Fact checking the current ASTI position

Over the summer there has been a rewriting the history of the ASTI. Members have been given several lines of argument on why we find ourselves where we are now. Let’s fact check those lines.


Line one: Cuts to the pay of new entrants were imposed over the heads of unions

The Croke Park Agreement was accepted by a ballot of ASTI members in February 2011 by a margin of 2:1. It clearly stated that it applied to serving teachers only. There has been an attempt to airbrush this from history but even if one checks the extensive Q&A on the ASTI website, no-one asked about that word serving. Uncomfortable, but subsequent to the union accepting this agreement, FEMPI enabled the cuts to entrants pay.

Line one is not accurate.


Line two: this dispute is all about Pay Equalisation

Standing Committee set up a sub-committee to devise a strategy on pay equalisation and agreed to put the return to a single basic pay scale and the reinstatement of cuts to allowances at the heart of every negotiation. (This is what led to changes to the pay scale in HRA and the Ward report on the issue of casualisation in teaching, more below). There was an unwillingness among some on Standing Committee and CEC to take action to support new entrants, even after further cuts to allowances in 2012. One comment I noted from the time summed up their mood: ‘why should we go to a student demo, they’re not even ASTI members’. The contrary view consistently advanced at Standing Committee and CEC (e.g. someday one of the new entrants will be sitting around this table making decisions about your pension) was brushed aside, as was most of the work of the sub-committee. The procrastination of the ASTI in finding a solution on Junior Cycle Reform, HRA, or LRA, along with  the delay in appointing a new General Secretary have all meant that pay equalisation never appeared on the agenda of Standing Committee in 2014 or 2015.  I checked. It was discussed, but it was never of sufficient urgency to make it an agenda item.

Line two is false.

Line three: if only HRA hadn’t prevented us from taking action

Before the ballot on HRA there were those on Standing Committee who wanted to vote no to HRA and still not go on strike: it is further spin for those people to now claim that they wanted to vote no in 2013 so they could go on strike. It is amazing that our negotiators squeezed more out of HRA than any other union without a single day of strike. In December 2013 actually made contingency  arrangements for strike action if HRA was rejected but that if further talks were available following a rejection the ASTI would enter those talks. This is no longer the position the ASTI takes on these matters as evident by the decision of Standing Committee on July 8th not to accept the DES invitation to temporarily lift its Directive on Croke Park hours in advance of the outcome of talks with the INTO and TUI on new entrants pay, which are already at an advanced stage.

Line three is disingenuous at best.

Line four: the Government never gave us a panel so they reneged

The panel promised under HRA was to deal with casualisation in the teaching profession. The Ward Report which took effect in a circular in early 2015 was actually an improvement on the proposals from HRA, providing a teacher with a CID after two years instead of three. Peter Ward said: ‘these proposals for a further Supplementary Panel are effectively superseded by the recommendations set out earlier in this report. The recommendations in this report, if implemented, would obviate the necessity of introducing a Supplementary Panel as proposed in the Haddington Road Agreement.’  There were 1000 CIDs awarded in September 2014, and 1800 in September 2015: the impact of Ward is clear and will lead to further reductions in the number of teachers on fixed term contracts in the years to come. The latest circular from the DES removes this possibility for ASTI members on fixed term contracts as a result of the repudiation of LRA.

Line four is a smokescreen for those who want to say nothing came out of HRA.

Line five: the dispute is all about the Government breaking the deal

To claim, as several public statements have, that the government has reneged on its side of HRA is to ignore the advice given to Standing Committee following a meeting in October attended by the General Secretaries and Presidents of both ASTI and TUI with senior officials from the  DES and DPER that ‘standing still’ and doing nothing would mean that by default the provisions of LRA would be applied to ASTI members.

It is the ASTI that reneged on the agreements by balloting to withdraw from CP hours. For people who liked doing nothing  for years on new entrants pay (see above) to suddenly claim that doing something is the right course and in the process actually proportionately disadvantage those same new entrants and then say they are doing it to help new entrants is difficult to even write it is so mind alteringly confusing.

Line five is either a deliberate attempt to mislead or willfully disregards the warnings given well in advance.

Line six: S&S money should be paid even if teachers don’t do S&S

The restoration of the payment in two stages is permanent and pensionable for every teacher, whether you did or do S&S or not. It has also been claimed that HRA is silent on the restoration being conditional on signing up to future agreements, but how can anyone expect to be paid a pensionable payment for S&S over the rest of their career for not doing S&S? The loss of this payment is not a result of the official side breaking HRA, but the natural conclusion if ASTI members choose not  to do the work.

Line six does not make sense.

Line seven: There are no consequences of being outside a pay agreement

As early as last November Standing Committee discussed at length the consequences staying outside LRA, the outgoing General Secretary provided a detailed document on the topic. For people to now claim they were threatened during the ballot period is to say they were not listening when all possible consequences were fully aired six months before. Furthermore, some of these consequences were deliberately withheld from members during the ballot period on Croke Park Hours by a decision of CEC. So last October, repeated in December and April the list of consequences included in the latest circular were made very clear, it is not surprising therefore that they now appear in a circular.

Line seven is untruthful.

A few other things:

Fighting an industrial relations war on several fronts will wrap LRA, Junior Cycle and New Entrants Pay  into one process and will invite, in the end, a solution that involves movement on one in exchange for giving something on another.

It also has to be said that even now, when the ASTI has set itself against a solution, the Minister is still willing to discuss the issue, but the leadership has decided there is nothing to be gained by talking.

The line about rejecting ‘one size fits all agreements’ is a precursor to withdrawing from ICTU, and this is yet another thing that will get in the way of restoring all teachers to a single pay scale.


And finally…

The attempt to brush away FEMPI by saying the ASTI will challenge its legality is to ignore the fact that legal advice to Standing Committee three years ago said a challenge would be exceptionally costly and ultimately futile. It is also worth remembering that S&S payments and restarting incremental credit can only be achieved through the amendment of FEMPI, so claiming to have a strategy to take action to recover those payments while challenging the existence of FEMPI is not logical.

Fintan O’Mahony

CEC member 2003-16

Standing Committee 2011-16

ASTI member since 1993

Responses/comments welcome as always

twitter: @levdavidovic

email: natnif2@yahoo.ie



I ran. I lost. Here’s what I said. 

My purpose in running was to offer a different way forward. The first essential of a trade union member is the possession of a sense of solidarity with their weakest colleague and using the pressure of the whole union to bring about improvements and changes for them. In a functioning union everyone must be willing to take action to defend the principles the union holds inviolable. I still believe that no amount of bluster will hide inaction. No amount of talk replaces doing something. If we shirk our responsibility to stand up for the most vulnerable and with them we let everyone down.
I believe that until these gigantic issues of Junior Cycle and Lansdowne Road are dealt with, the focus won’t shift to new entrants pay or reversing austerity cuts. Even then, I’d wager something will get in the way.
The perception of our union is that it is opposed to any change because it is change and not whether it is right or wrong. That it wants to maintain the status quo, preserve the past, glorify it, ignore the outside world. Our members, aside from those of us who engage in union business, are disengaged. If the perception is true our strategy, such as it is, is not working.
The latest history of the ASTI BY John Cunningham is entitled Unlikely Radicals. It refers to the teachers who built our union: being an essentially conservative profession, but forging from that a radical support for their desire to advance education. I wouldn’t like to think we are becoming a union without ideas. 
Nothing worth gaining is ever gained without effort. I know there are many, many good trade unionists in this room who have the interests of classroom teachers at heart in their deliberations, but I wonder how different any of our teaching lives will be next Monday when we return to the classroom because of anything decided here at Convention. The ASTI should be led from the bottom up, not the top down.
I would sincerely like to thanks those 153 delegates who voted for me. 
I would like to acknowledge the many friends I have made here, on Standing Committee and at CEC. 
The support I got from other branches and their members heartened me greatly. 
And the Waterford Branch. As a Tipperary man I am semi detached from Waterford but have found a wonderful home. One delegate put it very well: you’re from the Waterford Branch? That’s some branch!
I am no longer a member of CEC or Standing Committee, so I guess the next time I see you will be at next years Convention. 
Thanks again. 

Fintan O’Mahony



Education in the #ge16 manifestos

Given that education hasn’t been a priority in the election, I thought I’d spend a day or two of my midterm in the spirit of public service (?!) scraping through the political parties’ manifestos for the imminent election to see if any of them have a clue what’s going right in education and how to keep it going, and what’s wrong in with it and how to fix it.

I’m concentrating only on issues at Secondary Level, there are things I’m leaving out (almost all parties mention restoring Guidance cuts for example), pet projects and hairbrained schemes are omitted, but I’ve narrowed it down to pupil-teacher ratio, special education, management, Junior Cycle, and pay, with an emphasis on new entrants. I’m starting with that one

Pay/new entrants

Fine Gael and Labour make no specific commitments on pay. No surprise there: teachers pay and conditions have been tied into the public service in more ways than ever, in relation to everything from sick leave to additional time in lieu of pay.

Fianna Fail want to restore allowance to new entrants. In further pay agreements they say they’ll equalise pay, they too state they are committed to the current pay deal. They also commit to repealing FEMPI over two years. 

Sinn Fein opposes two-tier pay scales, they say. They will prioritise low to middle income earners, ‘work towards’ equalising pay and ending casualisation. Again I assume this means they want to preserve the current pay deal.

PBP plan to reverse all of the cutbacks made to teachers’ pay and conditions. No other detail.

Renua don’t mention pay, but want to have a go at pensions, moving public sector workers from a defined benefit pension scheme to a defined contribution scheme and capping public sector pensions at €60,000 per annum. And they’d do away with increments and introduce ‘merit based pay’. Wow!

I couldn’t find anything from the Greens on pay.

Pupil teacher ratio

FG going for a reduction in PTR to 18:1 over the next five years by funding an extra 2,392 (very specific number there) extra teachers

Labour Delivering the smallest class sizes in the history of the State, 20:1, no classroom with 30+

Fianna Fail: no mention of PTR at second level, either an oversight or a big mistake

Sinn Fein say they will shrink class sizes and gradually reduce the ratio of pupils to teachers from 27:1 to 20:1, beginning with a one point reduction in year one and a further point in year two. After that they say they will analyse the need for reductions and introduce a capital programme to provide for further reductions. This seems to imply the first two points will go without a cost. There’s a further commitment to reduce the PTR to 15:1 in DEIS schools, but that’s only if they win two elections in a row.

Social Democrats: Steadily reducing primary school class sizes to the EU average of 20, but no mention of secondary

AAA-PBP: PBP policy is to establish a maximum class sizes with a long term goal of maximum numbers of students in any class, anywhere in the country set at 18.

Renua aspires to reducing student teacher ratios in line with international best practice, though don’t put a figure on this.

Green Party plans to reduce staff-student ratios across all levels, but no numbers or costs given

Special Education

Fine Gael are proposing in-school speech and language therapy, expanding NEPS, and committed  to ‘progress sections of the EPSEN Act that were introduced on  a non-statutory basis’ with an action plan on Educational Exclusion. All fine, but a poor reflection on five years in power.

Labour’s education document pay scant attention to Special Education: training for students who need assistive technology and mentions in the costing sheet of an allocation of an additional 1,000 SNA posts, additional educational psychologists and increased availability of speech and language therapy (combined cost of €72m). Only the first of these appears in the manifesto itself. Not as comprehensive as it should be (implementing EPSEN in full should be a basic promise) when you’ve had the department for a full term.

Fianna Fail say they will restore resource teaching hours to 100% of recommended hours at a cost of €70 million. Allocation should be based on need they say and they promise to employ 100 new psychologists at a cost of €7 million in 2017, with priority given to schools in disadvantaged areas. No mention EPSEN Act; curious as the FF leader often uses it a sign of his success in the department.

Sinn Fein promises to increase the number of psychologists in NEPS by 10%, to increase resource-teaching hours for children by 15% and increase funding for SNA provision to facilitate greater access by children with special needs. Lacking in detail on provision of SNAs, no mention of implementing EPSEN in full. And no numbers.

The Social Democrats if in government intend to invest in SNAs by removing the cap on appointment and giving them CPD. After that it’s special education provision based on need. That’s it. The lack of detail here is obvious, like I say in the summary of their policy, they don’t seem to have someone working on education.

The AAA manifesto talks about early intervention for students with special needs, matching SNAs with school needs, but considering the individual student’s needs. The PBP manifesto goes a bit further promising a full-time NEPS psychologist for every 200 students, widening the qualifying criteria for special needs support and provision of a full-time SNA for any student who needs one. This is all fine, but anybody could have said this, how is it proposed to do it?

Renua: ‘the extension of disability into the Ombudsman’s remit will play a key role in enforcing the often neglected rights of the disabled in Irish schools’. They say support structures for schools will be made available to ‘clusters of schools with their allocation based on need’. Would like to hear of a model for this type of provision, it seems to suggest the same kind of autonomy FG are suggesting.

The Greens have no mention of special education at all.

School Management/Moratorium on posts of responsibility

Fine Gael want everything localised: decision making, education clusters, a school excellence fund (no details). They believe local autonomy will improve school leadership, finance, accountability for performance and complaints procedures for parents. This is a major ideological difference from all other parties. I don’t intend to tell you who to vote for, but if this happens, and you work in education, your job is going to change past the point of rescue.

The Labour document mentions the new Centre for School Leadership, with a budget of €3m to mentor and support new school leaders, which it introduced late last year without telling the teacher unions,they say that it will ensure that every newly appointed principal has a Masters-level qualification in school leadership by 2020, as if that’s the only prerequisite for good leadership. It’s interesting how the two outgoing government parties are interested in beefing up the power of management, perhaps because they have seen over the last five years that this is the group most eager to comply. There is no mention to speak of the restoration of promotional posts in schools specifically, though there are some references to the public service in general.

Fianna Fail is committing ‘rebuilding middle management structures within both primary and secondary schools by removing the moratorium on posts of responsibility for assistant principals’. What about for special duties teachers? If this isn’t an oversight, then it seems to suggest that the B-post structure, as it used to be known, would disappear and there would be far fewer promotional opportunities for teachers, and far more competition for those that remain. Not a recipe for a contented staffroom. 

In both the AAA and PBP documents there are mentions of lifting the moratorium on posts of responsibility.

Sinn Fein don’t mention changes to management structures or the moratorium that I can find anywhere in their manifesto. Neither do the Greens.

Social Democrats propose lifting the moratorium on the recruitment of Special Duties posts (but not Assistant Principals?).

Renua  want to limit the length of  a principal’s contract, renewable every six years.They call assistant principals ‘assistant managers’, saying they, and principals should be allowed back into teaching if they want to go back. They also propose post holders would have their roles ‘term bound’ too. It calls the moratorium a ‘downgrading’ and a ‘deeply regrettable consequence of choices made during the financial crisis’. It does not mention a commitment to reverse the moratorium.

Renua are big into management. Some of these proposals are a huge departure from the current system, and the kind of management speak they use would scare quite a few.

Junior Cycle

There is no mention at all in the Fine Gael manifesto and Labour only mention it in reference to the wonderful work they’ve done so far. They seem to think it’s a done deal and they just need to tick a box or two when they come back into power. Oh dear.

The Fianna Fail make an interesting proposal on Junior Cycle. No they don’t want to scrap it but they want to restore History as a core subject. This is proof that a lobbying campaign can work, even if they don’t exactly say how it can be done.

Renua thinks the Junior Certificate (sic) and Leaving Certificate should be moved on to self-directed learning and continuous assessment(Labour also wants to extend the reform agenda to Leaving Cert). They appear to want to go beyond Junior Cycle reform. In fairness to them it isn’t populism, but it is nonsense.

The PBP manifesto promises to resist curriculum changes like the new Junior Cycle because they lead to ‘a marketised model’.

The Greens and Social Democrats don’t mention Junior Cycle at all.


Fine Gael overview

Overall this manifesto reads like something very comprehensive, with everything costed and very specific numbers. But when you dig down you find that the promised increases in funding are paltry, and commitments to work on the EPSEN Act are made without any regard for Fine Gael having been in government for the last five years (I can hear all the hacks shouting ‘we were in a crisis’ like Ross in Friends). Everything is costed, but no news on where the funds are to come from. The standout frightener for education at second level is the emphasis on local school autonomy, something that has never been tried in Ireland and will be fiercely resisted. Added to a dodge on the big issue of denominational schooling (everybody should have the school they want, whatever that might be, and we’ll see how it plays out), it doesn’t read as a plan, more of a wish list.

Liked: they go for reducing the PTR to the lower than all the other large parties.

Disliked: the school autonomy plan, not something you enter into without consultation, but consultation was never a strong point for FG. 


The manifesto is heavy on what they did over the life of the last government, which is an obvious gloss, given that there is no mention of the way they invited the anger of virtually every one of the education partners in the last five years. Many of the promises are things we knew they wanted already, but the big deal for them is proposing a new National Convention on Education. The previous Convention called by Labour in 1993 is worth a look because everything, good and bad, proposed in irish education in the last twenty years came out of the resulting report. LINK It doesn’t pander to any particular education partner, although it does promise they will legislate for a Parents’ and Students’ Charter, as well as publishing a new ‘School View’ website, giving parents information on school performance, subject choice and extracurricular options, but that isn’t the same as a league table. Oh no!

Liked: The National Convention is interesting, but can we trust that it won’t be an attempt to railroad education into introducing the latest fads from abroad?

Fianna Fail

On a first read (I read them all twice, full disclosure of how geeky I get at the crossroads of politics and education) the manifesto appears to be the most comprehensive and thorough, someone was definitely listening to the various lobby groups, there’s something for everyone: students, parents, teachers, managers. That’s the problem when you read it a second time is the logistics of doing all of this at the same time.

Liked: counting extracurriculars for Croke Park hours. And saving History.

Disliked: the ‘one for everyone in the audience’ approach.

Sinn Fein

The big difference with the three other big parties here is the lack of costings. The promises cover the broad range of what I read above, but here there’s little detail on where the money will come from, it’s much easier to make promises when you aren’t counting the cost or prioritising spending.

Liked: the mention of pay scales, no other large party has included it/

Disliked: the lack of detail: anyone could write a wish list, but implementation needs planning.

Social Democrats

Again there are no details on cost here, though it’s not mentioned in the manifesto, I know they’ve put a figure on providing free primary education to all children. The emphasis is on primary all through though, there are few specifics on secondary, beyond a passing mention on Guidance Counsellors (not councillors). I get the impression they haven’t got someone working on education, understandable in that it’s a very new party, but something they’ll have to fix. I noticed too that they did not provide a spokesperson on the Newstalk coverage of education (neither did FG or the Greens from this list of parties).

Liked: the mention of mental health in schools

Disliked: the scant detail, another wish list.


There is unfortunately a complete lack of detail here, from both strands of the grouping. The AAA manifesto has a broad call for all cuts to be reversed and adequate resourcing of schools. 

PBP wants to nationalise education and take it completely out of the hands of patron bodies. Both parties have another long wish list, but details on implementation are hard to find. I can see the draw for secondary teachers having class-contact time from a maximum of 22 to 18 hours, but what is to be done with the other four hours? If it’s administrative work, no thanks, I’d rather teach the maximum. The time off would be better used for those with posts of responsibility. Also the idea that every part time teacher is to be made permanent within the 18 hour timetable is a bold proposal, though it doesn’t explain what happens to those teachers when a school changes: fall in numbers, closure, teachers returning from leave, all affect their employment: how would a school function with surplus teachers in significant numbers? I accept the 18 hours might be more achievable with a larger number of teachers, but again, at what cost (in time and money) will this be done?

Liked: the boldness of the plan, it has at it’s heart a desire to revolutionise Irish education (at the least the PBP section has).

Disliked: the unwillingness to get away from a shopping list of bullet points which echo many of the approaches of the larger parties. 

Renua Ireland

Renua’s education policy is a charter for managerialism. It takes a swipe at Board of Management, saying standards of ‘corporate governance’ should be applied them. It suggests high targets and standards for people working in the second level system, which is fair enough until you read elsewhere that they want to ‘introduce a programme of management training that will begin at senior grades within the public sector and be cascaded down over a period of time’. Cascade down, not up. This is an education overview so I won’t go deeply into their proposals on public service pay, conditions and pensions, but I will share this line: ‘introduce a set of supportive tools and sanctions which will assist underperformers in improving their outputs and support managers in dealing with (my emphasis) underperformers after all reasonable steps to improve performance have been taken’. ‘Dealing with’ in this sentence means fire, I take it.


Short and sweet coverage of education here. The standout difference is a green initiative in transition year to provide a two week “learning in nature” scheme where they are involved in preparing and planting land for harvest later that year. Other than that there are the usual boxes ticked, even mentioning a reform of CAO. Run of the mill stuff really, no real thought on what the implications of the changes might be.

Liked: mention of student mental health, ignored in many of the other manifestos

Disliked: no mention at all of special education or pay.


A hell of a way to spend my midterm, I hope this helps!

Fintan O’Mahony








Reads of the Week #51

This week there’s grief, storytelling, education, history, arguing, teachers, y’know: the usual stuff.

Harry Arter interviewed about the devastation he and his fiancee Rachel suffered after the loss of their daughter and how it is the driving force behind his every performance.

John Yorke in The Atlantic: From Avatar to The Wizard of Oz, Aristotle to Shakespeare, there’s one clear form that dramatic storytelling has followed since its inception.

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal comic on fads in education: All is clock! 

‘Irish slaves’: the convenient myth by Liam Hogan, tireless on challenging the myth around this subject.

Even if you beat me: Sally Rooney on the strangely addictive world of student debating

What could be more suspicions than teachers who just wants to be teachers? Asks Carl Hendrick.
Image credit 

Reads of the Week #50: #1916Rising Special

This is pretty momentous for me. I’ve done fifty of these posts now so I wanted to mark that in some way: collecting the best (so far) of the things I’ve read about the 1916 Rising and its commemoration was fitting. Thanks for the many, many hundreds of clicks the tweets, the Facebook posts and the blogposts get, and a special thanks to the hundreds of writers featured. Here’s to the next fifty! 

First Conor O’Malley on The Secret Meeting that set the date Rising.  
Next the Digital Repository of Ireland has an exhibition on ‘Women and the Rising’

This is Damian Shields on the Swede and the Finn who fought in the GPO

John Dorney next  on the meaning of the Easter Rising centenary
The story of the tricolour flag from Jacob’s Biscuit Factory from Brenda Malone. 

Next Felix Larkin on FX Martin’s  view of the ‘altruistic evil’ of the Rising.

Irish artist Fergal McCarthy’s playful comc strip A Country Is Born

How two lawyers ended up on opposing sides in 1916 from Conor Gallagher. 

Margaret Skinnider’s 1916 autobiographical story: Doing my bit for Ireland

“While Dublin was reproducing its squalid version of the Paris Commune….”

Donal Fallon on The Come Here to Me blog on the newspapers’ reaction to the Rising: “While Dublin was reproducing its squalid version of Paris Commune..

A piece on the Proclamation of the Irish Republic’s typography and construction

And finally, another piece by Brenda Malone, this time on Captain John Bowen-Colthurst, insane in Dublin 1916? 
A Storify collection of the original tweets is here

Image above is taken on St. Stephen’s Green, on Easter Monday, 1916, showing Dr. Edmund J. McWeeney reading the Proclamation. 

Reads of the Week #49

I seem to have misplaced the woman I know I must have been. I’m writing this here as I don’t want to forget this later–to gloss over it. What gets lost and found is important: Mary Ann Reilly: Slice of Life: Lost/Loss

The rules are clear: on escalators, you stand on the right and walk on the left. So why did the London Underground ask grumpy commuters to stand on both sides? And could it help avert a looming congestion crisis? The tube at a standstill

There are people who still blame Ted Hughes for the suicide of his wife Sylvia Plath: Stephanie Johnson reviews Sir Jonathan Bate’s biography of Ted Hughes, a forensic account of his doomed marriage to poet Sylvia Plath

From megastars who don’t want a media scrum to those who just don’t want their last days tainted, there can be many reasons for keeping a fatal diagnosis secret – but for those left behind, it can make a death even harder to bear. 

I believe that those who care the most are actually the ones that do the difficult things rather than the ones that make a public song and dance about how sorry they feel for certain children. Why I haven’t got time to wallow in emotion from The Quirky Teacher. 

We should be wary of taking a school culture off the shelf, or simply buying in products that have worked in shiny schools down the road because they promise to solve and satisfy us: Alex Quigley on The Importance of School Culture.

Image credit

Reads of the Week #48

This week there are things to contemplate like:

the power of Facebook (Cass R. Sunstein), 

living a life alongside illness brilliant piece by Ruth Fitzmaurice), 

Gaelic Catholic nationalism and corporal punishment (Sean O’Donnell), 

Mother Teresa’s squalid legacy (Donal MacIntyre), 

Shakespeare and parenting (Ron Charles), and 

the life and poetry of Thomas Kinsella (Adrienne Leavy).

Image credit

Reads of the Week #46

Before a Christmas break, and 270 articles later, this week’s articles cover most of my favourite topics: teaching, reading, film, language, thinking and history. 

Happy Christmas, and most importantly a beautiful new year.

Andy Tharby: It never ceases to amaze me that despite my methodical, largely traditional approach to classroom teaching, my students learn such different things.

100 Novels All Kids Should Read Before Leaving High School from the always brilliant openculture.com.

Years from now, there will be little question as to his place in film history – a prominent seat at the grownups’ table, with a place card highlighting his run of sixteen films from 1977 to 1992, one of the greatest streaks in the history of American cinema. Woody Allen at eighty by Jonathan Kirshner.

It started with a woman giving birth. As the doctor told her to push-push-push! She screamed in pain and yelled a blast of obscenities. Her husband watched, fascinated. This woman could really cuss. “Is this normal?” he asked the midwife, half-joking. “Don’t be embarrassed. It’s a perfectly normal part of giving birth,” the midwife told him. This got him thinking: Is There a Biological Purpose for Profanity? (Jeff Wilser)

Trying to identify and inoculate yourself against bad ideas is always worthwhile, but trying to set others strait is a thankless, task. And maybe a pointless one too. So, David Didau asks, when is it worth arguing about bad ideas?

One of the greatest minds in 20th Century statistics was not a scholar. He brewed beer. Daniel Kopf on The Guinness Brewer Who Revolutionized Statistics.

Image credit 

Reads of the Week #41

Reads this week from Dublin, Baltimore, boxing, the web and the workplace battleground…
From Alan Kinsella here’s an inside view of Croke Park.

In this interview Peter Fleming discusses neoliberalism’s war on workers.
Kate Crane wants to know: what happened to her father Eddy?

Roddy Doyle on Paris under attack.
Lydia Monin writes on Dan Donnelly, Irish boxer, scourge of English fighters.

And finally, Tech is raising our kids, so what? asks Alex Balk

Image credit

Reads of the Week #40

Milestone upon milestones: forty posts and 250+ articles now collected, keep reading:

First Laura Kennedy on Essena O’Neill: a normal 18-year-old: self-obsessed and narcissistic

Next Dawn Cox on Twitter, Secret Teacher and where the truth lies in education

A powerful piece by Binyavanga Wainaina on how to write about Africa

Completely different but equally compelling, Sarah Boxer on the exemplary narcissism of Snoopy. (Two articles on narcissism this week? Better watch myself [in the mirror!!!])

History choice of the week is Dave Hannigan’s piece on Fenway Park and Irish history.
And finally, Xan Brooks interviews Cate Blanchett, it’s great, she’s great, but you knew that.