Haddington Road Discussion ASTI/TUI/Non Union at Second Level

Matthew712

endakenny wrote: »

So the S&S payments to ASTI members will stop. That doesn't necessarily mean that ASTI members will withdraw from S&S.

Yes they will, but it will be management who will make the decision to close schools. In this case as ASTI members are available for work they will still have to be paid. Been there, done that.

endakenny

Peter Flynt wrote: »

I'm coming to the conclusion that maybe S&S for ASTI members will not be stopped as the Government is making a substantial sum of money from ASTI members by freezing increments for 3 years and by not having to pay them any of their promised pay increases (which many ASTI members didn't believe in anyway).

Stopping paying ASTI members their S&S money guarantees a number of things that the Government does not want to occur:

1 - That the ASTI may definitely never sign up to HR.
2 - Could be seen as an act of vindictiveness or revenge on ASTI members for not signing up to HR.
3 - No implementation of the new Junior Cert.
4 - Possible withdrawal of co-operation with the inspection process.

In other words there is nothing to be gained by cutting S&S monies for ASTI members and everything to lose. . . . Putting the ASTI in a position of strength.

Excellent post, Peter.

endakenny

Matthew712 wrote: »

Yes they will, but it will be management who will make the decision to close schools.

....unless management bring in external personnel to do S&S. But then, of course, the Department is not exactly awash with money.

Lockedout

What I heard is that the savings on s and s are central to the arithmetic of HR. Thus increment freezes etc dont give them as much asd they "need". As for refund of cuts-thats the next Governments problem and does not figure in calculations. Posters are right to say it would be a mgt decision to close schools not ASTI- (if s and s not paid) but it would be depicted as caused by us. A new ballot might also be needed at that stage and the soft underbelly of the ASTI having briefly found their spines might waver. I want a long dispute-years but watch out, Go to your branch meetings
Here on this site you are mainly talking to the anti HR -seek out those who are wavering or didnt vote last time.

Lockedout

endakenny wrote: »

....unless management bring in external personnel to do S&S. But then, of course, the Department is not exactly awash with money.

Vetting would take months.

MathsManiac

Matthew712 wrote: »

Yes they will, but it will be management who will make the decision to close schools. In this case as ASTI members are available for work they will still have to be paid. Been there, done that.

Not necessarily, methinks. The teachers are the employees of the school and not the Department, and the Department is paying the teachers on behalf of school management. Why would the Department be obliged to pay schools for providing a service that they are not providing?

If I were contracting out a service to a supplier, and the supplier stopped supplying the service, because of industrial action by its staff or for any other reason, I would stop paying the supplier.

So, I think that if the Department had the cohones for it, it could decline to fork out money corresponding to days on which the contracted supplier (the school) was not providing the service contracted for (education of da yoot of today). It's all academic, of course, because I'm sure they don't want to press that particular nuclear button.

boatbuilder

What are the chances of TUI people getting their increment money on the next pay run?

teacherhead

boatbuilder wrote: »

What are the chances of TUI people getting their increment money on the next pay run?

There was no problem applying FEMPI in July so I can't see why there'd be any delay.

doc_17

There;s never a delay in any of the nasty things that have to be implemented.

Peter Flynt

Kenny stated last night that the "Haddington Road Agreement must and will be implemented IN FULL"

Lockedout

eb2013 wrote: »

He does owe millions due to a failed property deal...ironically the Independent reported on it and so did local newspapers in Meath, it's fairly common knowledge around his neck of the woods. He has been on quite a few times bashing the ordinary teacher. Imo he should be sacked, he has no business double jobbing for RTE, the Indo on top of running a school of 800 pupils.
I'm sure he wouldn't be happy if all his teachers had two or three other jobs as well. What a joke!

Ah now we should not delight in the troubles of others :rolleyes:

Pwpane

So, are we being left alone? No changes in conditions announced, no payment stopped for S&S.

Or do we expect more to come in the form of circulars?

Peter Flynt

Pwpane wrote: »

So, are we being left alone? No changes in conditions announced, no payment stopped for S&S.

Or do we expect more to come in the form of circulars?

Why bother antagonise ASTI members by issuing a circular telling them they won't be paid for S&S?

Better to ignore the NO vote and force a new vote with added threats.

After the expected YES . . . .

endakenny

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Why bother antagonise ASTI members by issuing a circular telling them they won't be paid for S&S?

Better to ignore the NO vote and force a new vote with added threats.

After the expected YES . . . .

Presumably, these threats include compulsory redundancy. However, I believe that there is only a small number of ASTI teachers who are surplus to requirements. Therefore, the impact of that measure would be limited.

The right to take industrial action is protected by law. Therefore, there are not many added threats that Quinn could legally carry out.

I reckon that the Croke Park hours were worse than any pay-cut and that ASTI members know what to expect.

Peter Flynt

endakenny wrote: »

Presumably, these threats include compulsory redundancy. However, I believe that there is only a small number of ASTI teachers who are surplus to requirements. Therefore, the impact of that measure would be limited.

The right to take industrial action is protected by law. Therefore, there are not many added threats that Quinn could legally carry out.

I reckon that the Croke Park hours were worse than any pay-cut and that ASTI members know what to expect.

The LP are boasting today that they're recruiting teachers.

All they've done is not increase the pupil teacher ratio.

More posts (1400 or so) will be generated as there are more pupils coming into the system. They're paying for these "extra" teachers by financially cutting existing teachers within the system using Haddington Road and/or FEMPI.

So the threats of compulsory redundancy are worthless.

endakenny

The second-level TUI members are outnumbered in the TUI by the members who work in institutes of technology. Why won't the second-level TUI members leave the TUI and form their union? That would enable them to join in the ASTI action.

Outsidethebox

endakenny wrote: »

Why won't the second-level TUI members leave the TUI and form their union? That would enable them to join in the ASTI action.

Why? Because a large amount of them are happy with their decision to accept Haddington Road and are happy being in the TUI.

Myself and most of my colleagues included.

endakenny

Outsidethebox wrote: »

Why? Because a large amount of them are happy with their decision to accept Haddington Road and are happy being in the TUI.

Myself and most of my colleagues included.

But, surely, you would rather have taken have a pay-cut than have to attend pointless "professional development" meetings.

Another reason for the ASTI's rejection of HRA is the new Junior Cycle curriculum, which consists of the assessment of secondary pupils' academic ability by their own teachers, which has been a disaster in England. The best method of assessment in secondary schools is the current system, which consists of State-certified, impartially-marked examinations.

6am7f9zxrsjvnb

Outsidethebox wrote: »

Why? Because a large amount of them are happy with their decision to accept Haddington Road and are happy being in the TUI.

Myself and most of my colleagues included.

Careful now..you`re not welcome here unless you follow the party line;)

teacherhead

endakenny wrote: »

The second-level TUI members are outnumbered in the TUI by the members who work in institutes of technology. Why won't the second-level TUI members leave the TUI and form their union? That would enable them to join in the ASTI action.

Some of them dont want to. The majority in TUI accepted the agreement. It is only hearsay tgat the third level side swung it. I'm not so sure.

Outsidethebox

endakenny wrote: »

But, surely, you would rather have taken have a pay-cut than have to attend pointless "professional development" meetings.

No.

I find you get out of these "professional development" meetings what you put into them. We use them to provide free after school study which is great for the kids. Also for planning. Not a waste at all.

I would rather keep my wage and work a few extra hours a YEAR.

I have worked in the private sector where sometimes I had to work 60+ hours a week so doing a few extra hours won't kill me. I'm not afraid to work for my wage.

I'm 30 years of age and earn €50K+ a year for my 22 hours a week/8 months a year.

My wife earns €33K. She's gone in the mornings at 6:45 and doesn't get back until after 5. All year round.

I know my opinion is going to be slaughtered but sure, fire away, and don't call me Shirley.

implausible

endakenny wrote: »

But, surely, you would rather have taken have a pay-cut than have to attend pointless "professional development" meetings.

Another reason for the ASTI's rejection of HRA is the new Junior Cycle curriculum, which consists of the assessment of secondary pupils' academic ability by their own teachers, which has been a disaster in England. The best method of assessment in secondary schools is the current system, which consists of State-certified, impartially-marked examinations.

The ASTI action is not going to stop the new JC. It might possibly delay its implementation. At the end of the day, the Minister can and will introduce new programmes.

Peter Flynt

Outsidethebox wrote: »

We use them to provide free after school study which is great for the kids.

That's not permitted.

Also for planning. Not a waste at all.

Plan at home like everyone else.

I would rather keep my wage and work a few extra hours a YEAR.

It's an extra 76 hours per year. . . . or an additional 10 years or so unpaid over a 40 year career.

I have worked in the private sector where sometimes I had to work 60+ hours a week so doing a few extra hours won't kill me. I'm not afraid to work for my wage.

I've worked thousands of hours for free in teaching. Didn't have to be asked or told to do them. Most of them during the summer preparing notes, worksheets, Keynote presentations, etc. . .

I'm 30 years of age and earn €50K+ a year for my 22 hours a week/8 months a year.

So you're so unprofessional that you don't work outside your official school timetable?

My wife earns €33K. She's gone in the mornings at 6:45 and doesn't get back until after 5. All year round.

I know my opinion is going to be slaughtered but sure, fire away, and don't call me Shirley.

Your wife is irrelevant.

Peter Flynt

Outsidethebox wrote: »

Why? Because a large amount of them are happy with their decision to accept Haddington Road and are happy being in the TUI.

Myself and most of my colleagues included.

The majority of second level TUI members voted NO. Their 800 or so third level members won the day.

Peter Flynt

implausible wrote: »

The ASTI action is not going to stop the new JC. It might possibly delay its implementation. At the end of the day, the Minister can and will introduce new programmes.

He's introducing inservices for English in the new school cert now.

ASTI members won't be at them.

whiteandlight

TUI members are not allowed to join the ASTI during a dispute and many of us are not allowed join anyways because of our schools status (ETBs). Had to nominate my five periods today, so annoyed that I'm stuck with it.

derb12

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Plan at home like everyone else.

I hate stupid glib statements like this. So you really think a school will work with a staffroom full of teachers making independant plans? Have none of your CP hour meetings ever been useful? Has the rest of the working world got it wrong and meetings are 100% a waste of time?
I'm no fan of CP hours and the restrictive way that they are applied but we've had many useful meetings in my school. It is down to how they are run and how many of the teachers decide that they are a waste of time beforehand.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

It's an extra 76 hours per year. . . . or an additional 10 years or so unpaid over a 40 year career.

Please explain your maths here. I'm baffled by this 10 year figure.

I also feel that a few extra hours in meetings aren't the end of the world. I don't think that is the right point to fight HR on. We look like idiots when we start talking about 10 years extra work in a 40 year career.

6am7f9zxrsjvnb

Musicmental85 wrote: »

TUI members are not allowed to join the ASTI during a dispute and many of us are not allowed join anyways because of our schools status (ETBs). Had to nominate my five periods today, so annoyed that I'm stuck with it.

i`m one of 4 ASTI members in a TUI dominated ETB.Was there a year before I joined..Most ill-informed decision of my life! Don`t worry,they`ll take your cash when this storm subsides.

Outsidethebox

Peter Flynt wrote: »

That's not permitted.

Well we do it. Two hours a year. Principal is fine with it.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Plan at home like everyone else.

So you're so unprofessional that you don't work outside your official school timetable?

Because I car pool with two other teachers I have plenty of time during the week to plan. Extra couple of hours at most.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

It's an extra 76 hours per year. . . .

Well holy god, 76 hours a year or an extra 13 minutes a day.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

I've worked thousands of hours for free in teaching. Didn't have to be asked or told to do them. Most of them during the summer preparing notes, worksheets, Keynote presentations, etc. . .

Fair play to you for giving up your three months holidays for those thousands of hours for free. You were getting paid during this time of course. At least you had the other 7 weeks of midterms etc for some r&r.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Your wife is irrelevant.

Nice quoting there splitting my comparison. Two people of the same education. One working a lot less hours for a lot more pay and he knows how lucky he is.

A lot of teachers are very fond of giving the poor mouth and acting the victim. I'd love to see some of these try survive in a job that doesn't give you 17/18 weeks off a year.

Outsidethebox

Peter Flynt wrote: »

The majority of second level TUI members voted NO. Their 800 or so third level members won the day.

Really?

Did the TUI release this information? Source please.

30 odd teachers in my school. I know of 3 that rejected it. Large majority of us accepted it.

Peter Flynt

derb12 wrote: »

I hate stupid glib statements like this. So you really think a school will work with a staffroom full of teachers making independant plans? Have none of your CP hour meetings ever been useful? Has the rest of the working world got it wrong and meetings are 100% a waste of time?
I'm no fan of CP hours and the restrictive way that they are applied but we've had many useful meetings in my school. It is down to how they are run and how many of the teachers decide that they are a waste of time beforehand.

Thanks - But I don't need to sit around with a bunch of other teachers for two hours at a time (or so) discussing anything. If I need their advice or help I'll ask them and vice versa.

Please explain your maths here. I'm baffled by this 10 year figure.

I also feel that a few extra hours in meetings aren't the end of the world. I don't think that is the right point to fight HR on. We look like idiots when we start talking about 10 years extra work in a 40 year career.

Before Croke Park:

735 x 40 = 29,400 hours over a 40 year career.

After Haddington Road:

811 x 40 = 32,440 hours over a 40 year career.

An increase of 3040 UNPAID hours or 10.34 % or, in time, 4 years or so extra unpaid.

PS - I made a mistake earlier . . . I meant a 10% increase. . . rather than 10 years.

Peter Flynt

Outsidethebox wrote: »

Really?

Did the TUI release this information? Source please.

30 odd teachers in my school. I know of 3 that rejected it. Large majority of us accepted it.

Considering 85% of your union rejected Croke Park 2 earlier this year. . . . I don't believe you.

There was a secret ballot in your school by the way. . .

6am7f9zxrsjvnb

Outsidethebox wrote: »

Really?

Did the TUI release this information? Source please.

30 odd teachers in my school. I know of 3 that rejected it. Large majority of us accepted it.

Staff of 40 in my school.36 TUI-apart from tui shop steward,haven`t heard one voice of dissent.There`s a palpable sense of relief among the non permanent TUI members,especially when they look at a non permanent ASTI muppet like me!

Outsidethebox

Jerry Powerful Vegetarian wrote: »

Staff of 40 in my school.36 TUI-apart from tui shop steward,haven`t heard one voice of dissent.There`s a palpable sense of relief among the non permanent TUI members,especially when they look at a non permanent ASTI muppet like me!

Same as that in my place.

Despite what the 34% of those in the ASTI that rejected HRA will try tell you.

Apparently they know how our work colleagues/friends voted better than we do.

Gas.

Peter Flynt

Outsidethebox wrote: »

Well we do it. Two hours a year. Principal is fine with it.

If you were really a teacher you'd know that the Principal cannot chhoose how to use the time spent. That's done by the DES. The DES do not authorise anything like extra study time.

Well holy god, 76 hours a year or an extra 13 minutes a day.

So you took [76 x 60] and divided by 365. . . . . Why do I bother with trolling like this?

Fair play to you for giving up your three months holidays for those thousands of hours for free. You were getting paid during this time of course. At least you had the other 7 weeks of midterms etc for some r&r.

Thanks very much. I also have worked quite extensively during Easter holidays (giving extra classes usually) and during the mid term breaks. . . . .which we know you don't.

Perhaps, like you, I should just stuff my pockets with the cash and to hell with my T&C. You see I care very much about the profession. TO be an outstanding teacher requires the professional to be given as much time as possible to prepare . . . as fail to prepare - prepare to fail.

Nice quoting there splitting my comparison. Two people of the same education. One working a lot less hours for a lot more pay and he knows how lucky he is.

A lot of teachers are very fond of giving the poor mouth and acting the victim. I'd love to see some of these try survive in a job that doesn't give you 17/18 weeks off a year.

. . . Ah the mask is slipping. . . .

I'm sure your wife is a lovely woman. . . Don't embarrass her by revealing your identity.

Outsidethebox

Peter Flynt wrote: »

An increase of 3040 UNPAID hours

Take a 40 hour week (standard enough working work)

3040 hours/40 hours = 76 weeks.

A year and four months working in a standard job but ten years for the teachers.

Ten years he say's!

Peter Flynt

Outsidethebox wrote: »

Take a 40 hour week (standard enough working work)

3040 hours/40 hours = 76 weeks.

A year and four months working in a standard job but ten years for the teachers.

Ten years he say's!

I posted I made a mistake. . .In that I meant 10% and 4 years.

Clearly you are either a troll or you've no respect for the profession of teaching.

Probably a bit of both I'd say.

PS - Didn't you earlier admit that your standard week was 22 hours or really 735/52 hours [14.1 hours] using your "extra 13 mins a day" analogy?

Outsidethebox

Peter Flynt wrote: »

If you were really a teacher

Peter Flynt wrote: »

. . . Ah the mask is slipping. . . .

As the kids would say "lol"

There is quite a few on here who know who I am. I'm sure they'll get a right giggle out of this.

As for your comment on me not respecting my profession, this may come as shock to you Peter but there are plenty of teachers out there who feel teaching is a job with very good conditions.

Even with the massive 76 hours extra a year.

I am not a troll by the way but I don't subscribe to the teaching is a fierce hard job like so many others on here. I think it is a great job and very rewarding.

The whole 18 weeks off a year is nice too, it must be said.

Peter Flynt

Outsidethebox wrote: »

As the kids would say "lol"

There is quite a few on here who know who I am. I'm sure they'll get a right giggle out of this.

As for your comment on me not respecting my profession, this may come as shock to you Peter but there are plenty of teachers out there who feel teaching is a job with very good conditions.

Even with the massive 76 hours extra a year.

I am not a troll by the way but I don't subscribe to the teaching is a fierce hard job like so many others on here. I think it is a great job and very rewarding.

The whole 18 weeks off a year is nice too, it must be said.

Imagine being a teacher in the same subject department in your school . . . .and having to sit around talking to you for two hours.

No Croke Park or Haddington Road is worth that.

Outsidethebox

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Imagine being a teacher in the same subject department in your school . . . .and having to sit around talking to you for two hours.

No Croke Park or Haddington Road is worth that.

Yes.

Imagine having to talk to someone who has the audacity to have a different opinion than you.

Sure you couldn't have that.

Outsidethebox

Jerry Powerful Vegetarian wrote: »

Careful now..you`re not welcome here unless you follow the party line;)

I thought you were joking.

Silly me.

acequion

Fair play to you Peter for single handedly taking on these muppets! Your own words, guys, lest you start clamouring that you're now being insulted!

Most unfortunately, I don't think you're trolls.It would appear that you are indeed teachers. But my heart sinks at your attitude. How Mr Kenny and Mr Quinn would be thrilled with foot soldiers like you, eagerly swallowing the medicine and lapping it all up! I suppose you'll just go "more please" when they throw some more of it your way. I'd say well deserved too,but unfortunately those of us with principles will be forced to swallow it with you.

I find your attitudes and comments sickening. Everyone agrees that HR is a major imposition and even the vast majority of those who voted for it, did so with a heavy heart.Nobody is gloating about it and sneering at colleagues who are prepared to take yet more pay cuts for the good of the profession, except muppets like you.

Shame on you!

spurious

endakenny wrote: »

The second-level TUI members are outnumbered in the TUI by the members who work in institutes of technology.

That is simply not true. The second level teachers in TUI are in the majority.
Nobody is helped by inaccurate statements.

Let's have less of the name-calling all round thanks.
Sadly there are people in all staffrooms who haven't a clue about what HRA (or FEMPI) entails. There is also, in both unions apparently, a large number who couldn't be bothered voting. Such is life.

Lockedout

People who voted for HR have to be respected., Personally I dont think they have grasped where Quinn is taking us with the JC but that remains to be seen. Its a democracy. What happens to TUI is their business. Anti HR TUI can put their money where their mouth is and quit. I respect all views but for the moment the ASTI position is anti HR.

whiteandlight

You miss the problem with the latest circular. If I quit not only will I not be able to join the ASTI, HR will be imposed anyways. I would like to quit but I'm not going to when there is absolutely no upside to it. At least within the union I am protected and may push for change in the future.

There's no way out of it for me short of moving schools which would be lunacy in the current climate

teacherhead

I think that for every TUI member unhappy being under hra there are members of the Asti unhappy to be under FEMPI. Thats the way things go.

So many didn't voice their opinions in the ballot that it's difficult to know what the outcome would have been if there was a full turnout.

While there are differences between the two unions now it makes no sense for one side to alienate the other.

rainbowtrout

Further to that the opinion perpetuated on this thread the last while is that all ASTI are anti HRA and voted No when they clearly didn't. It would also appear that given the fact that it was a democratic vote and people were free to vote Yes or No that some No voters cannot accept that some people were happy to vote Yes. That was their right and choice. I now suspect that I was among a minority of No voters in my staffroom as everyone is happy with HRA the way it is and part timers welcome getting their CIDs a year early. It wouldn't have swayed me and was not a factor for me, but then again I'm permanent and not in their position.

Interestingly at my branch meeting the other night there were a number of new union members applications. A good few had to be put to one side as they were from ASTI teachers within the county wanting to join TUI so this myth that all ASTI teachers are anti HRA is simply not true, to the point that some want to move to TUI but can't at the moment.

acequion

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Further to that the opinion perpetuated on this thread the last while is that all ASTI are anti HRA and voted No when they clearly didn't. It would also appear that given the fact that it was a democratic vote and people were free to vote Yes or No that some No voters cannot accept that some people were happy to vote Yes. That was their right and choice. I now suspect that I was among a minority of No voters in my staffroom as everyone is happy with HRA the way it is and part timers welcome getting their CIDs a year early. It wouldn't have swayed me and was not a factor for me, but then again I'm permanent and not in their position.

Interestingly at my branch meeting the other night there were a number of new union members applications. A good few had to be put to one side as they were from ASTI teachers within the county wanting to join TUI so this myth that all ASTI teachers are anti HRA is simply not true, to the point that some want to move to TUI but can't at the moment.

I wouldn't necessarily agree. You imply that ASTI No voters are somehow disrespectful of the democratic process and that is patently unfair. As an ASTI No voter I campaigned as best I could for a No vote and did whatever I could to influence whoever I could including Pat King himself. However of course I respect that others see it differently and therefore voted differently.

But there are certain things I find very hard to accept. The first is this notion that people were "happy" to vote Yes and that people are now "happy" to be in HR. Maybe I'm getting a bit caught up in semantics here but I can't see what they could possibly be "happy" about. That they voted Yes because they felt that was the right thing to do, fair enough. But to be "happy" at the further deterioration of working conditions and at the acquisition of an unsustainable workload is frankly hard to understand.

I would also be unhappy at the subtle changes in attitudes on this thread. There is a definite sense of people caving in, acquiescing once again to the will of a Government who couldn't care less about teachers and their charges. While it saddens me to see that, I also see that it's very typically Irish. We always give in too easily.

So I think what people see as a certain ASTI lack of respect is in fact just people sticking to their principles. We may all have to swallow HR eventually but let' not kid ourselves that it's anything less than a contemptible attack on our profession and Irish education.

teacherhead

acequion wrote: »

I wouldn't necessarily agree. You imply that ASTI No voters are somehow disrespectful of the democratic process and that is patently unfair. As an ASTI No voter I campaigned as best I could for a No vote and did whatever I could to influence whoever I could including Pat King himself. However of course I respect that others see it differently and therefore voted differently.

But there are certain things I find very hard to accept. The first is this notion that people were "happy" to vote Yes and that people are now "happy" to be in HR. Maybe I'm getting a bit caught up in semantics here but I can't see what they could possibly be "happy" about. That they voted Yes because they felt that was the right thing to do, fair enough. But to be "happy" at the further deterioration of working conditions and at the acquisition of an unsustainable workload is frankly hard to understand.

I would also be unhappy at the subtle changes in attitudes on this thread. There is a definite sense of people caving in, acquiescing once again to the will of a Government who couldn't care less about teachers and their charges. While it saddens me to see that, I also see that it's very typically Irish. We always give in too easily.

So I think what people see as a certain ASTI lack of respect is in fact just people sticking to their principles. We may all have to swallow HR eventually but let' not kid ourselves that it's anything less than a contemptible attack on our profession and Irish education.

People may not be beaming with smiles following their acceptance of the agreement they seem to be content at least with the certainty they have fir the next two to three years.

As for changes in attitude what would you have people do? Drive themselves to distraction fighting against an agreement already accepted? There is a sense of resignation to therreality of where we are certainly, but to call it a change in attitude and to paint IT as people suddenly changing their basic position is not accurate.

endakenny

Peter Flynt wrote: »

He's introducing inservices for English in the new school cert now.

ASTI members won't be at them.

"implausible" thinks that the ASTI cannot stop the new JC but I have replied saying that they can. Can you confirm which one of us is right?

Surely, it would be unfair on pupils to go ahead with the new curriculum, given that the change applies to all subjects, when ASTI members won't implement it. Therefore, the new curriculum would be unworkable. Although the ASTI members might be in breach of their contracts of employment by refusing to implement the new curriculum, having them all sacked would not do the education system any favours.