said 'what was that about'. I was apparently the only one who had heard anything about it. When it was explained the response was derisive and irritated - and we were all glad we had not been stuck in the middle of class at the time!