*** Proposed New Junior Cert. **Read Mod Warning Post #1 Before Posting**

km79

new "deal"
http://www.asti.ie/news/latest-news/news-article/article/new-document-on-junior-cycle-teachers-time-and-workload//back_to/asti-home/
ballot in september

rainbowtrout

Teachers’ time and workload

The Appendix identifies the categories of additional professional time that will be required from implementation of the Framework for Junior Cycle. It proposes 40-minute class periods for all schools. It identifies the time required for Subject Learning and Assessment Review meetings of subject teachers. It states that with effect from September 2017 the class contact time for all full-time teachers with Junior Cycle classes will be reduced from 33 (40 minute) periods to 32 (40 minute) periods – i.e. a maximum class contact time each week of 21 hours and 20 minutes rather than 22 hours. There will be a pro-rata reduction in class contact time for part-time teachers. Additional paid substitution hours will be allocated to schools in the 2015/16 and 2016/17 school years in order to phase in the timetable changes for English, Science and Business teachers.

How do they propose to reduce hows for part time teachers on a pro rata basis? Teach 15 minutes of a class and leave?

km79

all schools to have 40 minute periods
that will be a nice headache for some principals

rainbowtrout

km79 wrote: »

all schools to have 40 minute periods
that will be a nice headache for some principals

Reducing timetables by one class will also be a headache where teachers don't have fillers (1 SPHE/CSPE per week) and have a neat timetable that fits 22.

evolving_doors

rainbowtrout wrote: »

How do they propose to reduce hows for part time teachers on a pro rata basis? Teach 15 minutes of a class and leave?

YA that's a bit messy. I'd say what will happen is this:
School: "Right, congrats on getting the 'job' here's the hours your getting, now, away with ya".
Candidate: "Is that including the time for planning for JC?"
School: "What are you raving about, you should be glad of a job... just fit the meetings in the times you aren't in class.!!"

Is every person who's just gotten a job going to claim for those extra minutes on top of their 'hours' ?
Probably Not.

Is every school going to put in for those extra minutes when they're all added up?
You betcha (same as resource hours).

That's my cynical reading of it first off anyway.

I still get the feeling that a lot ASTI members will laugh at this pro rata 'minutes concession' for what end .... YET MORE MEETINGS.

I shall await more clarification.

Mardy Bum

I take it the 40 minutes is planning time?

Alex Meier

rainbowtrout wrote: »

How do they propose to reduce hows for part time teachers on a pro rata basis? Teach 15 minutes of a class and leave?

This seems extremely bizarre.

For a start - Which FT teacher does 22 hours a week "class contact time"?

The Haddington Road Agreement has us doing free S&S . . . there were some weeks last year I did 24 hours (22 teaching, 2 sub) and there were some I did 22H 40m (22 teaching, 1 sub). . . Add in the extra 45 mins supervision i did every week and these figures approach 23.5-24+ hours per week in front of students.

And they still think we're doing 22 hours?

In fact they want to extend the HRA to 2017 in the Lansdowne Road stitch-up. . .

Extra money for S&S will not reduce the 43 hour demand from the DES.

rainbowtrout

Alex Meier wrote: »

This seems extremely bizarre.

For a start - Which FT teacher does 22 hours a week "class contact time"?

The Haddington Road Agreement has us doing free S&S . . . there were some weeks last year I did 24 hours (22 teaching, 2 sub) and there were some I did 22H 40m (22 teaching, 1 sub). . . Add in the extra 45 mins supervision i did every week and these figures approach 23.5-24+ hours per week in front of students.

And they still think we're doing 22 hours?

In fact they want to extend the HRA to 2017 in the Lansdowne Road stitch-up. . .

Extra money for S&S will not reduce the 43 hour demand from the DES.

I take your point about all the extra work we are doing, but you are being pedantic about what the 22 hours means.

katydid

Alex Meier wrote: »

This seems extremely bizarre.

For a start - Which FT teacher does 22 hours a week "class contact time"?

The Haddington Road Agreement has us doing free S&S . . . there were some weeks last year I did 24 hours (22 teaching, 2 sub) and there were some I did 22H 40m (22 teaching, 1 sub). . . Add in the extra 45 mins supervision i did every week and these figures approach 23.5-24+ hours per week in front of students.

And they still think we're doing 22 hours?

In fact they want to extend the HRA to 2017 in the Lansdowne Road stitch-up. . .

Extra money for S&S will not reduce the 43 hour demand from the DES.

Why were you doing supervision on top of your S&S?

katydid

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I take your point about all the extra work we are doing, but you are being pedantic about what the 22 hours means.

I disagree. It is an attempt to suggest that there is only 22 hours class contact, when there is, with S&S , 24 hours, as well as an hour for Teachers' Detention, which makes 25 hours before any planning, marking or extra-curricular stuff is taken into account. That should be pointed out. .

rainbowtrout

katydid wrote: »

I disagree. It is an attempt to suggest that there is only 22 hours class contact, when there is, with S&S, 24 hours.

That may be so. But S&S is not listed on the contract you sign when you start in a school. You are given a teaching contract for hours up to 22, and it's precisely those kind of arguments that allow deals to get pushed through, when people start arguing about the meaning of '22 hours class contact time' instead of worrying about what it is we will be expected to do with the 40 minutes every week, and if what we are expected to do will take longer than 40 minutes and end up eating into more of our free time.

katydid

rainbowtrout wrote: »

That may be so. But S&S is not listed on the contract you sign when you start in a school. You are given a teaching contract for hours up to 22.

What does that matter? You have to do it. It's still class contact.

mirrorwall14

rainbowtrout wrote: »

That may be so. But S&S is not listed on the contract you sign when you start in a school. You are given a teaching contract for hours up to 22, and it's precisely those kind of arguments that allow deals to get pushed through, when people start arguing about the meaning of '22 hours class contact time' instead of worrying about what it is we will be expected to do with the 40 minutes every week, and if what we are expected to do will take longer than 40 minutes and end up eating into more of our free time.

This is what would worry me. If I have 6+ junior cert groups for example the planning presumably will be much greater than someone with 2 groups but we'd have the same allocation? What if someone has no JC? (Unlikely I know!). Last year I had 5 JC groups! I'm not sure what would be getting done in 40 mins

katydid

rainbowtrout wrote: »

That may be so. But S&S is not listed on the contract you sign when you start in a school. You are given a teaching contract for hours up to 22, and it's precisely those kind of arguments that allow deals to get pushed through, when people start arguing about the meaning of '22 hours class contact time' instead of worrying about what it is we will be expected to do with the 40 minutes every week, and if what we are expected to do will take longer than 40 minutes and end up eating into more of our free time.

Class contact time is class contact time, whether or not you are teaching or subbing or supervising. The fact is that whatever you signed up for, if you are on 22 hours a week contract, you work 24 hours class contact. I don't see what's to be gained by not pointing this fact out, or how it would affect any other issues. It's about recognition of what is done, not what the government would like the public to think we do.

40 mins might not be much per week, but it's more than teachers in FE get, who do CA with all their students all the time, not only correcting, but also devising the assessments....

rainbowtrout

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

This is what would worry me. If I have 6+ junior cert groups for example the planning presumably will be much greater than someone with 2 groups but we'd have the same allocation? What if someone has no JC? (Unlikely I know!). Last year I had 5 JC groups! I'm not sure what would be getting done in 40 mins

Ya. There was something in the document about subject dept planning meetings too and that there would be one teacher who would get an extra two hours to coordinate their subject on a rotational basis

I didn't have JC for a good few years until last year. It's going to be messy

rainbowtrout

katydid wrote: »

Class contact time is class contact time, whether or not you are teaching or subbing or supervising. The fact is that whatever you signed up for, if you are on 22 hours a week contract, you work 24 hours class contact. I don't see what's to be gained by not pointing this fact out, or how it would affect any other issues. It's about recognition of what is done, not what the government would like the public to think we do.

40 mins might not be much per week, but it's more than teachers in FE get, who do CA with all their students all the time, not only correcting, but also devising the assessments....

And tutors in FE get paid for assessment which JC teachers will not be.

katydid

rainbowtrout wrote: »

And tutors in FE get paid for assessment which JC teachers will not be.

Fair point.

man_no_plan

No jc no 40 mins.

It also says that some of the time may have to be used outside school time.

Why they didn't just say take two days from tuition time, one at Christmas one near summer and get the work done then.

Such an ordeal to get a few ****ing grades together. Jesus wept a horse designed by a committee springs to mind.

Lets see can we find the most complicated system ever.....

Frankly frank

Why have the Asti not negotiated movement on S&S and payscales like the INTO ????

Mardy Bum

Frankly frank wrote: »

Why have the Asti not negotiated movement on S&S and payscales like the INTO ????

This is separate from it.

Realistically they will not be interested in payscales. The amount of teachers who came in after 2011(the majority are probably unemployed or emigrated) is still quite small so there isn't the numbers to and as a number of posters have expressed here they have no interest in fighting for NQTs pay when there are other issues.

Frankly frank

Mardy Bum wrote: »

This is separate from it.

Realistically they will not be interested in payscales. The amount of teachers who came in after 2011(the majority are probably unemployed or emigrated) is still quite small so there isn't the numbers to and as a number of posters have expressed here they have no interest in fighting for NQTs pay when there are other issues.

Of course it's separate but it is all interconnected in workplace.

It is not just Nqt pay, it is about a common pay-scale.

The point is the INTO can recommend acceptance on the LRA when they have something on offer versus Asti presenting very little sector specific...

mick kk

Who comes up with this stuff!
It is complete nonsense. I cannot take any more meetings about nothing.

We currently have 6 35 min periods and 3 40 minutes in our school. Does this now mean a longer school day/shorter lunch + break?

mirrorwall14

I assume this 40min is not planned to be implemented by September? Can you imagine the principals faces.....

rainbowtrout

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

I assume this 40min is not planned to be implemented by September? Can you imagine the principals faces.....

Think it's for 2016 or 2017. I presume for the first group that will be in third year.

mirrorwall14

The only positive is preventing 1hr classes in secondary schools. I've heard of a few schools (incl my own) where management are pro them because they are easy to timetable/manage in relation to the teaching hours per subject but I remember my 1hr college lectures and tutorials. Even when they were hands on I was completely unable to pay attention for the last 10-15mins and I would have been worse as a teenager

Alex Meier

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I take your point about all the extra work we are doing, but you are being pedantic about what the 22 hours means.

We don't do 22 hours in front of students so why pretend that we do.

There's nothing pedantic about that.

It's fact.

rainbowtrout

Alex Meier wrote: »

We don't do 22 hours in front of students so why pretend that we do.

There's nothing pedantic about that.

It's fact.

You teach 22 hours. All the rest comes under S&S. You can't be asked to take on a 22:40 timetable of classes, that are yours and only yours.

Alex Meier

rainbowtrout wrote: »

You teach 22 hours. All the rest comes under S&S. You can't be asked to take on a 22:40 timetable of classes, that are yours and only yours.

You're the one being pedantic now because virtually no one who signed into Had Road does 22 hours. . . They spend more than that time in front of students in the classroom. . . Irrelevant whether they are teaching or not.

Fair enough - max teaching time is 22 hours.

But this is not the maximum time spent in the classroom.

km79

nothing really on rte or indo websites about this ? is it not big news

RealJohn

This 40 minutes, pro-rata business sounds completely unworkable and even more so if it's going to be pro-rata based on how many junior cycle classes you have.

We don't need an extra 40 minutes a week to plan anyway. What we need are properly designed curricula (including/especially for the 'short courses'), not this nonsense.

Mardy Bum

RealJohn wrote: »

This 40 minutes, pro-rata business sounds completely unworkable and even more so if it's going to be pro-rata based on how many junior cycle classes you have.

We don't need an extra 40 minutes a week to plan anyway. What we need are properly designed curricula (including/especially for the 'short courses'), not this nonsense.

We do need time to plan along with properly designed curricula. Those 40 minutes could be excellent for getting things organised but it needs to be arranged in conjunction with other subject teachers which as you say is probably unworkable.

Teacher22

You know what this is.... The carrot to lure the donkey into the Junior Cycle Stable.......interesting to see if teachers will sell their soul for a reduction of 40 mins...... We need to forget about the 40 mins and think long term we get 40 mins "off" but what will we be gaining?

RealJohn

Mardy Bum wrote: »

We do need time to plan along with properly designed curricula. Those 40 minutes could be excellent for getting things organised but it needs to be arranged in conjunction with other subject teachers which as you say is probably unworkable.

Planning is already part of our job. It always has been. Writing curricula and/or 'short courses' is not and 40 minutes a week is nowhere near adequate to give us time to do that properly.

Mardy Bum

RealJohn wrote: »

Planning is already part of our job. It always has been. Writing curricula and/or 'short courses' is not and 40 minutes a week is nowhere near adequate to give us time to do that properly.

When we are coordinating continuous assessments such as orals in English and other such things which is assumed to be part of this we will be glad of it.

Who says writing short course curricula is part of the job? That is entirely your own prerogative of you want to do it.

gaeilgebeo

I really hope teachers aren't short sighted with this "deal".

Jamfa

Mardy Bum wrote: »

When we are coordinating continuous assessments such as orals in English and other such things which is assumed to be part of this we will be glad of it.

Who says writing short course curricula is part of the job? That is entirely your own prerogative of you want to do it.

With the 10 subjects & wellbeing subjects there is basically no time for 'short courses' so little point designing & planning them.
The proposals now will mean very little of the original reforms will be implemented. The State Exams will stay in June & be externally set & corrected & most schools will offer the same subject choices they always have. Any class based assessments will take place during normal class time & will require very little extra work if any if they take the place of summer & Christmas exams/mocks.
The whole school will close for a day a year to prepare for the 'new' junior cycle and subject teachers will get hours off class time to plan & days out of school to attend CPD. Hard to see what more teachers/unions could have asked for from this issue.
The LR agreement & Croke Pk hours, pay equalisation etc are all separate I suppose and will be debated when that ballot takes place.

katydid

rainbowtrout wrote: »

You teach 22 hours. All the rest comes under S&S. .

It's still class contact.

rainbowtrout

RealJohn wrote: »

This 40 minutes, pro-rata business sounds completely unworkable and even more so if it's going to be pro-rata based on how many junior cycle classes you have.

We don't need an extra 40 minutes a week to plan anyway. What we need are properly designed curricula (including/especially for the 'short courses'), not this nonsense.

I presume the 40 minutes also incorporates assessment of the coursework for continuous assessment. That can be time consuming.

katydid

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I presume the 40 minutes also incorporates assessment of the coursework for continuous assessment. That can be time consuming.

Very time consuming. It's not just the assessment, but the paperwork involved. The filling out of record sheets, plus of course your own records as a back up.

Jamfa

katydid wrote: »

Very time consuming. It's not just the assessment, but the paperwork involved. The filling out of record sheets, plus of course your own records as a back up.

But there is no coursework or continuous assessment proposed. There are just 2 class-based assessment tasks which take place at the end of 2nd year & Christmas of 3rd year. The state exam will be assessed externally.

km79

something that could/should have been so straightforward if RQ had consulted teachers in the first place is now turning into a paper pushing beuaracratic nightmare !
Everyone trying to save face instead of tearing it up and starting again with all parties involved entering discussions at the start.
It's like an episode of Father Ted now "Is there anything to be said for another meeting "

Alex Meier

Of course what will the forty minutes involve . . It'll involve more boring meetings on "planning"

Will you be given the forty minutes to independently carry out your own work?

Will you f**k?

More signing sheets to state you were at an irrelevant meeting with more useless minutes taken and more time wasted.

RealJohn

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Who says writing short course curricula is part of the job? That is entirely your own prerogative of you want to do it.

Assuming they are pushing ahead with making us do 'short courses', who do you think will be writing them? The whole idea was to 'allow' schools to offer other subjects or areas of study as they see fit and as they suit the school, thus freeing the department of education of any responsibility to design/direct the courses (or how they're assessed). Who's going to write the curricula if not the teachers themselves?

doc_17

I don't know what a tracker mortgage is.........

This is bullsh*t of the highest order. As someone else said, we should start all over again.

Mardy Bum

RealJohn wrote: »

Assuming they are pushing ahead with making us do 'short courses', who do you think will be writing them? The whole idea was to 'allow' schools to offer other subjects or areas of study as they see fit and as they suit the school, thus freeing the department of education of any responsibility to design/direct the courses (or how they're assessed). Who's going to write the curricula if not the teachers themselves?

Is that still going ahead as per the new plans? Kids have to do 10 subjects. I've not seen mention of short courses since Quinn and a few had been designed already; the coding one was planned by UL.

doc_17

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Is that still going ahead as per the new plans? Kids have to do 10 subjects. I've not seen mention of short courses since Quinn and a few had been designed already; the coding one was planned by UL.

But is there any material along with that coding spec? Or is it up to each school to choose what coding language they use? Would be nice if there was a wee bit of training provided for that as I'd be interested in doing that

evolving_doors

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Is that still going ahead as per the new plans? Kids have to do 10 subjects. I've not seen mention of short courses since Quinn and a few had been designed already; the coding one was planned by UL.

I've a feeling that the short courses are dead in the water (for now!). They've enough to be worrying about getting English altered... and that's just the first subject.

Jamfa

Gebgbegb wrote: »

I've a feeling that the short courses are dead in the water (for now!). They've enough to be worrying about getting English altered... and that's just the first subject.

Yeah the Unions succeeded in keeping the 10 state certified exams & the wellbeing subjects so no real place on the timetable for class-based assessed short courses.

rainbowtrout

Gebgbegb wrote: »

I've a feeling that the short courses are dead in the water (for now!). They've enough to be worrying about getting English altered... and that's just the first subject.

I'd say a lot of parents won't want them either if there is no follow on subject for LC, and if it's at the expense of one of the existing main subjects/ prevents students from doing subjects at LC, because they didn't do it for JC.

katydid

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I'd say a lot of parents won't want them either if there is no follow on subject for LC, and if it's at the expense of one of the existing main subjects/ prevents students from doing subjects at LC, because they didn't do it for JC.

They can do them during transition year.