croke park flex hours

joebloggs32

Just looking for a bit of information regarding the five flex hours. How are people in different schools making these up?

man_no_plan

joebloggs32 wrote: »

Just looking for a bit of information regarding the five flex hours. How are people in different schools making these up?

Flex hours don't apply to teachers at second level.

solerina

joebloggs32 wrote: »

Just looking for a bit of information regarding the five flex hours. How are people in different schools making these up?

We were told that the 5 hours could be made up by subject dept meetings (must be minuted) and/or by attending PDST and providing the attendance cert. They could be held during school hours if the people involved had free classes that could be used for meetings/planning.

Moody_mona

man_no_plan wrote: »

Flex hours don't apply to teachers at second level.

Have you a reference/circular for this??

We've had ten lunch time meetings with subject departments or year head and tutor meetings. Planned in advance, with agenda submitted to principal, and minutes taken.

man_no_plan

Moody_mona wrote: »

Have you a reference/circular for this??

We've had ten lunch time meetings with subject departments or year head and tutor meetings. Planned in advance, with agenda submitted to principal, and minutes taken.

I didn't get what op meant by flex hours. That is a term specific to third level.

Op is applying it to 5/33 hours that are non whole school? Makes sense ib that context.

I'm not a big fan of the 'working lunch' myself. We have assigned hours in different ways that allow staff to do certain work in their own time.

evolving_doors

man_no_plan wrote: »

I didn't get what op meant by flex hours. That is a term specific to third level.

Op is applying it to 5/33 hours that are non whole school? Makes sense ib that context.

I'm not a big fan of the 'working lunch' myself. We have assigned hours in different ways that allow staff to do certain work in their own time.

I'm getting pretty sick of the 'working lunch' myself (two last week and two next week). Grand for teachers who don't do extra curricular on those (or any) days but when you can't attend you end up being frozen out from important decisions that are made.

km79

Gebgbegb wrote: »

I'm getting pretty sick of the 'working lunch' myself (two last week and two next week). Grand for teachers who don't do extra curricular on those (or any) days but when you can't attend you end up being frozen out from important decisions that are made.

or supervision ! I have told teachers in our department I will point blank refuse to attend any lunch meetings or pre school either for that matter. dangerous precendence to be starting . has not happened yet .....

TheDriver

I concur, its not a lot of hours and I am finding teachers suddenly realise they must do them with a few weeks to go so cramming them in wherever and whenever. At the end of it all, its up to individual group of teachers to plan the 5 hours accordingly and record the application of them.

acequion

TheDriver wrote: »

I concur, its not a lot of hours and I am finding teachers suddenly realise they must do them with a few weeks to go so cramming them in wherever and whenever. At the end of it all, its up to individual group of teachers to plan the 5 hours accordingly and record the application of them.

And what happens if they don't, ie complete the full five hours?

RH149

They were a good idea in theory and not so bad if you have a small department but if you have to find a day to suit six or seven people its impossible- someone will be stuck on lunchtime S&S or will have had a nine period day or will have some extra curricular activity......We aren't allowed use our CPD done in our own time as part of the five hours when other schools are. Not very motivating to say the least (and before someone asks, yes most of us still do the CPD, but its galling to have it discounted and working lunches insisted on instead.)

joebloggs32

Thanks for the replies folks

katydid

Gebgbegb wrote: »

I'm getting pretty sick of the 'working lunch' myself (two last week and two next week). Grand for teachers who don't do extra curricular on those (or any) days but when you can't attend you end up being frozen out from important decisions that are made.

If you're doing extra curricular on top of teacher's detention, you're making a rod for your own back.

katydid

km79 wrote: »

or supervision ! I have told teachers in our department I will point blank refuse to attend any lunch meetings or pre school either for that matter. dangerous precendence to be starting . has not happened yet .....

A "working lunch" is against working time legislation if it means that the people involved will then be working more than four hours without a break.

We aren't allowed have them for this reason, if any member of the group would be in this position.

evolving_doors

katydid wrote: »

A "working lunch" is against working time legislation if it means that the people involved will then be working more than four hours without a break.

We aren't allowed have them for this reason, if any member of the group would be in this position.

Presume you're allowed have them if everyones in agreement... so the question is, who's going to say no when their job isnt permanent?
Also if you're the one 'awkward' fella who doesn't turn up then decisions get made without you, and in my experience the decision makers get noticed/ promoted.

I wouldnt mind a union directive though to just reset the clock.

What I want to know is why schools/dept dont give teachers time off/cover during the working day to do the meetings. I was talking to another teacher who said she used to get a half day free a week for meetings in the UK.

This year has just been crackers with the s&s and extra anything-but-relevant CP meetings in terms of putting the squeeze on our time, I think everyone is trying to make the best of a bad lot as the school stuff and decisions just have to be made.

katydid

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Presume you're allowed have them if everyones in agreement... so the question is, who's going to say no when their job isnt permanent?
Also if you're the one 'awkward' fella who doesn't turn up then decisions get made without you, and in my experience the decision makers get noticed/ promoted.

I wouldnt mind a union directive though to just reset the clock.

What I want to know is why schools/dept dont give teachers time off/cover during the working day to do the meetings. I was talking to another teacher who said she used to get a half day free a week for meetings in the UK.

This year has just been crackers with the s&s and extra anything-but-relevant CP meetings in terms of putting the squeeze on our time, I think everyone is trying to make the best of a bad lot as the school stuff and decisions just have to be made.

No, not if one of the people involved would be contravening the working hours legislation. (Management go out of their way to make teachers' detention as awkward as possible - they want us to meet from half four to half five, after school hours and do everything they can to make sure this happens)

The whole point of Croke Park hours is that they are EXTRA WORK. The government wants the public to see that they are making the lazy teachers do extra work, so it certainly can't be done by using cover or giving time off to do it. These kind of meetings used to be held partly in school time, but no more. The union directive is that they must be held outside of school hours.

We certainly should make the best of a bad lot, but a line should be drawn in the sand and the forced hour should be deducted from any extra-curricular activities. In many schools, teachers have given up extra curricular activities altogether; it's insulting to be given teachers' detention to satisfy the public, when no recognition is given to the countless hours given free already by teachers.

evolving_doors

I agree , although the meetings for me at lunch time are not necessarily CP subject/whole school related. Planning school trip, end of year events for students etc. Usually we could find a free slot but the on-calls have have put a stop to them

katydid

Gebgbegb wrote: »

I agree , although the meetings for me at lunch time are not necessarily CP subject/whole school related. Planning school trip, end of year events for students etc. Usually we could find a free slot but the on-calls have have put a stop to them

We hold them anyway, but keep quiet about them. We just minute them as the date, and don't mention the time, just in case management decide to get picky.

It's all so stupid and insulting; teachers give so many hours of their free time, and this is the government saying "we don't care about all that, we have to show the public that you are working more, because taking twenty percent of your salary is not enough". As I've often said, my father, who was a teacher, and who gave up hours in the evening and at weekends for his students, must be turning in his grave at what's being done to the education system.

evolving_doors

Aye, does anyone know if these CP hours were just temporary or are we stuck with them?

Presume they are here to stay (stupid question) youd think they could be transformed and put to better use. Ireland being Ireland someone in the dept will dream up of another crazy initiative to get us jumping through hoops.

acequion

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Aye, does anyone know if these CP hours were just temporary or are we stuck with them?

Presume they are here to stay (stupid question) youd think they could be transformed and put to better use. Ireland being Ireland someone in the dept will dream up of another crazy initiative to get us jumping through hoops.

I think we should go all out to get rid of them once HR expires next year.Putting them to "better use" only copperfastens the concept behind them that teachers must be made to sweat for every penny.They devalue our net worth as well as undermine our professionalism.

katydid is right.They are an enormous insult and we should never stop resenting them. For me they were the final nail in the coffin of any naive trust I had that politicians would protect the country's front line public servants.

man_no_plan

acequion wrote: »

I think we should go all out to get rid of them once HR expires next year.Putting them to "better use" only copperfastens the concept behind them that teachers must be made to sweat for every penny.They devalue our net worth as well as undermine our professionalism.

katydid is right.They are an enormous insult and we should never stop resenting them. For me they were the final nail in the coffin of any naive trust I had that politicians would protect the country's front line public servants.

We're stuck with s&s, the payment due in 2 or three years time is to be taken account of in pay negotiations . To even contemplate the idea of the 33 hours being indefinite is horrific.

That said the day of closing the school for meetings is gone. So would you be looking at a staff meeting and subject planning meeting per term plus the ptms? They're in since 04 anyway..

Rambling here I know - it shows how far back the squeeze more agenda goes though!!

There will be something.

katydid

man_no_plan wrote: »

We're stuck with s&s, the payment due in 2 or three years time is to be taken account of in pay negotiations . To even contemplate the idea of the 33 hours being indefinite is horrific.

That said the day of closing the school for meetings is gone. So would you be looking at a staff meeting and subject planning meeting per term plus the ptms? They're in since 04 anyway..

Rambling here I know - it shows how far back the squeeze more agenda goes though!!

There will be something.

The only language they understand is showing them what their policies are doing to the education system. If they want to enforce detention for teachers, fine. But the other side of that is that if we have to do this extra work, we don't have to do all the other work we already do and they don't value. The choir, the football, the school trips, the extra tuition at lunchtime. It's tough on the students in the short term, but it might make them sit up and realise what they're doing. If they don't trust us as professionals to give our time willingly, well...

It is already happening in many schools.

acequion

man_no_plan wrote: »

We're stuck with s&s, the payment due in 2 or three years time is to be taken account of in pay negotiations . To even contemplate the idea of the 33 hours being indefinite is horrific.

That said the day of closing the school for meetings is gone. So would you be looking at a staff meeting and subject planning meeting per term plus the ptms? They're in since 04 anyway..

Rambling here I know - it shows how far back the squeeze more agenda goes though!!

There will be something.

ptms plus staff and subject planning per term is pretty much what we have now.And it amounts to 45,not 33. There has to be a big row back.I can accept ptms after school,tiring as they are,but that's about it. Having to sit around after a long day, filling up stupid forms and ticking boxes for "subject planning" is plain torture,totally non productive and condescending to teachers.That sort of imposition has to be got rid of.Simple as.

jjdonegal

acequion wrote: »

And what happens if they don't, ie complete the full five hours?

I think you can be made do an extra 5 hours S & S. Aint read the circular in ages so working of memory.

acequion

jjdonegal wrote: »

I think you can be made do an extra 5 hours S & S. Aint read the circular in ages so working of memory.

Thanks jjdonegal. That's very interesting.And I wonder what happens if you don't do S&S?

I'd be very surprised if everyone,everywhere has completed the full five hours. Twill be interesting to see if the tanks roll in and arrest 'em! :eek:

evolving_doors

acequion wrote: »

Thanks jjdonegal. That's very interesting.And I wonder what happens if you don't do S&S?

I'd be very surprised if everyone,everywhere has completed the full five hours. Twill be interesting to see if the tanks roll in and arrest 'em! :eek:

Ya I know of a union rep who doesnt do any supervision or croke park meetings... he said there was nothing about reprimands for not doing it in CP/HR agreement so he's happy to put the ball into management's court in the school. If they dont reprimand him then hey ho, away ya go.

Although I would presume that it would be part of the general teachers duties so the school could take action if they wanted (same as if any teacher refused to correct mocks or attend parent teacher meetings).

katydid

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Ya I know of a union rep who doesnt do any supervision or croke park meetings... he said there was nothing about reprimands for not doing it in CP/HR agreement so he's happy to put the ball into management's court in the school. If they dont reprimand him then hey ho, away ya go.

Although I would presume that it would be part of the general teachers duties so the school could take action if they wanted (same as if any teacher refused to correct mocks or attend parent teacher meetings).

That union rep is being very stupid. Like it or not, the union agreed to these unfair conditions, and teachers don't get to pick and choose which terms and conditions they can decide to obey. How can he represent the union and do something like this; the union should take him in hand; he's not showing any kind of leadership. And if he continues, management should take action - we'd see how brave he would be then, if his job were at stake.

Not that I support these things; I voted against them all the way, as did, as far as I can gather, most of the colleagues in my workplace. But I accept the democratic mandate of my colleagues overall.

katydid

acequion wrote: »

ptms plus staff and subject planning per term is pretty much what we have now.And it amounts to 45,not 33. There has to be a big row back.I can accept ptms after school,tiring as they are,but that's about it. Having to sit around after a long day, filling up stupid forms and ticking boxes for "subject planning" is plain torture,totally non productive and condescending to teachers.That sort of imposition has to be got rid of.Simple as.

What people seem to forget is that a majority voted for this. Voting for Croke Park and Haddington Road meant agreeing to this nonsense. I didn't vote for it - don't know about you, but we all, if we are union members, have to accept the consequences of a democratic mandate.

evolving_doors

katydid wrote: »

That union rep is being very stupid. Like it or not, the union agreed to these unfair conditions, and teachers don't get to pick and choose which terms and conditions they can decide to obey. How can he represent the union and do something like this; the union should take him in hand; he's not showing any kind of leadership. And if he continues, management should take action - we'd see how brave he would be then, if his job were at stake.

Not that I support these things; I voted against them all the way, as did, as far as I can gather, most of the colleagues in my workplace. But I accept the democratic mandate of my colleagues overall.

Aye, but it just answers the question posed earlier of "whats the punishment?".... so my take is that.... nobody knows, but someones decided to find out!. and I would guess that in terms of union and department interactions; both sides occasionaly push the boundaries to force a test case.

katydid

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Aye, but it just answers the question posed earlier of "whats the punishment?".... so my take is that.... nobody knows, but someones decided to find out!. and I would guess that in terms of union and department interactions; both sides occasionaly push the boundaries to force a test case.

But it looks like there's not going to be any test case; the guy is just getting away with it while his colleagues do their bit

acequion

katydid wrote: »

What people seem to forget is that a majority voted for this. Voting for Croke Park and Haddington Road meant agreeing to this nonsense. I didn't vote for it - don't know about you, but we all, if we are union members, have to accept the consequences of a democratic mandate.

Yera democratic mandate my hat!!! There is nothing democratic about forcing ballot after ballot upon people until they give in. And even if a majority eventually caved that doesn't mean that a campaign to scrap these strait jacket austerity agreements should not get under way before they expire.

And no I certainly never voted for them.I'd hardly be on here ranting against them if I did!

katydid

acequion wrote: »

Yera democratic mandate my hat!!! There is nothing democratic about forcing ballot after ballot upon people until they give in. And even if a majority eventually caved that doesn't mean that a campaign to scrap these strait jacket austerity agreements should not get under way before they expire.

And no I certainly never voted for them.I'd hardly be on here ranting against them if I did!

The ballots were for different things each time. The union came back with something slightly different every time (they had to - although I would have been happy for them to tell the government to stuff their deals)

The members didn't have to give in and vote for it. They chose to give in. In the TUI, at least, we had a gun to our head - we were told that if we didn't vote for it, people would lose their jobs. That was said unequivocally by those on the executive and by the president of the time

I agree totally that we should be campaigning to get rid of them, but however it was conducted, it was a democratic mandate and as trade unionists we have to accept it.

evolving_doors

katydid wrote: »

But it looks like there's not going to be any test case; the guy is just getting away with it while his colleagues do their bit

I agree somewhat, but in a way I think he's taking a stand moreso than skiving off! Im not sure how its going down in his school either, but I suppose the ball is in the school's court now, if they dont act then who's to blame? Like if he just refused to fill in summer reports and the school refused to do anything then who should his colleagues direct their ire at?

Id accept that the vote is done and dusted and majority accepted it and we are where we voted to be!

katydid

Gebgbegb wrote: »

I agree somewhat, but in a way I think he's taking a stand moreso than skiving off! Im not sure how its going down in his school either, but I suppose the ball is in the school's court now, if they dont act then who's to blame? Like if he just refused to fill in summer reports and the school refused to do anything then who should his colleagues direct their ire at?

Id accept that the vote is done and dusted and majority accepted it and we are where we voted to be!

I know he's taking a stand. But I can't imagine it goes down too well with his colleagues, who are toeing the line. A union rep should show leadership, and respect for the union. Including the democratic mandate. If he doesn't accept that, he should step down from his position as union rep, at the very least.

I agree that the ball is in the school's court, and if they have any guts they would tackle him.

I say all this as someone who was a union rep for ten years. You can't just ignore the union and do your own thing.

man_no_plan

The point I was making earlier was that there is a certain minimum that is needed and whole we all wouldn't need to do these meetings at the same tine I think that most people would agree that productive meetings are an important part of school life.

The original 12 hours came about in m58\04 and there was money for 'productivity' in the form of working in the evenings to prevent erosion of class time.

The 33 hours are separate, they were imposed in an agreement that was supposed to protect pay and jobs. It did neither as the levies, changing ptr and amended sick pay scheme all affected teachers I terms of pay and conditions.

Personally I think that its the manner of the use of the hours rather than the usefulness of them is the major issue.

I would rather have some sort of a schedule of required meetings or whatever rather than the 'presentism' that was being discussed in and around the time of CP 1. there are some who would still pursue this agenda.

katydid

man_no_plan wrote: »

The point I was making earlier was that there is a certain minimum that is needed and whole we all wouldn't need to do these meetings at the same tine I think that most people would agree that productive meetings are an important part of school life.

The original 12 hours came about in m58\04 and there was money for 'productivity' in the form of working in the evenings to prevent erosion of class time.

The 33 hours are separate, they were imposed in an agreement that was supposed to protect pay and jobs. It did neither as the levies, changing ptr and amended sick pay scheme all affected teachers I terms of pay and conditions.

Personally I think that its the manner of the use of the hours rather than the usefulness of them is the major issue.

I would rather have some sort of a schedule of required meetings or whatever rather than the 'presentism' that was being discussed in and around the time of CP 1. there are some who would still pursue this agenda.

Productive meetings can't happen at the end of the day when teachers are stressed and exhausted, and just want to get home. In my workplace, where we are forced to meet en masse from half four to half five, people make a point of walking out on the dot of half three, even if the principal is in mid sentence.

We are allowed some flexibility in not having to meet en masse, but we still have to have them at the end of the school day, and the same attitude prevails.

We have gone from a staff who were full of enthusiasm and ideas to a body of angry, frustrated workers who have neither the time nor inclination to give yet more extra time to extra curricular activities. Morale is not just low, it's below zero.

I know from colleagues in other workplaces that we are not unusual. Most of the local second level schools have given up all the extra curricular stuff, and parents have to pay now for sports coaches and musical directors.

So much for increased productivity... But hard to blame teachers who have had all that voluntary work thrown back in their face.

solerina

katydid wrote: »

where we are forced to meet en masse from half four to half five, people make a point of walking out on the dot of half three, even if the principal is in mid sentence.

Is it correct that if school ends at 3.50 then the meeting is deemed to start at 3.50..our principal was saying meetings were 4.00- 6.00...we were saying 3.50-5.50..I know its only a small thing but when your tired anyway it can be the straw that broke the camels back....

katydid

solerina wrote: »

Is it correct that if school ends at 3.50 then the meeting is deemed to start at 3.50..our principal was saying meetings were 4.00- 6.00...we were saying 3.50-5.50..I know its only a small thing but when your tired anyway it can be the straw that broke the camels back....

Outside school hours. So theoretically before school starts, or after the last class. Our last class ends at 4.30, so that's why we have to wait until then.
If your last class finishes at 3.50, then 3.50 it should be...

As you said, it's only a small thing but it's also a matter of principle. Why wait ten minutes? You don't have ten minute breaks between classes.

r93kaey5p2izun

solerina wrote: »

Is it correct that if school ends at 3.50 then the meeting is deemed to start at 3.50..our principal was saying meetings were 4.00- 6.00...we were saying 3.50-5.50..I know its only a small thing but when your tired anyway it can be the straw that broke the camels back....

This is an ongoing row in my school. Classes end at 3.20 with meetings from 3.30 - 4.30. Principal insists on the break and has point blank refused all discussion on this. Staff arguing for 3.20 start are dismissed as petty and unhelpful. But when nothing is appreciated and every minute of extra hours must be accounted for it's becoming a very touchy subject! Every 6 weeks we could be writing off another hour of detention instead of being given nonsense busy work to fill time.

katydid

Ingrid Embarrassed Stimulation wrote: »

This is an ongoing row in my school. Classes end at 3.20 with meetings from 3.30 - 4.30. Principal insists on the break and has point blank refused all discussion on this. Staff arguing for 3.20 start are dismissed as petty and unhelpful. But when nothing is appreciated and every minute of extra hours must be accounted for it's becoming a very touchy subject! Every 6 weeks we could be writing off another hour of detention instead of being given nonsense busy work to fill time.

Two can play at that game. Every extra piece of voluntary work should be given up, including acting as class tutor.

Moody_mona

By the letter of the law (circular), three parent teacher meetings a year should have the school finishing 15 minutes early, and then the time of 4.15 is specified as a start time. We finish at half three normally, which means we let students go at 3.15 these days and sit twiddling our thumbs for a full hour. I hate it.

Croke Park meetings however should start straight away.

Our class tutor duties are counted as class contact hours/part of our 22. Is that different elsewhere Katy?

solerina

Moody_mona wrote: »

By the letter of the law (circular), three parent teacher meetings a year should have the school finishing 15 minutes early, and then the time of 4.15 is specified as a start time. We finish at half three normally, which means we let students go at 3.15 these days and sit twiddling our thumbs for a full hour. I hate it.

Croke Park meetings however should start straight away.

Our class tutor duties are counted as class contact hours/part of our 22. Is that different elsewhere Katy?

This is our argument...does anyone know of the relevant circular where we can find this piece of information...would help Arlessienne too !!!

katydid

Moody_mona wrote: »

Croke Park meetings however should start straight away.

Our class tutor duties are counted as class contact hours/part of our 22. Is that different elsewhere Katy?

There is no reason whatsoever why the CP hour shouldn't start immediately if it's the end of the school day. Are there any other classes going on for that hour? If not, what justification have management given?

In our school, one hour is allowed from the 22 for class tutor duties; but we all know it involves far more than that. I refuse to be class tutor, and take the extra hour class contact instead. When I say, I "refuse", it's not as negative as that; I wasn't tutor when I was on job share a few years ago, and when I came back I was asked if I wanted to be one. I said no thanks, and have made it clear every year I don't want to be one. There's no obligation on anyone. Ok, you have to do an extra hour's teaching, but it sure would make life awkward for management if there was no one to do all that paperwork...

If they insist on being awkward...