Behaviour at the ASTI conference and Pat King's response

evolving_doors

Rosita wrote: »

This is the most extraordinary thing I've read for a long time. You must have a serious backstory about megaphones if they equate to someone exposing themselves.

Why thank you...

Just saying it is rude to disrupt an invited speaker (no matter what way it is done).. that's just the social etiquette.
In the end though it opened up the debate so the end justified the means.

.. but he was still rude. Am I missing something here.. it was rude wasn;t it? Should i start a poll? I was just brought up not to interrupt folk at speeches?

acequion

Armelodie wrote: »

Why thank you...

Just saying it is rude to disrupt an invited speaker (no matter what way it is done).. that's just the social etiquette.
In the end though it opened up the debate so the end justified the means.

.. but he was still rude. Am I missing something here.. it was rude wasn;t it? Should i start a poll? I was just brought up not to interrupt folk at speeches?

So were all of us Armelodie, but that's rather black and white. Whether he was rude or not is irrelevant in the larger context of the very strained relations between Quinn and the teaching body in general, and the frustration of union members which was vented at the conference.

While it has certainly got everyone talking,I think far too big a deal is being made about what one delegate did.Surely the real big deal is the sorry state of education,of the teaching profession and of the union.

endakenny

Armelodie wrote: »

Why thank you...

Just saying it is rude to disrupt an invited speaker (no matter what way it is done).. that's just the social etiquette.
In the end though it opened up the debate so the end justified the means.

.. but he was still rude. Am I missing something here.. it was rude wasn;t it? Should i start a poll? I was just brought up not to interrupt folk at speeches?

Some teachers might say that Quinn has been rude to them.

evolving_doors

acequion wrote: »

So were all of us Armelodie, but that's rather black and white. Whether he was rude or not is irrelevant in the larger context of the very strained relations between Quinn and the teaching body in general, and the frustration of union members which was vented at the conference.

While it has certainly got everyone talking,I think far too big a deal is being made about what one delegate did.Surely the real big deal is the sorry state of education,of the teaching profession and of the union.

In a way I'm glad that a big deal has been made of such an act as it has formed a kind of talking point to bring people into the conversation. The usual opening gambit by most radio jocks was "we'll aren't those teacher(s!) disgraceful for their antics"...but this Easter the response has been a bit more informed. It's as if a good deal of non-teacher folk are willing to look a bit beyond the media/govt. spin this time around.

Should be interesting to see what happens next year.

evolving_doors

endakenny wrote: »

Some teachers might say that Quinn has been rude to them.

Lol... thats putting it very mildly.

evolving_doors

On a more childish note if anyone wants a chuckle ...its all on topic too!

Here...

Rosita

Armelodie wrote: »

.. but he was still rude. Am I missing something here.. it was rude wasn;t it? Should i start a poll? I was just brought up not to interrupt folk at speeches?

Of course it was 'rude' but hardly as rude as someone dropping their trousers and mooning the Minister. The latter would be an arrestable offence. Nobody is arguing that it wasn't rude. The arguments being made are that it is still well within the norms of protest where people look to get publicity for their argument and feel it cannot be done any other way.

Being brought up not to interrupt people at speeches is all well and good, but the circumstances here were a union conference after a year or two of continuing industrial relations difficulties. It's not the same as a Minister giving a speech at the opening of a new school for example where the context would have been highly inappropriate. Down the years union conferences have always featured protests. It's part of the deal. This discussion has been distorted by people being super-ethical about what they would do themselves and how perfect their own behaviour is/would be. It's distorted even more when people try to characterise the megaphone protest as tantamount to mooning. Why can't people get off their high horses and see it for what it was?

evolving_doors

Rosita wrote: »

Of course it was 'rude' but hardly as rude as someone dropping their trousers and mooning the Minister. The latter would be an arrestable offence. Nobody is arguing that it wasn't rude. The arguments being made are that it is still well within the norms of protest where people look to get publicity for their argument and feel it cannot be done any other way.

Being brought up not to interrupt people at speeches is all well and good, but the circumstances here were a union conference after a year or two of continuing industrial relations difficulties. It's not the same as a Minister giving a speech at the opening of a new school for example where the context would have been highly inappropriate. Down the years union conferences have always featured protests. It's part of the deal. This discussion has been distorted by people being super-ethical about what they would do themselves and how perfect their own behaviour is/would be. It's distorted even more when people try to characterise the megaphone protest as tantamount to mooning. Why can't people get off their high horses and see it for what it was?

Your right, it was just rude and thats that.

f3232

Armelodie wrote: »

Why thank you...

Just saying it is rude to disrupt an invited speaker (no matter what way it is done).. that's just the social etiquette.
In the end though it opened up the debate so the end justified the means.

.. but he was still rude. Am I missing something here.. it was rude wasn't it? Should i start a poll? I was just brought up not to interrupt folk at speeches?

Is it normal work place etiquette not to consult with staff before implementing radical change in the way they work?

Is it normal etiquette to bully your staff into accepting an agreement that destroys their working conditions?

Sometimes social etiquette has to be put aside to get your point across.

endakenny

f3232 wrote: »

Is it normal work place etiquette not to consult with staff before implementing radical change in the way they work?

Is it normal etiquette to bully your staff into accepting an agreement that destroys their working conditions?

Sometimes social etiquette has to be put aside to get your point across.

Regrettably, teachers were never going to be allowed to avoid doing the Croke Park hours because letting them avoid the hours would be unfair on other public sector workers. I'm not doing whataboutery; I'm just showing some perspective on the issue.

f3232

endakenny wrote: »

Regrettably, teachers were never going to be allowed to avoid doing the Croke Park hours because letting them avoid the hours would be unfair on other public sector workers. I'm not doing whataboutery; I'm just showing some perspective on the issue.

I am not talking about croke park hours when i talk about the undermining of our conditions.

Pay disparity for new entrants
Extra Supervision and Sub
Cutbacks in Special Needs
Cutbacks in middle management posts
Cutbacks in Maternity benefits
Cutbacks in guidance
Cutbacks in school summer works grants
Croke park hours (a farce and a sham)

to name just a few.

acequion

endakenny wrote: »

Regrettably, teachers were never going to be allowed to avoid doing the Croke Park hours because letting them avoid the hours would be unfair on other public sector workers. I'm not doing whataboutery; I'm just showing some perspective on the issue.

I don't know of any other group of public sector workers who are facing major changes in their work practice which is what junior cycle reform proposes. It will also comprise a major increase in working hours which constitutes another pay cut.No other sector is so threatened. That's why teachers have been the noisiest these past few months.

endakenny

f3232 wrote: »

I am not talking about croke park hours when i talk about the undermining of our conditions.

Pay disparity for new entrants
Extra Supervision and Sub
Cutbacks in Special Needs
Cutbacks in middle management posts
Cutbacks in Maternity benefits
Cutbacks in guidance
Cutbacks in school summer works grants
Croke park hours (a farce and a sham)

to name just a few.

There are promises under HRA to address the issue of pay disparity and also allow for the filling of some middle-management vacancies. The issue of guidance counselling is separate from HRA and merely means that guidance counsellors have to take ordinary classes in addition to counselling.

As far as I know, the CP hours include staff meetings and parent-teacher meetings.

I have asked the question of why the ASTI didn't take legal action over retrospective changes to teachers' contracts and the threat of redundancy to teachers whose jobs are out of line with the pupil-teacher ratio if HRA wasn't passed several times on this form but nobody has answered.

Rosita

endakenny wrote: »

I have asked the question of why the ASTI didn't take legal action over retrospective changes to teachers' contracts and the threat of redundancy to teachers whose jobs are out of line with the pupil-teacher ratio if HRA wasn't passed several times on this form but nobody has answered.

Maybe because the HRA was passed? I'd say courts would take a dim view of dealing with hypothetical scenarios. The ASTI would surely have had to mount a legal challenge against a specific actual instance of what you speak of rather than trying to get a legal remedy for a politically motivated threat used (successfully) as a scaremongering tactic. I'm not privy to the thinking of the ASTI's legal advice but that what I've just said would seem to me to be an obvious explanation.

seavill

endakenny wrote: »

There are promises under HRA to address the issue of pay disparity and also allow for the filling of some middle-management vacancies. The issue of guidance counselling is separate from HRA and merely means that guidance counsellors have to take ordinary classes in addition INSTEAD OF to counselling.

As far as I know, the CP hours include staff meetings and parent-teacher meetings.

I have asked the question of why the ASTI didn't take legal action over retrospective changes to teachers' contracts and the threat of redundancy to teachers whose jobs are out of line with the pupil-teacher ratio if HRA wasn't passed several times on this form but nobody has answered.

Instead of counselling - that's the point

endakenny

seavill wrote: »

Instead of counselling - that's the point

It's not that there's no guidance counselling at all (there's still a legal obligation on schools to provide a certain number of hours of it); it's just that the counsellors are not available as often as they used to be.

endakenny

Rosita wrote: »

Maybe because the HRA was passed? I'd say courts would take a dim view of dealing with hypothetical scenarios. The ASTI would surely have had to mount a legal challenge against a specific actual instance of what you speak of rather than trying to get a legal remedy for a politically motivated threat used (successfully) as a scaremongering tactic. I'm not privy to the thinking of the ASTI's legal advice but that what I've just said would seem to me to be an obvious explanation.

I meant to ask: Why didn't the Central Executive Committee of the ASTI take legal action instead of calling another ballot?

Furthermore, I don't see how the threat of redundancy to a very small number of ASTI members (there can't have been a huge number of secondary teachers whose jobs were out of line with the PT ratio) could swing the majority vote to Yes. There must have been other factors involved.

I know that some people may think I'm an idiot for asking these questions but I'm just trying to understand the situation.

seavill

endakenny wrote: »

It's not that there's no guidance counselling at all (there's still a legal obligation on schools to provide a certain number of hours of it); it's just that the counsellors are not available as often as they used to be.

Why do you constantly tell teachers things they already know - there was a piece in the paper from the JMB this week that each school on average lost about 17 hours a week of counselling time - that's a hell of a lot of kids with problems that are not getting the help they need.

Your comment that it "merely means" is ill judged or badly worded not sure which. You clearly have no idea what an impact this has on the most vulnerable of kids in our schools.

And my statement is still correct GCs now have to take ordinary classes INSTEAD of devoting time to counselling (not all their time is gone but a significant amount of time)

GCs don't work 22 hours (not the ones I met anyway) they work way more, usually a min of 9-4 every day, at times including their breaks, not they have had time removed to go into the classroom but on top of that the spare time they had that they used for seeing students is now also spent planning lessons making resources and correcting so that have lost a lot more than the number of periords they spend in the classroom

evolving_doors

f3232 wrote: »

Is it normal work place etiquette not to consult with staff before implementing radical change in the way they work?

Is it normal etiquette to bully your staff into accepting an agreement that destroys their working conditions?

Sometimes social etiquette has to be put aside to get your point across.

So he would have been justified in mooning too then?

linguist

As the OP of this thread, I've been absolutely flabbergasted by the reaction - bordering on paranoia - which has already been pointed out by another poster agreeing with my sentiments. This line that because I happen to express views that don't subscribe to the hijacking of the annual convention, the throwing of juicy morsels to those journalists who delight in teacher-bashing, and an attitude that public opinion can go to hell, I must be a stooge of the Minister for Education or Pat King is so wide of the mark it's actually funny.

It says a lot about the problem when those who will defend what happened in Wexford resort to such hysterical tactics whilst so vehemently accusing anyone critical of somebody who, publicly and of his one free will, took out a megaphone in the middle of the Minister's speech of engaging in ad hominem attacks.

We've even seen the union leadership criticised because they dress in business attire and speak 'like politicians'. If that's not ad hominem, I don't know what is. Surely anyone with the education required to be a teacher understands that such attire is expected in the environment in which our union leaders operate. Whatever else you might say about Pat King, he has an ability to speak in calm and measured tones. I do indeed wish he'd be seen to push the legitimate concerns of ASTI Fightback more regularly but I don't expect or want him to start ranting and raving as he does so.

Rosita

linguist wrote: »

As the OP of this thread, I've been absolutely flabbergasted by the reaction - bordering on paranoia - which has already been pointed out by another poster agreeing with my sentiments. This line that because I happen to express views that don't subscribe to the hijacking of the annual convention, the throwing of juicy morsels to those journalists who delight in teacher-bashing, and an attitude that public opinion can go to hell, I must be a stooge of the Minister for Education or Pat King is so wide of the mark it's actually funny.

You may be bordering on paranoia yourself. The thread, believe it or not, is not about you. All the points you raise have been thrashed out over and over here.

The one irony is what you say is that you seem to be offended that the union leaders are criticised for talking like politicians, but use classic politician language yourself when you say that you wish King would "be seen to deal with the issues of ASTI fightback". Interesting that you are concerned with the optics of it rather than King actually dealing with the issues.

King's "calm and measured tones" are fine but it comes across as wishy-washy, monotonic, and lacking conviction and a real understanding of the issues when I hear him. Liam Doran, for example, is streets ahead in his ability to communicate a simpe message succintly and punchily. Call it ad hominem and circle the wagons if you like but that's an opinion that is shared by many, and that is a problem for the union and its effectiveness.

Rosita

Armelodie wrote: »

So he would have been justified in mooning too then?

The point being made is that sometimes social etiquette has to be put aside for a greater good as it might be termed. These are judgement calls. Sometimes they'll be right, sometimes not. Depending on someone's point of view they'll agree with them or maybe not. That's life.

But none of this means, and nobody would claim, that any breach of etiquette is justified. Proportionality matters. But that works both ways. Still going on about mooning is downright silly. Time to let that one go to be honest, as with other attempts to exaggerate the issue.

happywithlife

Rosita wrote: »

King's "calm and measured tones" are fine but it comes across as wishy-washy, monotonic, and lacking conviction and a real understanding of the issues when I hear him. Liam Doran, for example, is streets ahead in his ability to communicate a simpe message succintly and punchily. Call it ad hominem and circle the wagons if you like but that's an opinion that is shared by many, and that is a problem for the union and its effectiveness.

Spot on IMO
At a time when we need a passionate, vocal, rise-to-the-cause leadership we get kings painful to watch passiveness. He certainly doesn't come across as someone that shares the worries and stresses of the vast majority of teachers today.

evolving_doors

Rosita wrote: »

The point being made is that sometimes social etiquette has to be put aside for a greater good as it might be termed. These are judgement calls. Sometimes they'll be right, sometimes not. Depending on someone's point of view they'll agree with them or maybe not. That's life.

But none of this means, and nobody would claim, that any breach of etiquette is justified. Proportionality matters. But that works both ways. Still going on about mooning is downright silly. Time to let that one go to be honest, as with other attempts to exaggerate the issue.

I'm more than happy to leave the mooning thing go, I'd love to stop talking about mooning the minister.. I just mentioned mooning in passing as an analogy to heckling with a megaphone, it's just that mooning was picked up as an inappropriate analogy, so another poster was looking for an explanation of what mooning was about. But for me mooning was just another form of rudeness.. for example I could have chosen 'biting thy thumb' at the minister as another form of insult that was rude so it doesn;t matter.. it's just another form of rudeness.

The exaggeration issue of the megaphone is pretty moot really, the guy disrupted the minister and I think it served to open up the debate a bit more in the media than other 'non rude' forms such as silent protest or placards. I'm happy to stop talking about mooning once people stop mentioning mooning in replies, mooning was just an analogy... I'll stop saying mooning now.

mrboswell

r3nu4l wrote: »

I am not a teacher so will provide an 'outsiders' perspective of the events involving the megaphone heckler.

I'll preface this by saying that my brother is a young teacher so I understand the frustrations of teachers right now.

However, the behaviour of Andrew Phelan was shameful. Whether teachers like it or not, they are role models for kids and how they are seen to handle disputes and problems is very important. Phelan's actions have said to kids that when a dispute becomes difficult it's okay to shout down the opposition and show total disrespect for the other person.

If a student did that in protest against a poor teacher who was damaging their education they would most likely be disciplined by either suspension or exclusion.

Just to point out that I am a teacher and on a number of occasions every year I am told to F**K OFF or have comments made about my appearance. Not to mention the threats of physical violence made against me and in some cases I have been knocked aside as students have barged past me while leaving the classroom without permission.

In the above cases the most that has happened to any student is a 2-3 day suspension but in some cases school management decided not to take any action at all - not even oblige a student to make one of those meaningless apologies.

Sure we are teachers but we are human too.

mrboswell

f3232 wrote: »

I am not talking about croke park hours when i talk about the undermining of our conditions.

Pay disparity for new entrants
Extra Supervision and Sub
Cutbacks in Special Needs
Cutbacks in middle management posts
Cutbacks in Maternity benefits
Cutbacks in guidance
Cutbacks in school summer works grants
Croke park hours (a farce and a sham)

to name just a few.

I heard on Friday that the JMB have negotiated extra A posts for schools to keep management happy so Quinn can push through whatever he wants without any noise from the JMB...

Rosita

Armelodie wrote: »

But for me mooning was just another form of rudeness..

You are working off the assumption that 'rudeness' is a single point on the spectrum and anything that constitutes rudeness can be related to that single point only. In reality rudneess is itself a broad spectrum. It could range from not holding a door open for someone, which it has to be said will not bother everyone, to maybe a smoker blowing smoke into the face of someone nearby which is much further along the spectrum heading towards aggression, and would have universal acceptance as rudeness.

Mooning is further still and heading in the direction of sexual offences. Few people, apart from yourself obviously, would see such an act as more or less the same as interrupting someone which is what happened at the conference. The megaphone was simply the method.

You are making yourself look silly and adolescent by trying to cling to an analogy of dubious provenance especially by repeating the word countlessly. It's doesn't wind anyone up, which might be the intention. It's just an obvious attempt to trivialise the issue so as to camouflage a discredited comparison. It's not the end of the world to make a misjudgement.

Rosita

mrboswell wrote: »

Just to point out that I am a teacher and on a number of occasions every year I am told to F**K OFF or have comments made about my appearance. Not to mention the threats of physical violence made against me and in some cases I have been knocked aside as students have barged past me while leaving the classroom without permission.

In the above cases the most that has happened to any student is a 2-3 day suspension but in some cases school management decided not to take any action at all - not even oblige a student to make one of those meaningless apologies.

Sure we are teachers but we are human too.

I think this sort of thing can hardly be said too loudly when you read nonsense about how a student might be punished by exclusion in a similar situation. A student where I teach, last year, walked down a corridor repeating the word 'f*g**t' several times behind a teacher. What did the school do about it? Squat. Zilch. Not even a day's suspension. In what other work environment would such an incident be tolerated? Certainly not in the mighty and glorious private sector. No wonder they call it 'the real world'.

There are one or two people in my school doing the Leaving Cert next month and they will have spent five years tormenting people in the school, disrupting classes, constantly being on report, and unable at this stage to find anyone with a good word to say about them, but will still be there in the school right at the death. This happens every year. Anyone who mentions suspension or exclusion of a student in this discussion is really showing their ignorance of the school system.

evolving_doors

Rosita wrote: »

You are working off the assumption that 'rudeness' is a single point on the spectrum and anything that constitutes rudeness can be related to that single point only. In reality rudneess is itself a broad spectrum. It could range from not holding a door open for someone, which it has to be said will not bother everyone, to maybe a smoker blowing smoke into the face of someone nearby which is much further along the spectrum heading towards aggression, and would have universal acceptance as rudeness.

Mooning is further still and heading in the direction of sexual offences. Few people, apart from yourself obviously, would see such an act as more or less the same as interrupting someone which is what happened at the conference. The megaphone was simply the method.

You are making yourself look silly and adolescent by trying to cling to an analogy of dubious provenance especially by repeating the word countlessly. It's doesn't wind anyone up, which might be the intention. It's just an obvious attempt to trivialise the issue so as to camouflage a discredited comparison. It's not the end of the world to make a misjudgement.

Ok fair enough, apologies, the analogy wasn't great.

evolving_doors

Rosita wrote: »

I think this sort of thing can hardly be said too loudly when you read nonsense about how a student might be punished by exclusion in a similar situation. A student where I teach, last year, walked down a corridor repeating the word 'f*g**t' several times behind a teacher. What did the school do about it? Squat. Zilch. Not even a day's suspension. In what other work environment would such an incident be tolerated? Certainly not in the mighty and glorious private sector. No wonder they call it 'the real world'.

There are one or two people in my school doing the Leaving Cert next month and they will have spent five years tormenting people in the school, disrupting classes, constantly being on report, and unable at this stage to find anyone with a good word to say about them, but will still be there in the school right at the death. This happens every year. Anyone who mentions suspension or exclusion of a student in this discussion is really showing their ignorance of the school system.

r3nu4l's point about students being reprimanded for acting the same way as megaphone guy also is valid IMO. Believe it or not some students do get suspended for bad behaviour too (and I'm not ignorant of the school system!).

Just suppose that an invited guest to a school was giving a speech and a student stood up with a megaphone and proceeded to heckle them (for what the student sees as a justifiable reason), should the pupil be let off? Similarly, is it different for teachers (who are expected to show example) because other teachers might have been subjected to bad behaviour in the past too? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Rosita

Armelodie wrote: »

1) r3nu4l's point about students being reprimanded for acting the same way as megaphone guy also is valid IMO.

2) Believe it or not some students do get suspended for bad behaviour too (and I'm not ignorant of the school system!).

3) Just suppose that an invited guest to a school was giving a speech and a student stood up with a megaphone and proceeded to heckle them (for what the student sees as a justifiable reason), should the pupil be let off?

4) Similarly, is it different for teachers (who are expected to show example) because other teachers might have been subjected to bad behaviour in the past too? Two wrongs don't make a right.

1) No, it's completely invalid. One was at a union conference where protest might be expected, and has been known to happen over the years. The other is a school setting where there is a particular code of conduct which takes congisance of teenagers' propensity to quickly gain momentum in misbehavior terms if it is not nipped in the bud. In that context the megaphone thing would be significant, though there would not be a hope that a student would be expelled for it.

But, as Powerhouse pointed out several times, comparisons with school are lazy and inaccurate, and are made just because there are teachers involved. People going to the conference are not expected to wear a uniform. They will not have to bring a note from their parents if they fail to show up. They will not be expected to ask permission to go to the toilet. They will not be reprimanded if they talk to the person next to them when the conference is going on. Why should a notional school code of conduct suddenly be the benchmark in relation to the megaphone if not to everything else at the conference if comparisons are valid?

2) Indeed they do. On some mad mad occasions they are even expelled too. But of course that's quite different to what I have been saying. The point I made was that anyone who says that a student would risk exclusion for a megaphone type incident (as r3nu4l did) is talking through their hat. Nobody ever said that that students are not suspended or excluded, just that it doesn't happen as easily as some people think.

3) No, students shouldn't be let off. No doubt there would be something in the school rules to which the student has, on registration given a written assurance of adherence to, which covers such behaviour. Just for the benefit of those concerned with people "going around in circles", I am well aware that this and all the other points in this post have already been dealt with comprehensively by others earlier in the thread.

4) Frankly yes. See point one. The context here was a union conference so "similarly" doesn't come into it. It's a different setting with different rules and norms.

evolving_doors

Rosita wrote: »

1) No, it's completely invalid.

It's completely valid and basic psychology actually....It's called modelling (you behave the way you desire other young people to emulate)... you may be surprised to know that some folk expect teachers to behave a certain way. I'm relating this to the previous posters comment and Personally I don't think any students were adversely affected by it, but I think a person has the right to criticise someones rude behaviour on these grounds.. whether or not they are a teacher.

Rosita wrote: »

One was at a union conference where protest might be expected,

How would a student know to expect such forms of protest?

Rosita wrote: »

and has been known to happen over the years.

... students know of this regular occurance do they!! Remember the point was in relation to modelling behavior to students.

Rosita wrote: »

The other is a school setting where there is a particular code of conduct which takes cognisance of teenagers' propensity to quickly gain momentum in misbehavior terms if it is not nipped in the bud. In that context the megaphone thing would be significant, though there would not be a hope that a student would be expelled for it.

Ok maybe not expulsion but surely they would be reprimanded for it in some way?? Or is it ok for a student to say "ah shur the teachers are at it too" ?

Rosita wrote: »

But, as Powerhouse pointed out several times, comparisons with school are lazy and inaccurate, and are made just because there are teachers involved.

Then what has the recent posts about abuse against teachers got anything to do with anything... are they lazy school comparisons too?

Rosita wrote: »

People going to the conference are not expected to wear a uniform.

The whole uniform debate could go on ad nauseam... but while we're on the topic.. I would defend anyones right to assert that students shouldn't wear uniforms because teachers don't (and vice versa). Even though I wouldn't necessarily agree, I think the argument has been used often enough in debates to have merit.

Rosita wrote: »

They will not have to bring a note from their parents if they fail to show up.

Sometimes it is polite to excuse your absence if people are expecting you to be there. Sure the conference is not compulsory but even for a student had arranged to go on a non-compulsory/extra curricular venture and failed to show up, I would still have expected some type of notice.

Rosita wrote: »

They will not be expected to ask permission to go to the toilet. They will not be reprimanded if they talk to the person next to them when the conference is going on.

Personally though I would still excuse myself in some manner if I am barging past someone to go to the toilet, I would also try to wait until a speaker had finished. I have actually reprimanded adults and students on occasions for speaking while someone is speaking or during a live music concert. If someone is ranting inaudibly with a megaphone then it's my time they are wasting and not just the speakers...

Rosita wrote: »

Why should a notional school code of conduct suddenly be the benchmark in relation to the megaphone if not to everything else at the conference if comparisons are valid?

It's not about benchmarking exactly, it's just about common courtesy that you would expect of adults and children.

Rosita wrote: »

2) Indeed they do. On some mad mad occasions they are even expelled too. But of course that's quite different to what I have been saying. The point I made was that anyone who says that a student would risk exclusion for a megaphone type incident (as r3nu4l did) is talking through their hat.

It's not talking through their hat, it's a perfectly plausible scenario whereby a student could bring out a megaphone and disrupt a speaker. Some students take risks ...it's not unheard of. I think the posters use of the term exclusion or expulsion is being unfairly pounced upon.. the general import of the comment was that the student could expect to face some type of reprimand whereas for teacher's it's a laissez faire on the old social norms front.

Rosita wrote: »

Nobody ever said that that students are not suspended or excluded, just that it doesn't happen as easily as some people think.

Sure! and we all would like exclusion to happen a little bit easier in some cases. Just as I'd prefer someone to be ejected from a conference for wasting my time. Just as I'd prefer that a student wouldn;t get the impression that it's one rule for adults and one for the kids. Or is it all OK because it's expected at these conferences every year?

Rosita wrote: »

3) No, students shouldn't be let off. No doubt there would be something in the school rules to which the student has, on registration given a written assurance of adherence to, which covers such behaviour. Just for the benefit of those concerned with people "going around in circles", I am well aware that this and all the other points in this post have already been dealt with comprehensively by others earlier in the thread.

4) Frankly yes. See point one. The context here was a union conference so "similarly" doesn't come into it. It's a different setting with different rules and norms.

Different rules and norms??? Has anyone laid out these 'different rules and norms' in writing....It's a public gathering, with an invited speaker. It's just social etiquette to behave the same way in any social gathering...

Wedding, funeral, concert, conference, shopping centre, art gallery, museum... Megaphone not ok

Union meeting every Easter... Megaphone OK.. different norms and all that.

"Miss, how come I can't use my megaphone at assembly to make a protest like they guy at the conference did?
Oh young Johnny, there's different norms at play here. Only teachers can understand this oxymoron."

A poster should have the right to assert that talking down an invited speaker is bad behaviour whether the poster be a teacher or nay.
A poster also should have the right to assert that bad behaviour shouldn't be displayed by teachers as they are supposed to model 'good behaviour'.

acequion

Any hope ye might call it a day folks? Ye're going round and round in circles and bashing into each other in the process. Poor megaphone man must have emigrated to Mars at this stage!

whiteandlight

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Thread locked. Reached the end of the line