(Nearly) NEW CABINET - 6 Months Review

anmajornarthainig wrote:

I`m one of the teachers who`ll be unemployed with a mortgage (negative equity) thanks to this government.

On the plus side i`ll have a load of time to boost the amount of posts I`ve made on this site. Every cloud, I suppose. I don`t know how some of the rest of you do it.

anmajornarthainig wrote:

anmajornarthainig wrote:

I`m one of the teachers who`ll be unemployed with a mortgage (negative equity) thanks to this government.

On the plus side i`ll have a load of time to boost the amount of posts I`ve made on this site. Every cloud, I suppose. I don`t know how some of the rest of you do it.

In my case, by burning the midnight oil or more often the early morning oil.

It will be good to have you here - perhaps we should start to sell the advertising space on Ard-Taoiseach's helmet

Auditor #9 wrote:

Quote :

Is there anything that you think could be done within the Education budget to save money without damaging education ?

....
This is a sick attack on the fabric of our society
....
I believe a lot of the above if not all cannot be healthily delivered without a decently-functioning education system along with plans for future education.

How did part of my post (which I can no longer find) end up in your post? I am not able for that kind of stuff this morning. [EDIT: I must have lost my post - you were quoting CF - I then missed anmajorthings post - will google for replacement brain at lunch time.]

Anyway, my question still stands. Given that we are in straitened economic circumstances (i.e., a long way up sh_t creek) and given that the education budget is a large part of national spend, are there any savings which can be made in the education system?

It strikes me that teachers are saying there are absolutely no such savings and that nothing can be tolerated. I can understand that too givwn how dependant schools are on parents' donations - they are not exactly the HSE with excess administrators and stationery walking out the door.

However, at some stage everybody will have to realise that we don't really have a choice. Given that education comprises such a huge part of the national budget we will have to find savings. It is like a company that tries to resist laying people off and then goes bust meaning everybody loses their jobs. If we don't take some pain now then we will just take more pain later. We have to differentiate between painful cuts and cuts that threaten education itself. These cuts will hurt education and make it less effective but it will stil be there and functioning, not abolished.

anmajornarthainig wrote:

Thanks for the sympathy Cactus. The girlfriend will be a similar sort of position, highly trained and unemployed so no wedding for a while.

I would say that money could be saved in education. There is a shocking amount of waste in terms of both time and resources an awful lot of money is being drained away from the most important people in the system .ie the children.

1. End totally mixed ability classes. Cream off the best or the weakest students and then mix the rest. Then I`d cut back on the amount of learning resource education with the schools. This may sound mad to people from outside the school system but so much of it is waste. People might need it for a while but are given it for the entire year. Some people don`t need it at all but because a Pyschologist says that they suffer from a certain condition they are taken out of mainstream classes twice a week for a year, whether or not it is felt that it is needed. On the other hand there are kids, because they don`t fit into certain boxes, that aren`t provided with it whe it is obvious to staff that they need it. I`d cut out the Pyschologist, for an awful lot of cases, and I`d leave it up to school`s discression to decide what kids need help and for how long. Most of the kids with supposed learning problems could be dealt with within a mainstream class as long as the gap wasn`t too bing from the rest of the class. I teach and have taught in learning support classes pretty much since I started teaching and very few of the kids actually really needed it. I`ve also have had the frustrating experience of knowing that certain kids had obvious learning problems but were being cut out of learning support because they didn`t fit certain categories.

2. I`d make it easier to expel students. It would cut down on time, energy, court cases, lawyers and vandalism.

3. Any vandalism within schools should be paid for x 5 by those responsible. If the parents are unable to pay, welfare would be hit. There is a shocking amount of vandalism within some schools. Very little of it actually ends up being paid for by the vandals or their parents.

4. On a different note I also think that attendance records and behavioural records should be available to prospective employers for students in secondary school.

Great post. I totally agree with 2, 3 and 4. I am not au fait with no. 1 but it makes total sense to me that a teacher would be a better judge. The principal could have the final say unless the board of management insisted on a psychologist. Most teachers are better educated and smarter than psychologists in my experience.

Zhou I don't know about your post - I thought it was cactuses post ?

Sub teachers must be kept for one thing as it introduces new teachers into the system, gives fresh teachers a trial period in a school and it can be sobering for the school to get an outside eye among other advantages that it gives long term teachers some time off if necessary for funerals etc. but in fairness this can be abused.

Teachers could potentially take a pay-cut and I wonder what anmajornarthainig thinks of that who has identified (on another thread ? - time to make a new eduction one ?) about the Resource teachers which I partly agree with. This is a special teacher who works permanently in a school and takes weaker children into a cellar to try to beef up their skills in one area or another. I'm inclined to think too that this could be tweaked big time although the principle is not so bad. It's based on psychological assessment I think but I'm not sure this needs to be done away with at all as I think some learning needs can be identified at an early age for some children. I'm talking about primary, if anmajornarthainig is talking about secondary then I'd agree with him completely - the resources should be diverted into primary and eliminate the problem by the time secondary comes along.

I wonder is our curriculum at primary up to date but I think it is. Perhaps this needs more attention at secondary though, the lack of which could be directly responsible for poor behaviour.

I'd agree that students should pay for vandalism too or have social welfare cut. Giving details of students behaviour to prospective employers is a step too far though.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Zhou I don't know about your post - I thought it was cactuses post ?
....

I'd agree that students should pay for vandalism too or have social welfare cut. Giving details of students behaviour to prospective employers is a step too far though.

It was cactus's - apologies.

I don't think behavioural records should be given - I don't trust all teachers to be fair to all children. Also, it might turn out that some employers want to see a little rebellion .

I do think that the cold figures of attendance records should be provided. If the child wants to explain what happened or tell the employer that his parents let him down then so be it. He might even say, "I was a total brat in school but I think it did me no harm". The thing is that it would improve parents' attention to attendance.

On the front page of the times this morning Paul Gogarty suggests that 100 million can be could be found for primary education from the PRTLI "particularly its capital allocation". I would love to know the rationale for this suggestion. Ireland is already approaching basket case status with regard to research and development without withdrawing the funding that does exist.

Teachers in Ireland are, I think, much higher paid than in some countries and have a short working year. A lot of teachers supplement their income with grinds and summer projects. On the other hand they cope with high classroom numbers. I think that there would be scope for a wage freeze or in extremis a reduction, but only after we had carved every last ounce of nonsense out of the national budget and taxed those who could afford to pay - ending all those boltholes like tax incentives and pension payments that left the most wealthy who could afford tax advice paying virtually nothing. I would include here getting rid of all those ludicrous Minister of State appointments that are just a slush fund. The Minister of State for Older People was neither consulted nor told about the change to the medical cards.

We should also be having a campaign involving the whole of our society to make sure that everyone can read and write well and is numerate by the end of primary school. A lot of children are achieving way less than their full capabilities.

The long holidays are an issue too. What do lower income children do for three months out of school? I don't think this is just an issue for schools but for all of us. We should make sure that there is plenty of constructive and safe stuff for them to do. It would be a good time to give some booster literacy and maths training in a relaxed and enjoyable way. The only good thing about the long holyers is that children are desperate to go back to school by the end of them.

unaligned wrote:

On the front page of the times this morning Paul Gogarty suggests that 100 million can be could be found for primary education from the PRTLI "particularly its capital allocation". I would love to know the rationale for this suggestion. Ireland is already approaching basket case status with regard to research and development without withdrawing the funding that does exist.

Our whole "knowledge based economy" strategy down the drain. What happened to his suggestion that capital funding of greyhound and race tracks should be suspended?

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Zhou I don't know about your post - I thought it was cactuses post ?
....

I'd agree that students should pay for vandalism too or have social welfare cut. Giving details of students behaviour to prospective employers is a step too far though.

It was cactus's - apologies.

I don't think behavioural records should be given - I don't trust all teachers to be fair to all children. Also, it might turn out that some employers want to see a little rebellion .

I do think that the cold figures of attendance records should be provided. If the child wants to explain what happened or tell the employer that his parents let him down then so be it. He might even say, "I was a total brat in school but I think it did me no harm". The thing is that it would improve parents' attention to attendance.

I agree Zhou. But we also need attendance officers so that children don't fall through the net.

The reason why i think that employers should be entitled to see behavioural records is that troublesome kids are being sent out of schools with great references in order to offload them onto some carpenter because the kid thinks that an apprenticeship is a great idea and because the school thinks that it is a great idea that the young fella is gone out of their school. I think that my idea would cut down on meaningless refereneces being written. The dangers of the suggestion are also apparent to me. It `s finding the middle ground that`s the problem but I genuinely think tht employers should be entitled to find out if somebody was repeatedly in trouble in school. My compromise would be that from the age that the child is entitled to legally leave school then the employer should be entitled to find out what kind of potential worker he is.

Regarding the pay cut. I would take a paycut in an ideal world where I knew that businessmen were paying their share of tax, where politicians were ruling on behalf of their people and not vested interest, where I knew that government money was not being wasted. It `s a no up until then.

Five more reforms that I would suggest for the second level system would be that (a) the working year would be longer for teachers but with less classroom contact per week. (For those of you not in the job, before you start talking about twenty two hours a week. Think of the idea of thirty three different classes a week. I, personally, don`t think that you can teach more than twenty seven effectively. The other six are just a baby-sitting service) (b) From the time that you are legally entitled to leave school that you be treated like an adult. If you don`t work you get fired. I would make it a lot easier, however, for people to come back at the age of nineteen, twenty etc. to come back and finish their education.(c) if you don`t pass the year you stay back. (d) Exams at the end of each year of secondary school which are part of the Junior Cert and Leaving Cert (e) The emphasis in primary education be switched back to the 3rs.

Most references are meaningless, especially when you are young. I have so many people I can get both academic and character references off (multitude of lecturers and previous short term employers) that I'll only ask someone who I know will give a good one .

But the thing is JF is that when you`re young the school is one of only a couple of places where a young fella gets a reference. You`d want to see the glowing references given to some scumbags solely to get them out of schools when it is virtually impossible to expel a student without putting in a year`s good work. I`m sure that any reference you got was genuine. Happy Birthday by the way.

Not til Sunday! I have a nice cake though, it is sitting in the fridge .

anmajornarthainig wrote:

The reason why i think that employers should be entitled to see behavioural records is that troublesome kids are being sent out of schools with great references in order to offload them onto some carpenter because the kid thinks that an apprenticeship is a great idea and because the school thinks that it is a great idea that the young fella is gone out of their school. I think that my idea would cut down on meaningless refereneces being written. The dangers of the suggestion are also apparent to me. It `s finding the middle ground that`s the problem but I genuinely think tht employers should be entitled to find out if somebody was repeatedly in trouble in school. My compromise would be that from the age that the child is entitled to legally leave school then the employer should be entitled to find out what kind of potential worker he is.

Regarding the pay cut. I would take a paycut in an ideal world where I knew that businessmen were paying their share of tax, where politicians were ruling on behalf of their people and not vested interest, where I knew that government money was not being wasted. It `s a no up until then.

Five more reforms that I would suggest for the second level system would be that (a) the working year would be longer for teachers but with less classroom contact per week. (For those of you not in the job, before you start talking about twenty two hours a week. Think of the idea of thirty three different classes a week. I, personally, don`t think that you can teach more than twenty seven effectively. The other six are just a baby-sitting service) (b) From the time that you are legally entitled to leave school that you be treated like an adult. If you don`t work you get fired. I would make it a lot easier, however, for people to come back at the age of nineteen, twenty etc. to come back and finish their education.(c) if you don`t pass the year you stay back. (d) Exams at the end of each year of secondary school which are part of the Junior Cert and Leaving Cert (e) The emphasis in primary education be switched back to the 3rs.

Agree with all of that, provided there is some way of giving a fair chance/hearing to improvers or someone wrongly damned in a school report, and provided the children know their records count. Some the problem though is there is a layer of children with such low expectations that they don't believe doing well at school can help them in their lives. A lot more encouragement is needed. Some children never get praised, either at home or in school. But I'm off topic here and distracting from the good stuff about the Government's lack of ability to govern.

I completely disagree with the idea of a perspective employer having the right to view the perspective employee's records. It's a massive invasion of privacy and sets up a relationship that ought not to exist.

What if I meet miss Right? Should I demand to see her record to see if I consider her a suitable mate?

Luckilly, when I met miss Right, I didn't act like her superior and things took their natural course and worked out great.

Gone are the days when a youngfella or young lass should have to approach a potential employer with cap in hand and treat him like a superior. Christ! - we live in a 'consumer' society where it's totally 'buyer beware.' Let the employer beware. The employer has as much potential to be a total prick as does the potential employee. As someone who over the years has been in a position where I've had to interview and hire many employees, I'm well aware that most references are not worth the paper they're written on. The presumed solution to this? More references

Lot's of kids, when in school are a shower of little gurriers who'd not work to warm themselves, even if it was freezing. And yet many of them have a conversion on the road to Damascus when they enter employment. And indeed, many who excelled in school, turn out to be a shower of little shits and totally useless in the workplace. This demanding to snoop into educational records concerning behaviour would pay no useful dividends, other than establishing a pecking order.

If a person can do a job dilligently and with character, keep them. If they're a waste of air, sack them. Simple as that, and it cannot be made more efficient. No head games, it'll end in tears.

All sounds very good except that it is far more difficult to sack someone than your scenario would imply.

johnfás wrote:

All sounds very good except that it is far more difficult to sack someone than your scenario would imply.

I dunno about that. I never had any problems with it, though it's been a few years since I was in a position where I had to make such decisions. New employees are not considered permanent for at least six months (if ever these days) and I'd be able to spot in a couple of days, whether an employee needed to be binned or not.

Fair enough, there are more 'legalistics' than there were 20 years ago. This doesn't really hamper an employer in trimming dead wood though.

I think you have me convinced, Hermes. Perhaps a system which gave pupils awards for being excellent, or for improvement, would work better.

To help out with what could well be a mid-term review of the cabinet, here they are. I'll put the Ministers of State in a separate thread.

Taoiseach: Brian Cowen
Tanaiste: Mary Coughlan
Finance: Brian Lenihan
Foreign Affairs: Micheal Martin
Justice: Dermot Ahern
Health: Mary Harney
Education: Batt O'Keefe
Defence: Willie O'Dea

Agriculture: Brendan Smith
Energy and Communications: Eamonn Ryan
Environment: John Gormley
Transport and The Marine: Noel Dempsey
Enterprise Trade and Employment: Mary Coughlan
Community Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs: Eamonn O'Cuiv
Sport, Arts and Tourism: Martin Cullen
Social and Faily Affairs: Mary Hanafin
Chief Whip: Pat Carey
Attorney General: Paul Gallagher SC

Super Junior (Children): Barry Andrews??

Gone: Billy Kelleher?, Tom Kitt?

Hermes wrote:

johnfás wrote:

All sounds very good except that it is far more difficult to sack someone than your scenario would imply.

I dunno about that. I never had any problems with it, though it's been a few years since I was in a position where I had to make such decisions. New employees are not considered permanent for at least six months (if ever these days) and I'd be able to spot in a couple of days, whether an employee needed to be binned or not.

Fair enough, there are more 'legalistics' than there were 20 years ago. This doesn't really hamper an employer in trimming dead wood though.

That`s a real private sector attitude Hermes that everybody who works for a private company is good at their job. It`s not the case. There are plenty of people employed in all sorts of jobs who are just about competent and sometimes incompetent. Anyway that`s another can of worms we`ve opened there and this thread has been dragged so far off topic it`s unreal. Regarding the original point of employers being able to see records. Nobody, least of all myself, is saying that the school record is the be-all and end-all and only a fool would base their ultimate decision on that. I do think however that you should be entitled, before employing an eighteen year old straight out of school, to find out that the lad has a history of violence or serious vandalism. I`m not talking someone being suspended for getting into a fight once.

anmajornarthainig wrote:

Hermes wrote:

johnfás wrote:

All sounds very good except that it is far more difficult to sack someone than your scenario would imply.

I dunno about that. I never had any problems with it, though it's been a few years since I was in a position where I had to make such decisions. New employees are not considered permanent for at least six months (if ever these days) and I'd be able to spot in a couple of days, whether an employee needed to be binned or not.

Fair enough, there are more 'legalistics' than there were 20 years ago. This doesn't really hamper an employer in trimming dead wood though.

That`s a real private sector attitude Hermes that everybody who works for a private company is good at their job. It`s not the case. There are plenty of people employed in all sorts of jobs who are just about competent and sometimes incompetent. Anyway that`s another can of worms we`ve opened there and this thread has been dragged so far off topic it`s unreal. Regarding the original point of employers being able to see records. Nobody, least of all myself, is saying that the school record is the be-all and end-all and only a fool would base their ultimate decision on that. I do think however that you should be entitled, before employing an eighteen year old straight out of school, to find out that the lad has a history of violence or serious vandalism. I`m not talking someone being suspended for getting into a fight once.

I've worked both sides of the fence, public and private, as an employee ( sometimes a good one, sometime not so good, in various jobs) and as an employer, in Ireland and outside. There are good and bad employees everywhere. In some parts of the Irish public service there is a semi-retirement culture: in other parts, people work extremely hard and efficiently. In the private sector, the imperative of remaining profitable culls out inefficiency ruthlessly, over a couple of years at most. In the public sector, I've seen people who were a waste of space getting promoted to the top. If there are problems in the public service, that should not imo be used as an excuse to cut services. The problems should be sorted out.

**** Sorry - I've gone off topic again. This thread is now rededicated to Cabinet Review. By all means anyone set up a new thread and link to this one if you would like to continue with any of the "off topic" topics.

anmajornarthainig wrote:

Hermes wrote:

johnfás wrote:

All sounds very good except that it is far more difficult to sack someone than your scenario would imply.

I dunno about that. I never had any problems with it, though it's been a few years since I was in a position where I had to make such decisions. New employees are not considered permanent for at least six months (if ever these days) and I'd be able to spot in a couple of days, whether an employee needed to be binned or not.

Fair enough, there are more 'legalistics' than there were 20 years ago. This doesn't really hamper an employer in trimming dead wood though.

That`s a real private sector attitude Hermes that everybody who works for a private company is good at their job. It`s not the case. There are plenty of people employed in all sorts of jobs who are just about competent and sometimes incompetent. Anyway that`s another can of worms we`ve opened there and this thread has been dragged so far off topic it`s unreal. Regarding the original point of employers being able to see records. Nobody, least of all myself, is saying that the school record is the be-all and end-all and only a fool would base their ultimate decision on that. I do think however that you should be entitled, before employing an eighteen year old straight out of school, to find out that the lad has a history of violence or serious vandalism. I`m not talking someone being suspended for getting into a fight once.

I see where you're coming from. And I agree to a point. There's no such thing as a perfect employee or indeed, a perfect boss. It's down to what one will settle for.

I also agree that it would be useful to know whether or not you're employing a potential sociopath. A good interviewer can ferret out this info (with a reasonable degree of accuracy) without needing to look into confidential records - that are afterall, not considered to be a criminal record and for the most part, are not compiled by experts. Personality clash is an unfortunate fact of life and can and does influence how we describe people. An interviewer should not be burdened with having to try to figure out the character of a person or persons who write references as well as having to suss out the potential employee as well.

Legally speaking, an employer takes a risk when hiring an employee, particularly so if the employee turns out to be a nut job and harms someone else. This can somewhat be diminished by requiring the employee to put in writing that he or she has no convictions or whatever. Short of that, there's not much an employer can do to assure himself that he's not hiring the next Ted Bundy. If profiling dangerous people were easy we'd have little or no crime. Even expert profilers aren't much better than tossing a coin and you'll find very few of them working in our schools.

You're right of course, all this is very much off topic. And mea culpa for jumping in with feet first. Ye'll just have to stop saying interesting stuff.

Edit: Sorry CF, I'd done me jumping before you did the edit on your post. Consider me lips zipped.

We could start our own profiling business Hermes? They`re all spoofers anyways it`s just guess work. None of them are as good as Fitz in Cracker anyway.

Your points are all basically valid as well. Like most things in lie there is a certain grey area where all of us live. My points are entirely baseless the minute it leads to unfair discrimination against a young fella that was going through a difficult childhood yours are baseless the minute a guy is employed who had a history of similar misbehaviour leading up until that point.

Taoiseach: Brian Cowen - JURY STILL OUT. BUDGET U-TURNS AND DEFECTIONS FROM PARTY PUT QUESTION MARKS OVER LEADERSHIP.

Tanaiste: Mary Coughlan - COMING ACROSS AS LIGHT-WEIGHT IN THE MEDIA

Finance: Brian Lenihan - JURY STILL OUT. DECISIVE MOVE TO RESCUE BANKS BUT SATISFACTORY OUTCOME NOT YET REACHED. CAN HE MAKE THE BANKS BEND TO HIS WILL AND GIVE HIM STRAIGHT ANSWERS? WILL HE RECAPITALISE IN TIME? HAS SHOWN COURAGE AND A WILLINGNESS TO SACRIFICE HIS OWN CAREER FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY. LET'S HOPE HE HAS THE SMARTS TO MATCH THE COURAGE.

Foreign Affairs: Micheal Martin - QUIET AS A MOUSE. LEADERSHIP AMBITIONS AT PLAY? NOT SHOULDERING HIS SHARE OF HEAVY LIFTING IN DIFFICULT TIMES FOR FF.

Justice: Dermot Ahern - DITTO. DID HE MAKE ANY COMMENT ON THE DPP'S STATEMENTS ABOUT POSSIBLE CUTS?

Health: Mary Harney - MIXED BAG. INABILITY TO ALLOCATE RESPONSIBILITY IN HSE CRISES JUSTIFY CALLS FOR RESIGNATION. AGREEMENT OF CONSULTANT CONTRACTS A MAJOR ACHIEVEMENT THAT WILL IMPROVE THE HEALTH SERVICE OVER TIME. CONTINUING REFORM WITH REDUNDANCIES. POLITICALLY UNAWARE AS EVER WITH THE MEDICAL CARDS.

Education: Batt O'Keefe - STANDING UP AND TAKING THE BLOWS. DOING OK EVEN IF PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE HIS DECISIONS.

Defence: Willie O'Dea - LEGEND.

Agriculture: Brendan Smith - DIDN'T KEEP FARMERS ON SIDE FOR LISBON. DOING OK OTHERWISE.

Energy and Communications: Eamonn Ryan - DYNAMIC MINISTER PURSUING BIG REFORMS. ESB PLAN A MAJOR ACHIEVEMENT. GOOD PERFORMANCE TO DATE.

Environment: John Gormley - DOING OK BUT NOT ENOUGH END PRODUCT YET.

Transport and The Marine: Noel Dempsey - NO GREAT ACHIEVEMENTS. CALLING A TD AN "IRRELEVANT BACKBENCHER" SHOWED HUGE ARROGANCE. GETTING ON WELL WITH THE GREENS. HOPEFULLY THEY WILL DEVELOP A MORE PROGRESSIVE TRANSPORT STRATEGY.

Community Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs: Eamonn O'Cuiv - DOING WELL IN THE MEDIA. HARD TO RATE OTHERWISE.

Sport, Arts and Tourism: Martin Cullen - NOT SURE. PRESS NOT INTERESTD IN HM SO HARD TO KNOW WHAT HE IS UP TO.

Social and Faily Affairs: Mary Hanafin - HAS GOTTEN CREAMED ON TV A NUMBER OF TIMES. NEEDS TO REINVENT HERSELF. DOING OK AS A MINISTER - CRACKDOWN ON FRAUDS PROGRESSING AND SECURED FUNDING TO MAINTAIN PAYMENT LEVELS.

Chief Whip: Pat Carey - VERY CAPABLE MEDIA PERFORMER. RISING STAR. HOWEVER, DID NOT SEEM ABLE TO CALM THE TROOPS IN THE POST-BUDGETARY CRISES.

Super Junior (Children): Barry Andrews - HAS DONE OK ON TV. NO PROGRESS ON CHILDREN'S RIGHTS REFERENDUM. OK PERFORMANCE FOR LISBON.

That's very accurate about Micheál Martin and Dermot Ahern anyhow.

Quote :

Sport, Arts and Tourism: Martin Cullen - NOT SURE. PRESS NOT INTERESTD IN HM SO HARD TO KNOW WHAT HE IS UP TO.

Is this news and views from the inside Zhou ?

Batt, Maura Hocter and Eamon Ryan on Mary Wilson in a few minutes ... I'm concerned that Ryan will have a problem with the ESB eventually and his vision of alternative energy everywhere will be dashed. The ESB is an enormous beast...