1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

GTCS speaks out, at last!

Discussion in 'Scotland - education news' started by Flyonthewall75, Feb 4, 2011.

  1. Flyonthewall75

    Flyonthewall75 New commenter

  2. Interesting. "Professionally inappropriate and potentially illegal".
  3. kibosh

    kibosh Star commenter

    It would be nice if we might/could expect the same of the SG. [​IMG]
  4. Great! Finally the GTCS has spoken out! What a great response!
    However, has anyone read the nonsensical comments from 'Renfrewmum' attached to the Daily Record article - she needs to 'wake up'. What a lot of tripe from someone who obviously knows nothing about education. Get her in front of the kind of the children that I have to face on a daily basis and see what she thinks then.
    That's the problem we face when dealing with these kind of parents - its getting our message across, that its not just our pay and conditions that are affected but, just as importantly, these cuts will have a devastating effect on the future of education for all our children.
  5. Great response? Au contraire. It's a mealy-mouthed discombobulation of hemming and hawing.
    Why in Heaven's name are they not condemning this outright?
    Why are they beating so carefully around the bush on this?
    Is it only me, or doesn't anyone else see that the GTCS has crafted this letter very carefully, with the intent of clearly pointing ways forward with this scheme for Renfrewshire, saying to them, in effect, "if you just tweak this bit and that bit, it'll be all right with us, Jack."
    Their conclusion says it all: "Notwithstanding these comments, we recognise that it might be possible for Renfrewshire Council to organise a 25 hour pupil week which did not include the transfer of responsibility for any elements of the curriculum."
    Combine this with their note that "GTCS takes the view that it would be both professionally appropriate and potentially illegal to devolve to other employees direct responsibility for the delivery of any aspect of the school curriculum." Come on, folks, look at it. The key word there is DIRECT. Why say direct? The only reason to say direct here is to indicate that it will be okay for other employees to take INDIRECT responsibility--which could very well mean that Ren teachers---and all of us, eventually---would be required to provide lesson plans for these 2.5 "pupil hours", for someone else to deliver.
    Note that the GTCS has, without a murmur of protest, cheerfully lucked up that malarkey of the "teaching week" versus the "pupil week"----see the comment about "delivering a 25-hour curricular programme in 22.5 teaching hours." This newest and most obscene little bit of Scottish education double-drivel-speak is coming soon to an authority near you, once Renfrewshire gets this up and running.
    Rant over. Whew. I need a coffee.
  6. Arggggh! that should, of course, be SUCKED up.
  7. Flyonthewall75

    Flyonthewall75 New commenter

    Oh, I'm glad you corrected that. I did wonder about that first consonant!
    The GTCS's lawyer/s has obviously given a legal opinion about the potential illegality of Renfrewshire Council's proposals.
    As they point out, it would be for the courts to decide if the proposals are actually illegal or not, and I suspect they want to leave some wriggle room if, horror of horrors, the courts were to decide the proposals are actually legal.
    Given that a legal review of the relevant legislation would be likely to take some time and be extremely costly, it is possible that all sides may decide it isn't worth the risk.
    Renfrewshire Council is already feeling the heat and talking about extending the timescale. Now is the time for parents, the unions, GTCS and dare I say HMIe to keep up the pressure to ensure this ill-conceived idea is buried without trace.
  8. I don't know - they did suggest that 22.5 hours is potentially not fulfilling legal requirements.

Share This Page