Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

ASTI Ballots

135

Comments

  • #62
    maynooth_rules
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,505 ✭✭✭maynooth_rules


    Jesus they education correspondent on Rte is some weapon. Should be neutral yet kept on saying that the teachers that rejected the new JC were not open to change.


  • #63
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    acequion wrote: »
    The ballot papers arrive to us at our home address and we then vote,put the stuff back into the correct envelopes and into the pre stamped envelope and stick it in the post. Hardly rocket science.

    .

    If your union rep gives you out the ballot papers, you might be more likely to fill it up and give it back to them than if you have to go to the post box. You would think people would be motivated enough, but people are so busy I can see that they might not prioritise it.


  • #64
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    deiseindublin wrote: »
    Loads of FE teachers got a vote too.
    Only if they work in dual centres. Which are mostly second level with a few FE courses. Most FE centres are not dual centres, and teachers in those centres had no vote.


  • #65
    MacGyver007
    Registered Users Posts: 860 ✭✭✭MacGyver007


    katydid wrote: »
    If your union rep gives you out the ballot papers, you might be more likely to fill it up and give it back to them than if you have to go to the post box. You would think people would be motivated enough, but people are so busy I can see that they might not prioritise it.

    We have a ballot "post box" in our staff room. People place their votes in it and the union reps post them. They also kept asking people did they vote. The turnout was well over 90% in our school.


  • #66
    deiseindublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,263 ✭✭✭deiseindublin


    katydid wrote: »
    Nope, third level isn't. Only people who teach at second level. But of course in some cases these people also teach FE courses, and maybe they know from experience that the proposal isn't as bad as others think.
    WE GET IT KATYDID. YOU'RE PRO JC NUA!

    I think it's more likely that loads of teachers went with TUI recommendation rather than bothering their arses to read the proposals.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    deiseindublin wrote: »
    WE GET IT KATYDID. YOU'RE PRO JC NUA!

    I think it's more likely that loads of teachers went with TUI recommendation rather than bothering their arses to read the proposals.
    Maybe, just maybe, they can think for themselves...?


  • #68
    acequion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,904 ✭✭✭acequion


    man_no_plan wrote: »
    I'm not demonising anyone just asking a question. The major point of the TUI opposition was school based assessment fir state certification. I don't know how they could have recommended a rejection with this being removed. That was my point about not wanting change. You either have a view on something and pursue it, as both unions did, or you roll over completely.

    The fact is that the agreed document is much different to the original Quinn proposals. I think that teachers who voted yes saw this and were happy.

    The no voters were obviously bot swayed by this, in either union. My question is, really, what level of JC reform would you be happy with? If the the answer is none than be straight about it and don't hide behind assessment of students. Let your union line be "we got rode for the last 5 years so **** off with your reform until you sort that out"

    I think rejection of the LRA is a more important issue and will deliver more than rejection of the JC. Please note that I am entitled to an opinion on this and other issues.

    Of course you are entitled to your opinion and I didn't mean "you"personally when I said about demonising.That came out wrong. Apols.:)

    You ask what we would accept and that is really what must be sorted out at this point. I think the unions were always wrong to fight it on the narrow issue of marking our own students when opposition on the ground clearly went much further than that and yes I can understand why the public would be confused. So our position must be clarified.

    Personally I will be very honest and say it is largely a case of "we got rode for the last 5 years so **** off with your reform until you sort that out" as you suggest above. However, I also feel that this reform is not necessary,that the long term goal is to save money,with a longer term goal of shrinking the public service which will eventually lead to teachers marking their own students at Junior level. I'm neither impressed nor convinced that these proposals will in any way improve standards,so I would leave well alone,except for an updating of the curriculum which in most subjects is long overdue.

    But that is not going to happen. So compromise for me would be a CBA in second followed by one in third marked by the teacher as a form of continuous assessment and then a separate smaller exam in June. None of all this time wasting and bureaucratic malarky of SLARS, nor written assessment task,nor radical overhaul of reporting. Apart from everything else there is no point in making such sweeping changes at JC level when the LC remains the same.


  • #69
    r93kaey5p2izun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,962 ✭✭✭r93kaey5p2izun


    man_no_plan wrote:
    Is it beyond the belief of everyone here that maybe some teachers can see some value in the proposals?

    Not everyone is a sheep who follows directions from the union, maybe they had a look at the new JC and said 'yeah I'm happy with that'.

    I'm not saying they're right and you're wrong but give them the credit of being able to make an informed decision.

    We don't want to assess our students for state certification was the mantra. That is removed now so what do we do now? Say well actually we don't want to change anything??

    Unfortunately my experience is that all but one Yes voter I know openly talked of how they didn't read the information and just went with the union recommendation and some said it was just inevitable we would have to re-vote so what was the point of voting no.

    As for "the mantra" - it was the mantra of the officials but every teacher I know objects to these reforms on a multitude of issues. Only a handful oppose continuous assessment in principle but the majority believed these proposals were of a very poor standard and will result in a deterioration of Irish education. The union stuck to one line of opposition but I think most people see it as a far broader issue than that.
    katydid wrote: »
    Nope, third level isn't. Only people who teach at second level. But of course in some cases these people also teach FE courses


    No, not only people who teach at second level. Many people who teach only FE had a vote, including many who are not qualified teachers and so could never teach at second level.


  • #70
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Jayceon Zealous Ballistics wrote: »
    .


    No, not only people who teach at second level. Many people who teach only FE had a vote, including many who are not qualified teachers and so could never teach at second level.

    Let me clarify. Only those who teach in teach in FE in a dual centre. There are anomalies where you have teachers in those centres who only teach FE, but generally the teachers on FE courses also teach in the secondary level part of the school.

    The vast majority of FE teachers don't teach at second level, so most had no vote. The small amount that only teach at FE and had a vote would not have made any particular difference to the outcome.


  • #71
    r93kaey5p2izun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,962 ✭✭✭r93kaey5p2izun


    katydid wrote: »
    Let me clarify. Only those who teach in teach in FE in a dual centre. There are anomalies where you have teachers in those centres who only teach FE, but generally the teachers on FE courses also teach in the secondary level part of the school.

    The vast majority of FE teachers don't teach at second level, so most had no vote. The small amount that only teach at FE and had a vote would not have made any particular difference to the outcome.

    Perhaps. But it is around a quarter of staff in my school who are FE only and a similar quantity of those in most of the dual centres I know. With so many on low hours that adds up to quite a number of people.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Jayceon Zealous Ballistics wrote: »
    Perhaps. But it is around a quarter of staff in my school who are FE only and a similar quantity of those in most of the dual centres I know. With so many on low hours that adds up to quite a number of people.
    Not in comparison to the FE sector in general.

    More important to look at is the teachers who teach in both sectors - they know about CA, and are maybe not as negative to it as their second level only colleagues. That might also have been a factor. But not a big one either.


  • #73
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    katydid wrote: »
    Not in comparison to the FE sector in general.

    More important to look at is the teachers who teach in both sectors - they know about CA, and are maybe not as negative to it as their second level only colleagues. That might also have been a factor. But not a big one either.

    I continuously assessed in all of my lessons today... and gave feedback too!
    Didn't fill in any paperwork or hand out certificates of achievement though so I guess I'm a bad teacher.


  • #74
    Jamfa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 234 ✭✭Jamfa


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    I continuously assessed in all of my lessons today... and gave feedback too!
    Didn't fill in any paperwork or hand out certificates of achievement though so I guess I'm a bad teacher.

    Oh come on that's what's promoted in the new reforms. There is no mention of keeping extra paperwork or giving certificates of achievement all the time.


  • #75
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    I continuously assessed in all of my lessons today... and gave feedback too!
    Didn't fill in any paperwork or hand out certificates of achievement though so I guess I'm a bad teacher.
    Quite the opposite. You're just doing more or less what you just voted against.


  • #76
    r93kaey5p2izun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,962 ✭✭✭r93kaey5p2izun


    katydid wrote: »
    Not in comparison to the FE sector in general.

    More important to look at is the teachers who teach in both sectors - they know about CA, and are maybe not as negative to it as their second level only colleagues. That might also have been a factor. But not a big one either.

    I teach in both sectors. If anything my FE experience is what makes me see how bad this will be in second level. The other dual teachers I know feel the same. The FE only tutors weren't bothered and said they were just going with union recommendation.


  • #77
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Jayceon Zealous Ballistics wrote: »
    I teach in both sectors. If anything my FE experience is what makes me see how bad this will be in second level. The other dual teachers I know feel the same. The FE only tutors weren't bothered and said they were just going with union recommendation.

    I'm not going to go into the whole debate again; all I'll say is that I'm sorry your experience has been so negative.


  • #78
    implausible
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,937 ✭✭✭implausible


    man_no_plan wrote: »
    I thought only tui workplaces Where the jc is offered were balloted? A few here are suggesting that third level members had a say.

    Am I wrong?
    deiseindublin wrote: »
    Loads of FE teachers got a vote too.

    This argument about the TUI gets trotted out every time - if TUI voted against the proposals, it must have been FE or 3rd level who carried it.

    Only those who teach in centres that offer the JC had a vote. The amount of teachers in those centres who teach FE only are negligible. In a large amount of cases, there are teachers in secondary schools teaching FE, but as part of a mainstream timetable. Definitely not enough to swing it either way, remember that the union recommended a yes vote.

    As an English teacher facing into another year of uncertainty, I am thoroughly pissed off. I thought the proposals were a vast improvement on the original and I was looking forward to getting on with the new course. Now, we're back in limbo again - the new syllabus is in, we can't refuse to teach it, neither can we have two unions differing over assessment.


  • #79
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    implausible wrote: »
    This argument about the TUI gets trotted out every time - if TUI voted against the proposals, it must have been FE or 3rd level who carried it.

    Only those who teach in centres that offer the JC had a vote. The amount of teachers in those centres who teach FE only are negligible. In a large amount of cases, there are teachers in secondary schools teaching FE, but as part of a mainstream timetable. Definitely not enough to swing it either way, remember that the union recommended a yes vote.

    As an English teacher facing into another year of uncertainty, I am thoroughly pissed off. I thought the proposals were a vast improvement on the original and I was looking forward to getting on with the new course. Now, we're back in limbo again - the new syllabus is in, we can't refuse to teach it, neither can we have two unions differing over assessment.
    What I don't understand is that the big emphasis for objecting in the first place was the state certification. That's off the table now, and still so many were objecting.


  • #80
    joebloggs32
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,637 ✭✭✭joebloggs32


    implausible wrote: »
    This argument about the TUI gets trotted out every time - if TUI voted against the proposals, it must have been FE or 3rd level who carried it.

    Only those who teach in centres that offer the JC had a vote. The amount of teachers in those centres who teach FE only are negligible. In a large amount of cases, there are teachers in secondary schools teaching FE, but as part of a mainstream timetable. Definitely not enough to swing it either way, remember that the union recommended a yes vote.

    As an English teacher facing into another year of uncertainty, I am thoroughly pissed off. I thought the proposals were a vast improvement on the original and I was looking forward to getting on with the new course. Now, we're back in limbo again - the new syllabus is in, we can't refuse to teach it, neither can we have two unions differing over assessment.


    It is a cluster fcuk now for teachers in the c&c sector. If the department now start up inservice will TUI members head off to it, while thir ASTI colleagues stay put?Furthermore, the TUI person may have voted no, while the Asti teacher gad voted yes!


  • #81
    man_no_plan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭man_no_plan


    katydid wrote: »
    What I don't understand is that the big emphasis for objecting in the first place was the state certification. That's off the table now, and still so many were objecting.

    This is where I'm at on it too. as I said earlier this shouldn't have been the line we took of it wasn't what we believed.

    For all the blowing about TUI selling out etc. we'd do well to remember that tui was first out of the traps on the JC issue. ASTI leadership had to be convinced to go into a joint campaign.

    I think that the TUI president gave strong leadership on this issue and will give strong leadership after TUI reject the HRA. He was certainly more articulate and impressive than his ASTI counterpart in my opinion.

    My branch put in one of the initial motions on JC reform, so I have been watching it from the start. There was a battle in TUI as the previous president wasn't really interested in JC but our colleagues in third level supported us and we got it through.

    The new document was a success based on what the TUI set out to achieve. It is disingenuous to say any different, they never set out to stop JC reform in its entirety as they new that this was impossible.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    acequion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,904 ✭✭✭acequion


    Jamfa wrote: »
    Oh come on that's what's promoted in the new reforms. There is no mention of keeping extra paperwork or giving certificates of achievement all the time.

    Why so touchy? The poster is giving a tongue in cheek example of how good teaching works. And in so doing is suggesting that new fangled reforms are actually not needed. Because we teach effectively as it is. Anyone who can't see that these new reforms will only tie up teachers time and energies in paperwork,are being very naive. SLARS may only happen once per year but wow will they be time and energy consuming! And will they even be effective? Maybe that's why people voted no.
    katydid wrote: »
    Quite the opposite. You're just doing more or less what you just voted against.

    We do not need to be patronised by you Katydid! We know exactly what we voted against and no it wasn't continuous assessment of our pupils.


  • #83
    implausible
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,937 ✭✭✭implausible


    joebloggs32 wrote: »
    It is a cluster fcuk now for teachers in the c&c sector. If the department now start up inservice will TUI members head off to it, while thir ASTI colleagues stay put?Furthermore, the TUI person may have voted no, while the Asti teacher gad voted yes!

    That phrase sums it up! The students will all have to sit the same terminal exam and do an assessment task based on a CBA they may (TUI teacher) or may not (ASTI teacher) have done. It's unworkable and once again, English teachers are left hanging.


  • #84
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    acequion wrote: »
    Why so touchy? The poster is giving a tongue in cheek example of how good teaching works. And in so doing is suggesting that new fangled reforms are actually not needed. Because we teach effectively as it is. Anyone who can't see that these new reforms will only tie up teachers time and energies in paperwork,are being very naive. SLARS may only happen once per year but wow will they be time and energy consuming! And will they even be effective? Maybe that's why people voted no.



    We do not need to be patronised by you Katydid! We know exactly what we voted against and no it wasn't continuous assessment of our pupils.

    How am I patronising you? You DID reject proposals for a form of continuous assessment, although you continually assess your students.


  • #85
    km79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 48,254 ✭✭✭✭km79


    why have we not heard result of POR ballot?


  • #86
    implausible
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,937 ✭✭✭implausible


    km79 wrote: »
    why have we not heard result of POR ballot?

    TUI member here - what was the wording of that ballot?


  • #87
    man_no_plan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭man_no_plan


    km79 wrote: »
    why have we not heard result of POR ballot?

    I'm not ASTI - what was the question on the ballot?


  • #88
    deiseindublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,263 ✭✭✭deiseindublin


    http://www.asti.ie/news/campaigns/posts-of-responsibility/


  • #89
    acequion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,904 ✭✭✭acequion


    I can see that TUI people have a totally different perspective on all of this and it really is quite amazing how two second level unions can be at such odds.

    What worries me is that TUI are always so quick to tow the Govt line and have no compunctions about leaving their collegues in ASTI to battle alone.

    No voters from both unions do not trust the Govt. Simple as. And it's a very deep, justified lack of trust based on their treatment of education since they came into office. The sector is a hell of a lot worse off now than it was several years ago. Clearly not the time for such wide sweeping reforms.

    So I really have zero sympathy for those of you that feel put out by this.


  • #90
    acequion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,904 ✭✭✭acequion


    katydid wrote: »
    How am I patronising you? You DID reject proposals for a form of continuous assessment, although you continually assess your students.

    Honey,I have far better things to be doing than peddling out your little narrow arguments all over again. Too bad if you don't. Go and annoy somebody else.

    Keep it civil folks.

    Member has been warned.

    MOD


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    man_no_plan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭man_no_plan


    Time for bed guys! Not worth getting worked up over.

    We are where we are...


Advertisement