timetables

mirrorwall14

In some way ours is worse than nominating ethical. The list gets posted at 1120. If you can get near it first (there 50+ on our staff) you get to scramble among each other to try and get the slots you want. If you are more than 2 minutes after its posted you are screwed.

ethical

I agree that that is a terrible way to sort it out .Is there any fair way?We certainly are racing to the bottom,imagine an Aldi or Dunnes worker having to stoop so low!

mirrorwall14

Its ridiculous. It doesn't actually bother me so much this year tho to be honest. I'm on first and last every day so I'll be in the school the whole time anyways

rainbowtrout

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

In some way ours is worse than nominating ethical. The list gets posted at 1120. If you can get near it first (there 50+ on our staff) you get to scramble among each other to try and get the slots you want. If you are more than 2 minutes after its posted you are screwed.

That's really crap mirrorwall. Do you have a staff meeting at the start of the year? Can it be brought up at that and the circular referenced?

mirrorwall14

I've no idea why it was switched back rainbowtrout. Last year we did the nominations. This year its back to the board? I was on maternity tho so it could have been voted in and I wouldn't have known

rainbowtrout

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

I've no idea why it was switched back rainbowtrout. Last year we did the nominations. This year its back to the board? I was on maternity tho so it could have been voted in and I wouldn't have known

Might be worth texting a few of your colleagues to find out what the story is. Might get a feel for how other people feel about it too. It's not a fair system doing a mad scramble, and anyone that is delayed getting to the staffroom gets stuck with all the crap slots simply because they get to the staffroom a few minutes after everyone else.

katydid

solerina wrote: »

You should have been asked to nominate, although I do know 3 people on my staff who ended up with the period they nominated as no 9 being one of their 5 periods last year, they were not happy !!!

That happened to me last year, and it was the last hour on a Friday: I went to the VP, who was putting this together, and told him there was no way I was doing this when it was the very last option on my list, unless he had a really good reason for giving it to me.

He backed down; which of course meant that some other poor sucker got stuck with it. I will admit I did shamelessly play the "I've been teaching in this place for twenty years" card, and it worked. There are times you just have to pull seniority - especially when you see people there a wet weekend getting "research hours", i.e. supervision in the library, in order to fill their timetables, when I get 22hrs class contact.

mirrorwall14

Asked around. No agreement made to do it this way. A lot of surprise that we've reverted back

solerina

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

Asked around. No agreement made to do it this way. A lot of surprise that we've reverted back

Could you get a copy of the circular, email it to them stating this is how it is supposed to be done....get the union ( they do little enough) involved if needs be, this free for all is a crazy idea.
We are one of the schools in on Wed to get Croke Park hours out of the way..does anyone remember how many hours a full day will count for ??

rainbowtrout

solerina wrote: »

Could you get a copy of the circular, email it to them stating this is how it is supposed to be done....get the union ( they do little enough) involved if needs be, this free for all is a crazy idea.
We are one of the schools in on Wed to get Croke Park hours out of the way..does anyone remember how many hours a full day will count for ??

I think a full day is counted as 6 hours solerina. We tried to push our principal for 7 a couple of years ago and he said we weren't allowed to count lunch- break. So we work off the basis of 9-4 with an hour of breaks

r93kaey5p2izun

Jose Hundreds Physicist wrote: »

Usually the week before we go back, so some time next week hopefully so the dozens on part time CID can finally have some idea of where we stand for the next year in terms of extra RPT hours. Sometimes we don't get it until we go back.

Well, no sign yet a week and a half later. Those who enquired were told it's not done. Hate being in limbo.

solerina

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I think a full day is counted as 6 hours solerina. We tried to push our principal for 7 a couple of years ago and he said we weren't allowed to count lunch- break. So we work off the basis of 9-4 with an hour of breaks

Thanks !!!

mirrorwall14

Management includes a recent union rep so they are well aware of it would be my guess but just bothered implementing it

solerina

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

Management includes a recent union rep so they are well aware of it would be my guess but just bothered implementing it

Surely they have no choice....I assume as its a directive on how to implement the procedure it's not up to them how to implement it !!

katydid

solerina wrote: »

Could you get a copy of the circular, email it to them stating this is how it is supposed to be done....get the union ( they do little enough) involved if needs be, this free for all is a crazy idea.
We are one of the schools in on Wed to get Croke Park hours out of the way..does anyone remember how many hours a full day will count for ??

It's a dangerous precedent, coming back a day early in order to get those hours out of the way. I know it's tempting, but it's a slippery slope.

rainbowtrout

katydid wrote: »

It's a dangerous precedent, coming back a day early in order to get those hours out of the way. I know it's tempting, but it's a slippery slope.

I thought it was the norm at this stage for schools to try and get 6 hours out of the way. I know in my staffroom, it's preferable to being kept back 3 evenings for pointless meetings. We can use some of the time for planning and prep the first day back.

I heard from a friend that Summerhill Sligo went back today!:eek:

solerina

katydid wrote: »

It's a dangerous precedent, coming back a day early in order to get those hours out of the way. I know it's tempting, but it's a slippery slope.

Tell me about it, I was totally against the idea but it actually went to a vote and
A large majority voted for coming in to do these hours !!!

solerina

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I thought it was the norm at this stage for schools to try and get 6 hours out of the way. I know in my staffroom, it's preferable to being kept back 3 evenings for pointless meetings. We can use some of the time for planning and prep the first day back.

I heard from a friend that Summerhill Sligo went back today!:eek:

Bloody hell.....that's waaaay too early, I am still struggling with the thought of Wednesday !!

spurious

Come the revolution, the S&S hours have to be first in line (along with NQT abuse and Croke Park) to go up against the wall.

Without a blindfold.

katydid

solerina wrote: »

Tell me about it, I was totally against the idea but it actually went to a vote and
A large majority voted for coming in to do these hours !!!

Short sighted. Another few years of that, and we will find days added on to the year for "training" and we will have no choice about it.

katydid

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I thought it was the norm at this stage for schools to try and get 6 hours out of the way. I know in my staffroom, it's preferable to being kept back 3 evenings for pointless meetings. We can use some of the time for planning and prep the first day back.

I heard from a friend that Summerhill Sligo went back today!:eek:

I know some schools do it, but I'm not sure how much "the norm" it is. It was proposed by management in our place, and totally opposed. It sounds tempting, but once you start on that, you might as well forget about the prescribed number of days, and the next thing will be extra days added on for training. At the start and end of holidays, Saturdays...

Once something becomes common and established, it's so easy for the Dept. to make it a given. Dangerous.

Moody_mona

katydid wrote: »

Short sighted. Another few years of that, and we will find days added on to the year for "training" and we will have no choice about it.

I feel this argument could be used the other way too. If you don't front load the hours, and do as many Thursday after schools as needed plus there'll be staff meetings and ptm, you could very easily make the argument that if teachers are prepared to spend two hours after school for 90% of the Thursdays, they should just do it every week.

RH149

We've done it for a good few years now- this year seems late going back compared to other years...last year it was Aug 22nd and I think its always been the Thurs/Fri of that week for our school and all the others nearby. Its bad enough having to do so many of the weekly CP evenings, if we didn't front load them it would be worse. We only get 6 of them done early this year but when we got 12 of them under our belts two years ago it made the rest of the year a bit easier.

I can see the 'slippery slope' argument too though, because it is just assumed we go back earlier and earlier and that will lead the way for mandatory CPD at that time I'd say but when it goes to a vote in our place most of us feel we don't have a choice- to me its the lesser of two evils. While I hate to see August getting shorter and shorter, it doesn't impact most of us as much as the stupid evening
meetings do.

seavill

katydid wrote: »

I know some schools do it, but I'm not sure how much "the norm" it is. It was proposed by management in our place, and totally opposed. It sounds tempting, but once you start on that, you might as well forget about the prescribed number of days, and the next thing will be extra days added on for training. At the start and end of holidays, Saturdays...

Once something becomes common and established, it's so easy for the Dept. to make it a given. Dangerous.

Have you any proof of this or are you just ranting? You have made some jumps there going from voluntarily moving mandatory hours from one place to another, to us now working into June (How will that be possible with the JC/LC?) Saturdays??
Seriously

katydid

seavill wrote: »

Have you any proof of this or are you just ranting? You have made some jumps there going from voluntarily moving mandatory hours from one place to another, to us now working into June (How will that be possible with the JC/LC?) Saturdays??
Seriously

You give an inch, they take a mile. Don't say you haven't been warned.

Of course it's possible to work with the JC?LC going on. I worked in the UK, and classes carry on during state exams. Teachers of exam classes invigilate the exams in the times they are scheduled to teach those classes.

Or they can just insist on teachers doing in-service in June, or mid-August.

All the things I experienced in the UK 20 years ago are creeping in here. And we're facilitating it by allowing the thin end of the wedge.

katydid

[QUOTE=RH149;96735816

when it goes to a vote in our place most of us feel we don't have a choice- to me its the lesser of two evils. While I hate to see August getting shorter and shorter, it doesn't impact most of us as much as the stupid evening
meetings do.[/QUOTE]

You DO have a choice. You decide to opt for what is now an apparently easier option. But when you have to do mandatory in-service days outside the normal school year AND stay behind for meetings, we'll all be sorry.

seavill

katydid wrote: »

You give an inch, they take a mile. Don't say you haven't been warned.

Of course it's possible to work with the JC?LC going on. I worked in the UK, and classes carry on during state exams. Teachers of exam classes invigilate the exams in the times they are scheduled to teach those classes.

Or they can just insist on teachers doing in-service in June, or mid-August.

All the things I experienced in the UK 20 years ago are creeping in here. And we're facilitating it by allowing the thin end of the wedge.

So to answer my question you are just making things up.

The current difference is, people are choosing. Scaremongering doesn't help one bit.
As it stands we can choose to meet for one hour a week for example, for two hours every second week, (obviously reduced for PT meetings etc.) which a lot of people don't like doing. You will never please everyone so the only correct way of doing things is for each individual staff to vote on what they want to do and go with the majority. Some principals don't do this which is wrong as all these things are supposed to be done in consultation.

By doing extra at the start it saves doing extra another time. The point is people are not doing extra days now, they are simply rearranging the hours they have to do one way or the other. Yes it is not ideal coming back earlier in August but for some it suits better than being stuck in school till 6pm on a dark December night.

It is not possible under our current system of LC/JC for teachers to supervise the state exams while in class or training, that is my point, the UK is a different system currently, so unless the whole thing changes it would be currently impossible for us to be working while the exams are ongoing, unless they removed teachers completely from the equation which again is changing the system completely

How can they insist on teachers doing things in June or Mid August, you tell me the actual likelihood of this happening (and the point that it happened in UK doesn't count).
The same with the exams. The absolute carnage that altering the JC has caused and that isn't adding any days to anyones year, are you seriously telling me that you are claiming that they will just decide to make us work more and it will just happen? Come on be realistic

People seem to forget primary teachers voluntarily do in service in the summer in order to get days off during the year. This has happened for years.

I'm personally sick of hearing about the UK, if we spent more time concentrating on ourselves rather than worrying about what other people do or don't do maybe we would have a better system

katydid

Moody_mona wrote: »

I feel this argument could be used the other way too. If you don't front load the hours, and do as many Thursday after schools as needed plus there'll be staff meetings and ptm, you could very easily make the argument that if teachers are prepared to spend two hours after school for 90% of the Thursdays, they should just do it every week.

Yes, but you're not eating into the school holidays. One can always argue about extra hours and get them reversed, but once the holidays are eaten into, it's hard to get them back.

seavill

katydid wrote: »

Yes, but you're not eating into the school holidays. One can always argue about extra hours and get them reversed, but once the holidays are eaten into, it's hard to get them back.

Yes but using the 6 months we have off to get a better quality of life during the time we are working is a better option to a lot of people.

We all know how tiring it is to have say 9 classes on a Tuesday be stuck in until 6pm that evening and have maybe 8 classes the next day, and then you have 2 more days to survive after all that.
Never mind the fact you are missing quality time with a young family maybe that evening, etc. etc. etc.

Compared to out of the maybe 90 days in a row we have off, losing one of them at the end making it 89 days in a row off.

That is what we are talking about. Yes giving in is not a good thing but the point is these hours are already here we have to do them.
Maybe they will bring in this that or the other thing, maybe I will counter all your scaremongering by saying that I think that over the next number of years they will actually give us longer summer holidays to make up for all the sh1t we have put up with over the last number of years.
Your made up ideas are as irrelevant as mine currently.
We don't know what is going to happen in 5 years time, we will fight that when it comes to it, the point is currently we have 33 extra hours we have to do, so what is the best decision to make to get a better quality of life for us.

For me personally having 89 days off instead of 90, I think I'll survive

katydid

seavill wrote: »

So to answer my question you are just making things up.

The current difference is, people are choosing. Scaremongering doesn't help one bit.
As it stands we can choose to meet for one hour a week for example, for two hours every second week, (obviously reduced for PT meetings etc.) which a lot of people don't like doing. You will never please everyone so the only correct way of doing things is for each individual staff to vote on what they want to do and go with the majority. Some principals don't do this which is wrong as all these things are supposed to be done in consultation.

By doing extra at the start it saves doing extra another time. The point is people are not doing extra days now, they are simply rearranging the hours they have to do one way or the other. Yes it is not ideal coming back earlier in August but for some it suits better than being stuck in school till 6pm on a dark December night.

It is not possible under our current system of LC/JC for teachers to supervise the state exams while in class or training, that is my point, the UK is a different system currently, so unless the whole thing changes it would be currently impossible for us to be working while the exams are ongoing, unless they removed teachers completely from the equation which again is changing the system completely

How can they insist on teachers doing things in June or Mid August, you tell me the actual likelihood of this happening (and the point that it happened in UK doesn't count).
The same with the exams. The absolute carnage that altering the JC has caused and that isn't adding any days to anyones year, are you seriously telling me that you are claiming that they will just decide to make us work more and it will just happen? Come on be realistic

People seem to forget primary teachers voluntarily do in service in the summer in order to get days off during the year. This has happened for years.

I'm personally sick of hearing about the UK, if we spent more time concentrating on ourselves rather than worrying about what other people do or don't do maybe we would have a better system

Oh for heaven's sake, take it easy. I'm speculating. I have been teaching for 35 years, I've worked in the UK and seen what I experienced there creeping in over here.

Of course voting on the matter is the way to go, and it seems that that's not even done in some workplaces. All I'm saying is that people should be careful what they are voting for.

Primary teachers certainly do voluntary in-service, and get time off in lieu. Secondary teachers have no such option, and, given that they have four weeks longer than primary teachers, they would hardly expect it. I don't see what relevance that is anyway. My point is that we could end up with MANDATORY in-service outside the school year.

The only reason I'm bringing in the UK is that what I saw there twenty years ago is creeping in here now. I've got friends teaching in the UK, and I used to laugh at them and say that those after-school meetings and such like would never happen here. And they have.

What do you mean, "how can they insist on teachers doing X?". They already have insisted on Croke Park hours. The days of the unions standing up to the Dept. are long gone.