QUINN-an evaluation.

acequion

Good riddance!! His disdain for the ordinary teacher and by extension,the job we do,was evident at all times.

Someone who would show some respect for our opinions,experience and expertise, would be an improvement for a start.

I'm so delighted to see the back of him,I feel like throwing a party!

evolving_doors

Aye , to the very end he was as arrogant as ever. He said he retired prematurely because he didn't want to be considered for the next job.
Same as the guarda commissioner 'retiring' ....after a friendly visit from Enda's messenger for a little chat.

God it would sicken you to hear the words ' reforming' and ' legacy' thrown around.

Marian F or Miriam O' C anyone?

MathsManiac

rainbowtrout wrote: »

In a school of 500 pupils 22 hours ( a full post) was allocated for career guidance. This allocation was separate to the teaching allocation of the school. In a school smaller than that hours were allocated on a pro rata basis. These hours were cut from school's allocations in the budget a couple of years ago. If the school continued to give her 22 hours for guidance and didn't give her any Irish and French classes when the cuts came in, those hours were taken from the teaching allocation and there was a cut elsewhere on the timetable. She may not have lost out, but a part time teacher possibly lost hours as a result, or 4 Irish classes of 22-23 are now 3 classes of 30 etc.

My recollection of this budget change was that the hours were "de-ringfenced" rather than cut. That is, school management was given the discretion to deploy posts and hours as they saw fit. (There was, of course, a simultaneous tightening all round of resources in that budget.) If management in a particular school valued the work being done in guidance and counseling, they would not have chosen to cut it. Why do they seem to be largely let off the hook by most of those commenting on this issue?

rainbowtrout

MathsManiac wrote: »

My recollection of this budget change was that the hours were "de-ringfenced" rather than cut. That is, school management was given the discretion to deploy posts and hours as they saw fit. (There was, of course, a simultaneous tightening all round of resources in that budget.) If management in a particular school valued the work being done in guidance and counseling, they would not have chosen to cut it. Why do they seem to be largely let off the hook by most of those commenting on this issue?

Guidance counsellor hours were provided ex-quota. Those hours were removed and counselling hours had to be taken from the main teaching allocation. That was a cut in hours.

So for some schools already using their teaching allocation to the max, there is simply no room to allocate 11+ hours to guidance counselling.

brooke 2

Armelodie wrote: »

Aye , to the very end he was as arrogant as ever. He said he retired prematurely because he didn't want to be considered for the next job.
Same as the guarda commissioner 'retiring' ....after a friendly visit from Enda's messenger for a little chat.

God it would sicken you to hear the words ' reforming' and ' legacy' thrown around.

Marian F or Miriam O' C anyone?

There was no chance that he would have been considered for any 'next job' and he
knew it well. He was livid when Gilmore offered his resignation after the recent elections and could see the writing on the wall for himself.

MathsManiac

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Guidance counsellor hours were provided ex-quota. Those hours were removed and counselling hours had to be taken from the main teaching allocation. That was a cut in hours.

So for some schools already using their teaching allocation to the max, there is simply no room to allocate 11+ hours to guidance counselling.

We're perhaps drifting off topic, but I don't think anything you've said contradicts my point. If you'll forgive my mathematising the situation, a total allocation of, for example, N+11 hours, with the 11 ringfenced for guidance became a total of N, without such ring-fencing. Some school authorities - too many in my view - responded to this by decimating the guidance, while others did not. (They could instead, for example, have stopped trying to sustain an LC subject with small numbers, or abandoned a practice of trying to keep weaker classes small, or one of keeping Higher and Ordinary classes separate, and so on.)

School management always has decisions to make on how to prioritise resources, and at times it suits them to say that they can no longer afford to do something rather than saying that they prioritised one thing over something else. These are hard choices, and not everyone will make them the same way.

endakenny

MathsManiac wrote: »

We're perhaps drifting off topic....

Not necessarily. The abolition of the special allocation of guidance is a decision that was made by Quinn. Therefore, it can be regarded as relevant to the thread.

MathsManiac wrote: »

If you'll forgive my mathematising the situation, a total allocation of, for example, N+11 hours, with the 11 ringfenced for guidance became a total of N, without such ring-fencing. Some school authorities - too many in my view - responded to this by decimating the guidance, while others did not. (They could instead, for example, have stopped trying to sustain an LC subject with small numbers, or abandoned a practice of trying to keep weaker classes small, or one of keeping Higher and Ordinary classes separate, and so on.)

English, Irish and Maths are the core subjects. Therefore, I find it hard to believe that Higher Level classes in those subjects would be merged with Ordinary Level ones.

happywithlife

[QUOTE=endakenny;91132462

English, Irish and Maths are the core subjects. Therefore, I find it hard to believe that Higher Level classes in those subjects would be merged with Ordinary Level ones.[/QUOTE]

It's already happening in several schools I know :-(