Where now for ASTI? ****ASTI Action- Part III - See 1st Post***

joebloggs32

You are right about threats. Thing is many thought they were empty. Turns out they weren't.
Its like a night at the casino. Tui cashed out when they felt they could win no more, but Asti have bet the house.

judeboy101

joebloggs32 wrote: »

You are right about threats. Thing is many thought they were empty. Turns out they weren't.
Its like a night at the casino. Tui cashed out when they felt they could win no more, but Asti have bet the house.

In Nov the asti bet the house and lost, we have now doubled down and bet the house, the wife, the two kids and the dog.

acequion

joebloggs32 wrote: »

acequion wrote: »

Let's not re open that whole debate! I wish to God you guys had only stuck with us. If both unions had rejected LRA and JCT just look at how much stronger we'd be! Lunacy in this anti public service era to have two second level teacher unions![/quote.]
We met a fork in the road. Asti took one direction, and TUI the other. No one left the other

Come on joebloggs and stop dressing it up! You'll get the for and against brigade in any union. Fact is we should all be together in one!

deiseindublin

man_no_plan wrote: »

Or accept the LRA and get paid for s&s, get increments, €1000 on the pays ale from next month, worth about 2.5k a year before tax.

That's not progress. That's selling out because it's easier and because we were balloted enough times for us to be downtrodden into submission.

What exactly have the TUI achieved for LPTs since they sold out? We still don't have pay equality.

Morale in my TUI school is at an all time low. Nobody trusts the union to do anything. Don't feel represented and think they sold out. Only reason they haven't left is because the school can be challenging enough and most want the protection of a union (any union) should they need it.

deiseindublin

joebloggs32 wrote: »

You are right about threats. Thing is many thought they were empty. Turns out they weren't.

I'm of the opinion that they would have been empty threats if both unions stayed outside LRA. But we'll never know now for sure.

I feel so left down when I look around my staff room and I settle on those that I know voted Yes. They would never have people I would have looked to have a drink with or lunch out with, but still, I really feel left down by them.

acequion

deiseindublin wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that they would have been empty threats if both unions stayed outside LRA. But we'll never know now for sure.

I feel so left down when I look around my staff room and I settle on those that I know voted Yes. They would never have people I would have looked to have a drink with or lunch out with, but still, I really feel left down by them.

Totally see your point. All those agreements have ever achieved is a whole load of extra work and feeling powerlessness with a bit of a miserly pay increase as a carrot.

If nothing else I'm so grateful for this [almost] full year without CP hours and this [almost] full year not having to play ball on nonsense such as learning outcomes, SLARS etc. It has been worth every single little copper I didn't get.

But again I repeat that in these unprecedented anti State worker times,we should all be together in one union, all voting together and all accepting the outcomes of ballots whichever way they go. The way we are now is only making it ten times more divisive and fuelling resentment.

deiseindublin

I agree, should be one union for teachers, but I think they need a different management union (Principal, Deputy). Management and teachers have a different remit so doesn't really work for us all to be in same union.

acequion

deiseindublin wrote: »

I agree, should be one union for teachers, but I think they need a different management union (Principal, Deputy). Management and teachers have a different remit so doesn't really work for us all to be in same union.

Agree on that too. Time to part company with management in the union.

man_no_plan

acequion wrote: »

Agree on that too. Time to part company with management in the union.

Fire out the retired members too while you're at it.

My earlier point was not that you should haul ass into the LRA. It was in response to the 'we don't need exam money so shut them down' strategy. Compounding the losses would be more likely to lead to this all ending.

Maybe it needs to come to that though.

evolving_doors

km79 wrote: »

And continue with free s and s . So same as last week NO PLAN
Fair play to Bruton he has outmaneuvered the Asti at every stage
Didn't think he had it in him

He didn't have to do much TBH. Just say no and recognise that teachers ain't got no more appetite for action (see last action for evidence of cave in).
He just needs one more vote to get the whole lot over the line.
ASTI is just waiting for one tiny morsel to have an excuse to ballot on LR... at least it will save some face.
Bruton knows this and is determined to see ASTI beg to be in LR.
Bruton has nothing to lose by doing nothing... he's canvassed his constituency so his votes are safe.
Endgame time for him.. . Enda leaves... new cabinet... collect pension. Oxo.

feardeas

acequion wrote:

If nothing else I'm so grateful for this [almost] full year without CP hours and this [almost] full year not having to play ball on nonsense such as learning outcomes, SLARS etc. It has been worth every single little copper I didn't get.

Surely if teachers are teaching the English specification in order to prepare students for a final exam they are cognisant of the learning outcomes. To be unaware of them would be bordering on folly. A bit like being unaware of rain as it pours from the heavens.

MrJones1973

All will be revealed shortly. It's department move. If they actually carry out redundancies then we must strike. It's that simple. Please please no spin the hamster on the wheel talks . If they kick off you know it's Munich agreement time. Best plan is proceed to strike immediately after redundancy notice given. Begin court injunction as well on discrimination grounds. No talks without pre conditions. This is senior hurling. There has to be some give before talks.
No open ended talks. An offer on a time line for pay equality would be enough to open talks plus suspension of redundancies.

acequion

feardeas wrote: »

Surely if teachers are teaching the English specification in order to prepare students for a final exam they are cognisant of the learning outcomes. To be unaware of them would be bordering on folly. A bit like being unaware of rain as it pours from the heavens.

Oh don't get me started feardeas!! "Learning outcomes" isn't even a misnomer. It's way less. It's a thing of nothing and a heap of rubbish. Students need to be taught how to express themselves, they need to be taught about language and literature and the beauty of such things. That's how it always was and that's how it still is.

As for focusing on the final exam, if you mean this dumbed down two hour paper they will sit, ya we'll go through the motions and get them through this. But our real focus has to be ensuring that they will still have a standard come fifth year and that they can cope with LC English. Not to do that is very much my idea of folly.

man_no_plan

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

All will be revealed shortly. It's department move. If they actually carry out redundancies then we must strike. It's that simple. Please please no spin the hamster on the wheel talks . If they kick off you know it's Munich agreement time. Best plan is proceed to strike immediately after redundancy notice given. Begin court injunction as well on discrimination grounds. No talks without pre conditions. This is senior hurling. There has to be some give before talks.
No open ended talks. An offer on a time line for pay equality would be enough to open talks plus suspension of redundancies.

If schools are over quota its the new people in who will be let go. I can't see any real chance of a redundancy. Seniority will rule the day.

acequion

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

All will be revealed shortly. It's department move. If they actually carry out redundancies then we must strike. It's that simple. Please please no spin the hamster on the wheel talks . If they kick off you know it's Munich agreement time. Best plan is proceed to strike immediately after redundancy notice given. Begin court injunction as well on discrimination grounds. No talks without pre conditions. This is senior hurling. There has to be some give before talks.
No open ended talks. An offer on a time line for pay equality would be enough to open talks plus suspension of redundancies.

Pretty sensible suggestions there. However some thing has to be done for the people stuck in S&S. They have to reap some reward for their patience, so I certainly hope that plans will soon be on the agenda there.Nobody can or should expect these teachers to keep doing it indefinitely.

doc_17

It won't necessarily be the newer teachers let go. Provision of the curriculum will be the first consideration.

feardeas

acequion wrote:

As for focusing on the final exam, if you mean this dumbed down two hour paper they will sit, ya we'll go through the motions and get them through this. But our real focus has to be ensuring that they will still have a standard come fifth year and that they can cope with LC English. Not to do that is very much my idea of folly.

I teach English, have a first in it as well, no need lot lecture me. Thanks all the same.

MrJones1973

I have concerns about the gap between third year and fifth year English. We dont have an obligatory TY.There is a gap at present-its only going to widen now. To be fair the Old JC had too much on and didnt focus enough on the essay but this new JC leaves out the essay? Though I suppose in their Portfolio it could be tackled.

Its going to take me a few years to get my head around this course but I have said it for years-they keep trying to make it interesting without tackling the fundamental problem that kids cant write decent complex sentences nor do they read enough. The Old JC failed to tackle that. So does the New JC

Asking to pause every now and then to focus on literacy while you struggle to do the other six things they want you to do is not enough.

The inane obsession with learning outcomes is going to drive you all around the bend.

judeboy101

feardeas wrote: »

I teach English, have a first in it as well, no need lot lecture me. Thanks all the same.

There is many the anti union principal out there looking for the chance to get rid of a full timer who might have thought they were safe on cud. A 7 year over quota on history and a one year "rare as hens teeth" Irish teacher, do the math:(

clunked

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

I have concerns about the gap between third year and fifth year English. We dont have an obligatory TY.There is a gap at present-its only going to widen now. To be fair the Old JC had too much on and didnt focus enough on the essay but this new JC leaves out the essay? Though I suppose in their Portfolio it could be tackled.

Its going to take me a few years to get my head around this course but I have said it for years-they keep trying to make it interesting without tackling the fundamental problem that kids cant write decent complex sentences nor do they read enough. The Old JC failed to tackle that. So does the New JC

Asking to pause every now and then to focus on literacy while you struggle to do the other six things they want you to do is not enough.

The inane obsession with learning outcomes is going to drive you all around the bend.

Simples. Just dumb down the LC under a guise of progress etc

man_no_plan

judeboy101 wrote: »

There is many the anti union principal out there looking for the chance to get rid of a full timer who might have thought they were safe on cud. A 7 year over quota on history and a one year "rare as hens teeth" Irish teacher, do the math:(

Just because you're over quota it doesn't mean you're anti union. Its part of the reason we got into such a mess in the first place, schools had carte blanche to hire teachers with many ending up well over quota. This was exacerbated, of course, when the PTR was cut.

Even the most vindictive principal would have to nominate the teacher who they can least afford to keep. Its not like you can get shut of a maths teacher to get within quota and then hire another the following week, that would put you back over quota.

Its the same thing again really, blame the principal, blame the union leadership et, sometimes things aren't right and need to be sorted. I wouldn't agree for a minute with redundancy though, there is plenty of need for teachers in all schools redeployment should be used, voluntary in the first instance.

Unfortunately everything is tied up in this current mess.

implausible

acequion wrote: »

Oh don't get me started feardeas!! "Learning outcomes" isn't even a misnomer. It's way less. It's a thing of nothing and a heap of rubbish. Students need to be taught how to express themselves, they need to be taught about language and literature and the beauty of such things. That's how it always was and that's how it still is.

What I've emboldened are learning outcomes written in a teacher-centred way. The new course just breaks these down into smaller chunks and makes them student-centred. I think of the LOs as a checklist e.g.

"write competently in a range of text forms, for example letter, report, multi-modal text, review, blog, using appropriate vocabulary, tone and a variety of styles to achieve a chosen purpose for different audiences"

The old JC English curriculum had aims and learning objectives. It came in just before I did the JC, but I'll hazard a guess that there was resistance to that too and it was seen as the dumbing down of education.

implausible

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

I have concerns about the gap between third year and fifth year English. We dont have an obligatory TY.There is a gap at present-its only going to widen now. To be fair the Old JC had too much on and didnt focus enough on the essay but this new JC leaves out the essay? Though I suppose in their Portfolio it could be tackled.

Its going to take me a few years to get my head around this course but I have said it for years-they keep trying to make it interesting without tackling the fundamental problem that kids cant write decent complex sentences nor do they read enough. The Old JC failed to tackle that. So does the New JC

Asking to pause every now and then to focus on literacy while you struggle to do the other six things they want you to do is not enough.

The inane obsession with learning outcomes is going to drive you all around the bend.

The idea is that the collection of texts/portfolio is where students can focus on essay-writing. Instead of training them to write an essay under pressure, they get time to draft, edit and redraft until they're happy with their final piece of work. Maybe you have better students than me, but I find it impossible to get LCs to draft and redraft their work. Hopefully with the new course, they will come into LC used to the idea of reworking a piece of writing.

Unless we go home with students in the evening and supervise them reading books I don't think any curricular change can make them read more.

judeboy101

man_no_plan wrote: »

Just because you're over quota it doesn't mean you're anti union. Its part of the reason we got into such a mess in the first place, schools had carte blanche to hire teachers with many ending up well over quota. This was exacerbated, of course, when the PTR was cut.

Even the most vindictive principal would have to nominate the teacher who they can least afford to keep. Its not like you can get shut of a maths teacher to get within quota and then hire another the following week, that would put you back over quota.

Its the same thing again really, blame the principal, blame the union leadership et, sometimes things aren't right and need to be sorted. I wouldn't agree for a minute with redundancy though, there is plenty of need for teachers in all schools redeployment should be used, voluntary in the first instance.

Unfortunately everything is tied up in this current mess.

No, sorry, But as a principal you could elect to keep the most incompetent teacher so long as they are in an area you need cover but elect to get rid of a well established excellent teacher who also happens to be shop steward, so long as that teachers subject has more teachers than you need. Trust me, there are a fair few principals out there who would do it.

implausible

judeboy101 wrote: »

No, sorry, But as a principal you could elect to keep the most incompetent teacher so long as they are in an area you need cover but elect to get rid of a well established excellent teacher who also happens to be shop steward, so long as that teachers subject has more teachers than you need. Trust me, there are a fair few principals out there who would do it.

In such a scenario, principals would have to adhere to seniority rules (with due regard to the curricular needs of the school). This system is used for redeployments and would have to be used if redundancies came to pass.

judeboy101

implausible wrote: »

In such a scenario, principals would have to adhere to seniority rules (with due regard to the curricular needs of the school). This system is used for redeployments and would have to be used if redundancies came to pass.

"with due regard to the curriculum..." That's all the wiggle room they would need. And as CID is linked to hours of a subject, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on if your subject is no longer offered, seniority or no.

implausible

judeboy101 wrote: »

"with due regard to the curriculum..." That's all the wiggle room they would need. And as CID is linked to hours of a subject, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on if your subject is no longer offered, seniority or no.

You can call it 'wriggle room' or common sense. If a school is over quota and there is a teacher there with subjects that are no longer offered, would that teacher not be in line for redeployment? You wouldn't have a leg to stand on currently would you?

man_no_plan

judeboy101 wrote: »

No, sorry, But as a principal you could elect to keep the most incompetent teacher so long as they are in an area you need cover but elect to get rid of a well established excellent teacher who also happens to be shop steward, so long as that teachers subject has more teachers than you need. Trust me, there are a fair few principals out there who would do it.

No, sorry, are you telling me that the ASTI wouldn't fight tooth and nail to impose the seniority rule. One thing that the teachers unions have been very effective at is protecting employment.

The PTR cuts etc laid waste to a number of non permanent teachers no doubt but not one permanent teacher been made redundant during all of this.

It doesn't seem to be a problem when a teacher is employed only to coach teams while the school hires a part time sub to take their classes. That's the kind of thing that creates precarious employment situations, dead end job as you're only filling in.

judeboy101

man_no_plan wrote: »

No, sorry, are you telling me that the ASTI wouldn't fight tooth and nail to impose the seniority rule. One thing that the teachers unions have been very effective at is protecting employment.

The PTR cuts etc laid waste to a number of non permanent teachers no doubt but not one permanent teacher been made redundant during all of this.

It doesn't seem to be a problem when a teacher is employed only to coach teams while the school hires a part time sub to take their classes. That's the kind of thing that creates precarious employment situations, dead end job as you're only filling in.

Like the way we fought tooth and nail for LPT/NQT and S&S?

man_no_plan

judeboy101 wrote: »

Like the WA we fought tooth and nail for LPT/NQT and S&S?

If you want to deny reality that's your business.

There's an offer to pay for s&s.

I agree with you on low pay for new entrants. Problem is there's too many irons in the fire here. If everyone is so elated with the SEC news why not just get on with the new JC??