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

Chilli Con Kearney

political analyst wrote: »

As for the CP hours, the document says:



According to Chill Con Kearney, here's the reason for all of the CP hours originally being on a whole-school basis (post 48 on the following page).

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057369762&page=4



That means that the ASTI simply has to get the principals of voluntary schools (most of whom are, I assume, ASTI members) to say at the CP hours usage review that is also mentioned in the document: "We've no problem with another increase in the number of CP hours in which teachers don't have to be in the same room". After all, voluntary school principals - not just those who are ASTI members - won't want to be accused of being disloyal to their staff.

That means that the ASTI simply has to get the principals of voluntary schools (most of whom are, I assume, ASTI members) to say at the CP hours usage review that is also mentioned in the document: "We've no problem with another increase in the number of CP hours in which teachers don't have to be in the same room". After all, voluntary school principals - not just those who are ASTI members - won't want to be accused of being disloyal to their staff.[/QUOTE]

Seeing as I'm being quoted, I may as well bail in here.

I know you probably think that this is a great deal, or at least purport to. As a long time lingerer, regular troller, I often wonder if you are working as a footsoldier in the DES or something.

This is LRA 2.0 and nothing better. The fact that you are not a teacher, posting in the teaching forums, purporting to know so much about education and how policies affect those on the ground is hilarious. This rubbish of informing yourself under a thin veil of trolling does nothing to fool me.

You obviously know nothing about teaching or kids if you think that the JC is now sorted and concerns are addressed like you reference. You can link and reference all day man. Nothing will change the fact that students will be arriving at our doors in fifth year, deciding whether to take HL or OL maths. They will have done a watered down, common level exam. Many will NOT have the foundation to attack a HL course that they will try to take on. The same goes for science. Significant chunks of the JC course have been removed. Basics that LC teachers can take for granted have been covered. Important basics. But they will be taught in fifth year now. Where the time constraints to finish long courses are already tight.

But sure, hey, we are building a STEM economy, right? With common level maths and shortened science curricula. This will all be washed up in lovely handy marks handed out in exams and window dressing applied. But we on the ground (not you) know what the real story is. Ask third level lecturers what they expect their first year students to know. Nothing. Take it that they know nothing. From a watered down jokeshop project maths course. One where they get marks for writing out the formula from the log tables in the LC, without even attempting the question. You say concerns are addressed. I say more dumbing down. So do my colleagues. We know. We see it every day and every year.

I'm really full to the gills of s###te from people like you who, "experts" who have been in the class, who refer to their 'alma mater' who were in school so know how teaching works. I went to the dentist to get train tracks and retainers as a kid. sure I'm pretty much an expert on that now. I've been breathing all my life. I'm pretty much a professional now.

Give it a rest dude. You've trolled long enough with half information and facts.

As for this document today? It's an absolute farce. Nothing agreed - more reviews and looking at things. No significant progress on the pay scales. S&S for over 15 (why 15)? But pay to leave. Pay not to do a job? I mean, seriously, you couldn't make this stuff up. Was this not looked at at all?!

No foresight, no looking at the future of education. More fudging and political rubbish. God, it gets tiring from time to time.

judeboy101

This deal is worse than the one those indian lads got for selling Manhattan to the dutch

political analyst

Chilli Con Kearney wrote: »

=
You obviously know nothing about teaching or kids if you think that the JC is now sorted and concerns are addressed like you reference. You can link and reference all day man. Nothing will change the fact that students will be arriving at our doors in fifth year, deciding whether to take HL or OL maths. They will have done a watered down, common level exam. Many will NOT have the foundation to attack a HL course that they will try to take on. The same goes for science. Significant chunks of the JC course have been removed. Basics that LC teachers can take for granted have been covered. Important basics. But they will be taught in fifth year now. Where the time constraints to finish long courses are already tight.

English, Irish and Maths are not common-level in the new JC.

As for other subjects, those students who don't do well at common-level in the new JC can do OL in History, Geography or a science or business subject.

As for chunks of the JC course being removed, vocational schools are not obliged to provide History and Geography anyway and it's unlikely that voluntary schools will drop them.

political analyst

Icsics wrote: »

Disloyal? These are the principals who, supported by JMB, closed schools.

Only because ASTI members had withdrawn from S&S. That's separate from the CP hours. Ordinary ASTI members only have to put pressure on their principals and deputy-principals. The only reason the ASTI accepted CP hours in the original format was its supine leadership.

political analyst

km79 wrote: »

I'm referring to signing up based on promises that will be broken

And, as I said, if the Dept breaks these promises then it'll be in breach of LRA and then the ASTI would have grounds for a ballot on withdrawal from LRA (if the ASTI accepts LRA time time).

Chilli Con Kearney

political analyst wrote: »

English, Irish and Maths are not common-level in the new JC.

As for other subjects, those students who don't do well at common-level in the new JC can do OL in History, Geography or a science or business subject.

As for chunks of the JC course being removed, vocational schools are not obliged to provide History and Geography anyway and it's unlikely that voluntary schools will drop them.

My bad on using maths - bad example. The rest of my post still stands.

political analyst

Chilli Con Kearney wrote: »

From a watered down jokeshop project maths course. One where they get marks for writing out the formula from the log tables in the LC, without even attempting the question. You say concerns are addressed. I say more dumbing down. So do my colleagues. We know. We see it every day and every year.

What harm is there in making LC Maths slightly less difficult for pupils? Anyone who did well in JC HL Maths just before Project Maths began would be doing LC HL Maths under Project Maths and thus breeze through it.

Chilli Con Kearney

If the SC recommends this deal, I will have to consider my union membership. I genuinely cannot believe that this may be accepted.

coillsaille

Terrible deal, as all on here had expected.
Would love to know where the 15 years figure came from. Maybe it was like buying a pig at the market, with the Dept starting at 30, the union at 0 and then bargaining to the halfway mark...

In fact the condition for opting out the last time, not having signed up the previous year, was a better deal than this in my opinion, even though it was pretty s#*#t. We've actually gone backwards in a sense on this issue.

Chilli Con Kearney

political analyst wrote: »

What harm is there in making LC Maths slightly less difficult for pupils? Anyone who did JC HL Maths just before Project Maths began would be doing LC HL Maths under Project Maths and thus breeze through it.

You crack me up man. Seriously. You're in the wrong forum. The comedy forum is somewhere else. Make it easier. I'm going to give you a LOL for that one.

judeboy101

coillsaille wrote: »

Terrible deal, as all on here had expected.
Would love to know where the 15 years figure came from. Maybe it was like buying a pig at the market, with the Dept starting at 30, the union at 0 and then bargaining to the halfway mark...

In fact the condition for opting out the last time, not having signed up the previous year, was a better deal than this in my opinion, even though it was pretty s#*#t. We've actually gone backwards in a sense on this issue.

Reason for 15 is very simple. Most 15 year veterans have young families and many might hv a post this might save money for dept as unlike previous opt out, this one is linked to your scale m under old system 1700 would be a pittance to pay every year up to retirement. But now you could end up paying 5-6k at retirement for opt out

maude6868

Am I reading the detail wrong? I'm seeing that nobody gets paid for s&s, just those that don't do it pay the 1769 euro to opt out, very same as before. It says 'a teacher who opts-in will be required to carry out supervision and substitution duties
and will have the salary reduction associated with the opt-out restored to salary;. Doesn't that just mean that they won't have to pay the 1769 euro. No mention of increments being unfrozen also. I'm beyond fuming.

feardeas

maude6868 wrote:

Am I reading the detail wrong? I'm seeing that nobody gets paid for s&s, just those that don't do it pay the 1769 euro to opt out, very same as before. It says 'a teacher who opts-in will be required to carry out supervision and substitution duties and will have the salary reduction associated with the opt-out restored to salary;. Doesn't that just mean that they won't have to pay the 1769 euro. No mention of increments being unfrozen also. I'm beyond fuming.

I've glanced at it. Vague is the word. I voted against the action BTW. However I assume that when the FAQ go live it may be clear that people will be paid for s and s. Assume it will be backdated but not hinted at.

Also I would like to know the new dates and systems for English. However that will probably only come with time.

From listening to colleagues I think they were minded to accept anything. Could change I suppose.

I will vote to accept as I see no better offer unless something happens in LRA 2.

If it is rejected does anyone know where to then for people who stay in the union. Anyway that's my twopence worth all I'll do how is vote.

Icsics

Not going down well on the ASTI Facebook page, getting some consolation from this.

km79

acequion wrote: »

I haven't yet got to read it but what I think based on what I'm seeing and hearing is that it is total rubbish and worse than useless.I would be hoping that it will be thrown out by either /all of SC,CEC,members.

However you seem to have a thing about your great sacrifice of three day's pay plus goodwill and working relations. You voted to strike did you not? If so should you not take responsibility for that action which had absolutely no guarantees? Because if you weren't comfortable about it I think you should have voted no. I think that blaming the ASTI leadership is also a bit immature. We,the members,are the union. We are the ones who get to decide. If the leadership try to bully us into accepting this deal as was done before then I too will have an axe to grind with them. But for now I think we are all in it together.

You seem to be 100% certain that this deal will go through. Why do you think that? Do you think your fellow members will let you down and vote for it? Because I wouldn't be so sure about that. And personally I'm not going to give up without a fight. Like you I want something back for my sacrifice.

A strike yes
3 day's was a waste of time
Ran for cover when the pressure was put on
Hence why I'm upset at losing 3 day's pay to get the SAME deal
It was all for nothing
All big talk from our new leaders
Same st different day

And make no mistake it will be passed
Sure what's the point in prolonging the agony ?
They got us NOTHING
And the effects of the lockout etc will be felt for many years in staff rooms

km79

Icsics wrote: »

Not going down well on the ASTI Facebook page, getting some consolation from this.

It does not reflect the reality
The vast majority of teachers are unaware/ don't care
It will be accepted
We seen that with HRA

deiseindublin

* I haven't gone thru' it in detail but is there ANYTHING in it that wasn't already offered to TUI?
If nothing added (which it looks like), surely SC won't accept this when they've already rejected it a couple of times before strike days?

* What will happen CP hours?

acequion

km79 wrote: »

A strike yes
3 day's was a waste of time
Ran for cover when the pressure was put on
Hence why I'm upset at losing 3 day's pay to get the SAME deal
It was all for nothing
All big talk from our new leaders
Same st different day

And make no mistake it will be passed
Sure what's the point in prolonging the agony ?
They got us NOTHING
And the effects of the lockout etc will be felt for many years in staff rooms

I completely disagree and think you're being very negative. But you're entitled to your opinion.

ethical

This is a joke ,is it not? Its akin to serving up yesterdays uneaten dinner again..........but this time its COLD!What a fcukin waste of time and money the past few weeks have been.

judeboy101

ethical wrote: »

This is a joke ,is it not? Its akin to serving up yesterdays uneaten dinner again..........but this time its COLD!What a fcukin waste of time and money the past few weeks have been.

HR was actually a better deal than this

clunked

ethical wrote: »

This is a joke ,is it not? Its akin to serving up yesterdays uneaten dinner again..........but this time its COLD!What a fcukin waste of time and money the past few weeks have been.

Can anyone point to some positives for this potential deal/ capitulation??

judeboy101

clunked wrote: »

Can anyone point to some positives for this potential deal/ capitulation??

Ill finally be able to get some use out of those old 'spot the dog' books with my junior cert higher level English class

acequion

ethical wrote: »

This is a joke ,is it not? Its akin to serving up yesterdays uneaten dinner again..........but this time its COLD!What a fcukin waste of time and money the past few weeks have been.

So are you saying we shouldn't even have bothered?

ethical

No ,we shouldnt have bothered and furthermore we need a whole restructure of Unions,ETBs,JMB,Dept of Ed.The whole effin thing needs a total clean up.

MrJones1973

Deal is totally ****. Three weeks for this ? Really? It is a better offer for new entrants but thats it.
SC had a terrible strategy

All out for a couple of weeks was only way for real change. Did anybody really think 7 days on its on was going to unravel LR? Naive if you did.
Losing nerve after 3 days a joke. We should have called all out strike leaving no division ie some being paid /some not

Im probably voting Yes. Opting out of s and s. Middle Mgt structures will remain a joke for years to come
But unless you have the balls for a long strike please fxxx off and get that lubricant!:rolleyes:

Teaching still way better than UK for moment. My school aint that bad. My son is very funny and enjoying school.:)
I wash my hands of ASTI
Once the rest of you give up Hope you will feel much better. Trust me:):D

km79

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

Deal is totally ****. Three weeks for this ? Really? It is a better offer for new entrants but thats it.
SC had a terrible strategy

All out for a couple of weeks was only way for real change. Did anybody really think 7 days on its on was going to unravel LR? Naive if you did.
Losing nerve after 3 days a joke. We should have called all out strike leaving no division ie some being paid /some not

Im probably voting Yes. Opting out of s and s. Middle Mgt structures will remain a joke for years to come
But unless you have the balls for a long strike please fxxx off and get that lubricant!:rolleyes:

Teaching still way better than UK for moment. My school aint that bad. My son is very funny and enjoying school.:)
I wash my hands of ASTI
Once the rest of you give up Hope you will feel much better. Trust me:):D

This is the general feeling amongst many who have fought for so long
I'm not being negative as suggested before I'm being realistic
It WILL be accepted
Many people are just sick of it all and losing pay before Xmas spooked them
The fact that the pay was lost FOR nothing will anger the rest !

NufcNavan

We were better off going into the deal lol. What a joke.

deiseindublin

At least INTO NI balloting for strike. Might help nervous ASTI members stick to their resolve. Hopefully more will follow suit.

(Yet again, where are my beloved TUI?)

http://www.into.ie/NI/NewsEvents/PressReleases/PressReleases2016/Title,40298,en.php

paddybarry

I think people need to take a deep breath. There is not a hope SC will accept this proposal.

political analyst

deiseindublin wrote: »

* I haven't gone thru' it in detail but is there ANYTHING in it that wasn't already offered to TUI?
If nothing added (which it looks like), surely SC won't accept this when they've already rejected it a couple of times before strike days?

* What will happen CP hours?

The document says that a review of the usage of the CP hours - involving teachers' unions, the Dept and management bodies - has commenced and that it will make recommendations and any changes agreed will be implemented by the start of the 2017/2018 academic year.

As an immediate first step, the parties agree that the maximum period of time available for planning and development work on other than a whole-school basis will be increased to 8 hours from the beginning of the 2016/17 school year and a further 2 hours from the beginning of the 2017/18 school year, in accordance with the terms agreed under the Haddington Road Agreement as set out in Department Circular 43/2014.