Threat of industrial action in secondary schools as ASTI rejects Leaving Cert reforms
The ASTI ballot rejected proposals to adopt new support measures for the largest changes to the Leaving Cert in a hundred years – due to be implemented this September.
The union rejected the Department of Education proposal by a margin of 68% to 32%, raising the prospect of industrial action this autumn.
The support measures had already been endorsed by the other major secondary teaching union, the TUI.
In a statement, the union's general secretary Kieran Christie said that the vote shows that second level teachers 'have real and significant concerns' regarding the senior cycle overhaul programme.
He said that a key concern is a perceived lack of resources to aid teachers in implementing the new programme, which would see a minimum of 40% of marks at Leaving Cert level delivered by project work.
Teachers had expressed concerns as to how those reforms are to be effectively implemented, and how the growing challenge of Artificial Intelligence is to be handled, with the unions arguing that insufficient time had been given towards easing the transition to the new format.
Mr Christie said that the supports offered by the Department of Education, which included a commitment to early reviews of the implementation of the new reforms and the creation of specific posts of responsibility to support that implementation, 'do little to provide a senior cycle experience for all students that addresses the core inequalities that are in place in the second-level system'.
Minister for Education Helen McEntee said she had noted the result of the ASTI's vote, but said that, given the ASTI's members had previously committed to cooperating with senior cycle redevelopment that the reforms would 'continue as planned'.
'The implementation of the programme will continue with the introduction of the first tranche of new and revised Leaving Certificate subjects in September 2025 as previously announced,' the Minister said, adding that engagement with the TUI will ensue in the coming days for the implementation of the support measures that the ASTI has now rejected.
Last April, both the ASTI and TUI served warning of potential industrial action should the then-ongoing engagement with the Government regarding the controversial new reforms not reach an acceptable conclusion.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Extra.ie
a day ago
- Extra.ie
Enoch Burke wins appeal over make-up of disciplinary panel
A teacher's union leader cannot be allowed to decide whether Enoch Burke is allowed to keep his job, due to potential bias, the Court of Appeal has ruled. Mr Burke had objected to Teachers' union leader Kieran Christie forming part of a three-person panel, which would decide whether to uphold the controversial teacher's dismissal from Wilson's Hospital School in January 2023. He accused Mr Christie, the General Secretary of the Association of Secondary Teachers in Ireland (ASTI), of being a 'promoter of transgenderism'. Enoch Burke. Pic: Colin Keegan/Collins Dublin Mr Burke claimed to the court that Mr Christie had promoted or advanced transgenderism in schools, and had worked closely with Transgender Equality Network Ireland (TENI) over many years. While siding with Mr Burke, the appeal court refused to make a disciplinary panel pay his costs, citing Mr Burke's 'egregious contempt' of a High Court order that compelled him to stay away from Wilson's Hospital School. The controversial teacher was first suspended almost three years ago, in August 2022, and remains on full pay until his appeal against dismissal can be decided. Enoch Burke. Pic: Collins Courts The suspension followed his reaction to being asked to address a transitioning student by a new name and the pronoun 'they', which included his outbursts at a school meeting, dinner and chapel service. He said his Christian belief only recognised two genders, male and female, and has said he cannot condone 'transgenderism'. Mr Burke also argued in court that the ASTI had 'unequivocally advised schools to accept and use transgender pronouns', referencing a newspaper article in which its Deputy General Secretary, Diarmaid de Paor, said: 'ASTI advises schools to use the pronouns that students request to be addressed by.' Court of Appeal Judge Mary Faherty said Mr Burke had made out a strong case that 'that there is a reasonable apprehension of objective bias if Mr Christie remains part of the [Disciplinary Appeal Panel] DAP'. Enoch Burke. Pic: Collins Courts She said it was reasonable to conclude that Mr de Paor had the 'informal or tacit approval' of the ASTI executive in making his remarks. Judge Faherty continued: 'My finding is premised on the nature of Mr Christie's role in the ASTI, and on the basis that a reasonable observer properly apprised of all the facts would understand that the ASTI's position regarding students who wish to be addressed by a different pronoun, whilst not a formal policy, is likely to be adhered to by schools and indeed would appear to have been adhered to by the school in this case. 'The position adopted by the ASTI Executive runs counter to the appellant's position. In that circumstance, an apprehension of objective bias arises if Mr Christie remains on the DAP.' She said the balance of justice weighed in favour of an injunction against the disciplinary appeal, with Mr Christie on the panel. She said she believed another ASTI representative could take Mr Christie's position. She explained: 'No other nominee of the ASTI (whether coming from within or without the union) would be as implicated with the acceptance of the ASTI's position on a transitioning student's preferred choice of pronoun as Mr Christie is.' However, she said she had to weigh up the appeal board's argument, that Mr Burke should not get the benefit of court protection, due to his longstanding contempt of a High Court Order that he stay away from Wilson's Hospital School. The board said Mr Burke should not get to 'pick and choose' which orders of the courts he respected. Judge Faherty said Mr Burke had already been jailed three times, and daily fines of up to €1,400 were being deducted from his salary for his continued attendance at the school. 'The appellant is paying a high financial price for his refusal to abide by the orders of the court, which, it has to be said, he has brought upon himself,' she said. She said she wanted to emphasise that in granting the injunction, the court was 'not condoning the appellant's egregious contempt'. However, she said the courts had already taken action against Mr Burke regarding the contempt. She said she would therefore, 'albeit with a great deal of reluctance', allow Mr Burke's appeal, and would restrain the DAP from holding an appeal 'as presently constituted of the appellant's appeal against his dismissal'. There would otherwise be a 'spectre of unfairness' over the appeal, she said, in which Mr Burke could lose his job and livelihood. She refused to make the DAP pay Mr Burke's legal costs in the appeal, due to his 'egregious contempt'. Speaking after the ruling was given, an ASTI spokesperson said: 'While the ASTI is disappointed at today's ruling, we wish to examine the judgement in detail before making any further comment.'
Irish Examiner
a day ago
- Irish Examiner
Enoch Burke wins court appeal over disciplinary panel bias in dismissal case
Teacher Enoch Burke has won an appeal over the composition of a disciplinary panel set up to hear his appeal against his dismissal from Wilson's Hospital school. Mr Burke claimed a member of the three-person appeals panel, Association of Secondary Teachers in Ireland (ASTI) general secretary Kieran Christie, was a 'promoter of transgenderism'. The appeals panel denied his claim. Ms Justice Mary Faherty, on behalf of the three-judge Court of Appeal, said with "a great deal of reluctance", she would grant an injunction to Mr Burke restraining the appeals panel, as presently constituted, from from holding a hearing. Mr Burke spent more than 500 days in prison for repeatedly disobeying High Court orders not to attend at Wilson's Hospital school in Co Westmeath, where he had been employed as a history and German teacher. When he was dismissed in 2023, he sought an appeal through the normal employment process but then brought a High Court challenge claiming appeals panel member, Mr Christie, was an activist for transgenderism within the ASTI and was personally or objectively biased. In December 2023, the High Court rejected his challenge, saying Mr Burke had not discharged the burden on him of establishing there was a fair question to be tried of a reasonable apprehension of bias. He appealed to the Court of Appeal and the panel opposed his appeal. On Friday, Ms Justice Faherty, for the Court of Appeal, said while accepting Mr Christie does not sit on the appeals panel in his capacity as general secretary of the ASTI, it must nevertheless be the case that Mr Christie's role in the ASTI, which has advised schools to use a transitioning student's preferred choice of pronoun, would be influential to the reasonable independent observer. In those circumstances, she could not agree with the High Court judge that there was not a fair question to be tried in relation to any issue of which it was claimed the ASTI had taken a position. She rejected Mr Burke's suggestion that if his objection to Mr Christie was well-founded, the objection must similarly be well-founded in relation to any other person nominated by the ASTI. The judge said there remained the question as to whether Mr Burke, with his history of contempt of court, "gets to pick and choose how and when he gets to invoke the court's protection and jurisdiction'. Mr Burke, apart from spending more than 500 days in prison over a number of periods, was also the subject of daily €700 and later €1,400 fines for every time he turned up at the school. Recently, the High Court made orders permitting the seizure of money to pay the fines from the bank account into which his school salary continued to be paid pending the Court of Appeal decision. Ms Justice Faherty said she considered his contempt no less egregious now than when he was before the High Court challenging the appeals panel. However, the distinguishing feature of the present case was the spectre of unfairness that will hover over the disciplinary appeal process if he has to face that body as presently constituted given he has made out a case of a reasonable apprehension of objective bias, she said. While it was normal for the loser in a case to pay the winner's costs, the court was "not in normal territory" here. The judge said there would be no costs order in Mr Burke's favour, save an order setting aside the costs order made against him in the High Court.
Irish Times
a day ago
- Irish Times
Enoch Burke wins injunction to halt disciplinary panel hearing his appeal over dismissal
Teacher Enoch Burke has won an appeal over the composition of a disciplinary panel set up to hear his appeal against his dismissal. Mr Burke claimed a member of the three-person appeals panel, Association of Secondary Teachers in Ireland (ASTI) general secretary, Kieran Christie, was a 'promoter of transgenderism'. The appeals panel denied his claim. Ms Justice Mary Faherty, on behalf of the three-judge Court of Appeal, said with 'a great deal of reluctance', she would grant an injunction to Mr Burke restraining the appeals panel, as presently constituted, from hearing the respondents from holding a hearing. Mr Burke spent more than 500 days in prison for repeatedly disobeying High Court orders not to attend at Wilson's Hospital School in Co Westmeath where he had been employed as a history and German teacher. READ MORE He went through a disciplinary hearing after publicly clashing with school management when the then-principal Niamh McShane requested that teachers call a child 'they' instead of 'he'. He has argued transgenderism is against his Christian religious beliefs and requiring him to do so was unconstitutional and contrary to the ethos of Wilson's of which the Church of Ireland is school patron. When he was dismissed in 2023, he sought an appeal through the normal employment process but then brought a High Court challenge claiming that appeals panel member, Mr Christie, was an 'activist for transgenderism' within the ASTI and was personally or objectively biased. In December 2023, the High Court rejected his challenge saying Mr Burke had not discharged the burden on him of establishing that there was a fair question to be tried of a reasonable apprehension of bias. He appealed to the Court of Appeal and the panel opposed his appeal. On Friday, Ms Justice Faherty, for the Court of Appeal, said that while accepting Mr Christie does not sit on the appeals panel in his capacity as General Secretary of the ASTI, it must nevertheless be the case that Mr. Christie's role in the ASTI, which has advised schools to use a transitioning student's preferred choice of pronoun, would be influential to the reasonable independent observer. In those circumstances, she could not agree with the High Court judge that there was not a fair question to be tried in relation to any issue of which it was claimed the ASTI had taken a position. She rejected Mr Burke's suggestion that if his objection to Mr. Christie was well founded, the objection must similarly be well-founded in relation to any other person nominated by the ASTI. The judge said there remained the question as to whether Mr Burke, with his history of contempt of court 'gets to pick and choose how and when he gets to invoke the court's protection and jurisdiction'. Mr Burke, apart from spending more than 500 days in prison over a number of periods, was also the subject of daily €700 and later €1,400 fines for every time he turned up at the school. Recently the High Court made orders permitting the seizure of money to pay the fines from the bank account into which his school salary continued to be paid pending the Court of Appeal decision. Ms Justice Faherty said she considered his contempt no less egregious now than when he was before the High Court challenging the appeals panel. However, the distinguishing feature of the present case was the spectre of unfairness that will hover over the disciplinary appeal process if he has to face that body as presently constituted given that he has made out a case of a reasonable apprehension of objective bias, she said. While it was normal for the loser in a case to pay the winner's costs, the court was 'not in normal territory' here. The judge said there would be no costs order in Mr Burke favour save an order setting aside the costs order made against him in the High Court.
