Teachers revolting.

Seems like an awfully hit-and-miss way of getting an outcome Sepi. At the end of the day there’d still be many teachers and principals getting paid regardless of how little education students received.

The following equation would make more sense:

– school leaders made more accountable and schools made less politically correct
= better education for our kids

Ok, I’ll bite.

I am a card-carrying AEU member and a new teacher.

We get paid more as graduates because we do more. I teach the same number of classes/students, do the same administration, duties, etc.etc. to the same professional standards as someone who has been doing it for the past thirty years. From my first day.
A graduate lawyer, to quote the example, does essentially nothing compared to someone who has been in the game for 30 years.

The “9-3” image people have of us is wrong. We officially work from 8.30 to 4.51 Monday to Friday. We are supposed to get an hour break in the middle. We don’t. I have a half hour break every Friday, apart from that I am teaching, administrating, on duty, preparing, calling/emailing parents, marking or caring for students because we have HALF of the directorate mandated cousellor allocation. I get sworn at by teenagers almost every day. Once I get home, I continue with some combination of these things until I go to bed. Most nights I have trouble getting to sleep because I am worried about some of my 124 students. Come week 6 or 7 of each term I will be writing 15,000 words of report comments that have to be perfect. I have absolutely no oppertunity to do this inside of my 37.5 hours of work time. Adjusting for the eight extra weeks of stand down time I have over a “normal” ACTPS employee, I still work an average of 43 hours a week. Where are my RDO’s? Not many teachers keep up this pace, the average retention is 4-5 years for a new teacher.

I gave up a significantly higher wage, and much greater earnings potential to become a teacher. I’m never going to earn a lot of money, and the profession would attract the wrong people if I could. I teach for the feeling that I get when my kids succeed, and when they and their parents thank me – I’m on top of the world but that doesn’t pay the bills. The ACT LA loves to brag about having the strongest economy in the nation – which is great… Except with that strong economy comes a high cpi, high rents and a high cost of living. We are the lowest paid but highest performing teachers in the country, living in the most expensive jurisdiction to live. The ACT is bleeding quality, experienced teachers because we can live in the major NSW centres cheaply and get paid 8-15% more. What would you do if you had a family to provide for? I would be out of here tomorrow.

We are trying to gain wage parity with NSW teachers, who are striking over their own wages!!!

National Curriculum, National Standards and inequitable renumeration – we want to see National Wages as well.

Maybe they are thinking:

– strike for better pay
= better paid teachers
= happier teachers
= good teachers sticking around longer
= less new young teachers in charge of whole subject areas
= better education for our kids.

Bump.

Teachers will be revolting again next week. CT article giving details is here. Apparently this time it’s in support of the grossly underpaid principals and deputy principals.

Are there any teachers out there who are members of the AEU and who are willing to clue us in on how this kind of strike action is helping kids get a better education?

Thanks teachers for ruining my wife’s plans for Thursday. Also, great idea for a half day strike, how many parents are going to be able to organise to have their kids dropped off at lunchtime instead of 9 in the morning? This action will have more impact on society than the convoy last week!!!

2604 said :

poetix said :

Everyone needs good teachers, whereas lawyers are generally optional luxuries.

You obviously have no idea at all how capitalism or government works. Every item on every supermarket shelf in Australia is there because of a purchase order which a lawyer drafted. Every road, school, house and office building gets built thanks to a contract drafted by a lawyer. Every person is employed under a contract or collective agreement which is drafted or at least scrutinised by a lawyer. Every bank account exists under agreed terms and conditions which a lawyer drafted. Every single law passed by the government is drafted by lawyers and observed or enforced with the assistance of lawyers.

‘Then I’ll be all around in the dark – I’ll be ever’where—wherever you look. Wherever they’s a fight so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there. Wherever they’s a cop beatin’ up a guy, I’ll be there… I’ll be in the way guys yell when they’re mad an’—I’ll be in the way kids laugh when they’re hungry and they know supper’s ready. An’ when our folk eat the stuff they raise an’ live in the houses they build—why, I’ll be there.’
Steinbeck

An’ wherever there’s self-aggrandisement—why, who’ll be there?

clp said :

Leaving aside the issue of how many hours teachers spend delivering lessons vs other tasks, its in all of our interests to have well-paid teachers – even those without kids.

I would have thought that having competent and highly performing teachers was the paramount consideration.

The idea that spending more money automatically gets you a better quality service is fallacious. If your doctor charged you $55 for each visit and you became aware of another doctor nearby who charged her patients $65 per visit, would you automatically assume that the second doctor treated her patients better, and start visiting her?

poetix said :

Everyone needs good teachers, whereas lawyers are generally optional luxuries.

You obviously have no idea at all how capitalism or government works. Every item on every supermarket shelf in Australia is there because of a purchase order which a lawyer drafted. Every road, school, house and office building gets built thanks to a contract drafted by a lawyer. Every person is employed under a contract or collective agreement which is drafted or at least scrutinised by a lawyer. Every bank account exists under agreed terms and conditions which a lawyer drafted. Every single law passed by the government is drafted by lawyers and observed or enforced with the assistance of lawyers.

I didn’t say anywhere that it was obvious that lawyers should be paid more than teachers. I used the example of graduate lawyers because that’s what I know about from my own career. I understand that graduate accountants also earn around $50,000 per year, so that could have been another example.

Leaving aside the issue of how many hours teachers spend delivering lessons vs other tasks, its in all of our interests to have well-paid teachers – even those without kids. This whole picking on teachers because they work shorter days is getting really tired – I remember my parents whinging about it when I was at school.

The facts remain that we need to attract good people to teaching and the continued under-valuing of our teachers does not help.

I will be inconvenienced by Thursday’s industrial action but frankly the teachers have my support in their claims.

@ all (or nearly all) 2604’s comments

Perhaps teachers should be paid more than lawyers. I don’t like your assumption that somehow it’s obvious that lawyers should be paid more. Everyone needs good teachers, whereas lawyers are generally optional luxuries.

And I do have a law degree, but I don’t practise as a lawyer.

Henry82 said :

The pay difference between lawyers and teachers is because there is a HUGE demand for teachers, and a HUGE oversupply of lawyers.

The fact that lawyers are generally paid market rates and don’t have a rabid union holding government to ransom might also be a factor.

The pay difference between lawyers and teachers is because there is a HUGE demand for teachers, and a HUGE oversupply of lawyers. Studying law is certainly flavour of the month, and seems to be viewed as a pathway for success.

wooster said :

Teaching is a profession now?

Nah just joshin’ ya. But seriously. Sounds like the first-years are a bit overpaid, given nearly all of my peers a few years back who went into teaching were the ones that stuck pencils up their noses in class.

Sad state of affairs really, but throwing money at the problem is not going to solve the issue. The profession is in crisis because the best and the brightest no longer go into teaching.

I know a few young teachers who apparently are required to teach English. They’ve never read any shakespeare and have no grouding in any of the classics. I would do all I could to get my kids into classes with older teachers – from back in the days when it meant something to be a teacher.

Do you think perhaps it’s possible that the best and brightest no longer go into teaching BECAUSE the pay incentive is not enough, given that actually a degree-holder could walk into a middle-management position in public or private sector at somewhere around that $60-65K mark? This for a job which does not require the round-the-clock work that teaching does, nor the same level of stress.

I really don’t see how that seems too high an amount for a first-year teacher. From what I have seen, the first year of a teacher’s career is incredibly hard on them. The time and energy my friends have dedicated during their first year on the job is simply massive. And as has been highlighted, it’s not only a pay rate issue but the level of support for first-year teachers seldom seems to be enough from my perspective, being the anecdotal evidence from those I know…

I would agree that there are certainly teachers around whom don’t dedicate that much time & energy, and those from that crowd with the pencils up their nose. But it’s these teachers we want to weed out by making this profession more… ‘elite’ for lack of a better word.

creative_canberran said :

2604 said :

If the union has its way, by the end of the new EBA first year teachers will be getting paid $65,000 per year to teach 10.8 classroom hours per week. That salary is around $15,000 more than graduate lawyers get paid and would work out to $150.46 for every hour the first year teachers would spend in front of a class.

At the ANU Open day on Saturday, I saw a slide during a presentation by an ANU academic that stated that graduates from the law school are typically averaging salary packages of $50K in their first jobs after finishing uni.

According to the ANU data, software engineers are currently the highest paid graduates, with average starting packages of $55K per annum. This reflects my experience of the industry.

I’m all for paying teachers more money, but a $65K starting salary for a recent graduate seems a little out of line with what could be expected in other fields

Using the phrase “graduate lawyer” just proves one doesn’t know Jack Scheiße.
Clerk, solicitor, paralegal? What the heck is a graduate lawyer?

In any case, that $15,000 figure has no basis.

And even if it did, trying to distil the work teachers do into a single sum of classroom hours is as useless as trying to gauge the academic performance of a university student based on how many ours they’re in lectures.

Teaching is a profession now?

Nah just joshin’ ya. But seriously. Sounds like the first-years are a bit overpaid, given nearly all of my peers a few years back who went into teaching were the ones that stuck pencils up their noses in class.

Sad state of affairs really, but throwing money at the problem is not going to solve the issue. The profession is in crisis because the best and the brightest no longer go into teaching.

I know a few young teachers who apparently are required to teach English. They’ve never read any shakespeare and have no grouding in any of the classics. I would do all I could to get my kids into classes with older teachers – from back in the days when it meant something to be a teacher.

Gerry-Built said :

2604 said :

It is particularly high for someone who may have only studied for three years

I’m pretty sure any teacher has undertaken a minimum of 4 years of tertiary study (first degree + GradDipEd or 4 year combined degree/B.Ed). And many, like myself, have come into teaching after several years working in other fields; bringing many years of life experience/industry experience. For me, a drop of $18,000 in pay (a decade ago, from APS 6 to Beginning Teacher), was extremely unattractive – but I felt truly “called” to the profession through my experience working with adolescent kids and my interests in technology and the arts(and still enjoy most of it, despite the stress caused by difficult kids – now if we could just get some support to help deal with their “issues” and behaviour)…

2604 said :

and for someone who is only being asked to spend a few hours per week in face-to-face teaching duties. While I acknowledge that each lesson requires planning and marking etc, I still think that $150 is too much for ACT taxpayers to stump up for every hour of lessons being delivered by a brand-new teacher.

What the additional time off teaching will allow new teachers, is to have some professional mentoring from an experienced teacher, as well as time to observe experienced teachers in practice. That will have benefits in the short term of enabling new teachers to quickly pick up skills that otherwise take years to develop from experience and trial and error. I do wonder how you reached the $150/hr figure, too…

Principals do not teach (certainly not regular, scheduled classes); their role is a purely administrative one.

I don’t understand how you could be married to a High School PE teacher and believe they undertake no marking and perform limited preparation… I simply cannot fathom a professional in the same profession as I, performing minimal planning for lessons and not undertaking regularly assessment of student progress, development and achievement… Either you do not truly understand what she(sorry, assuming you are male) does, or she is not accurately reflecting the role of a High School Teacher to you (or, least likely, not doing a fair dinkum job). And the suggestion that teachers develop “pick-’em-up-‘n’-teach-’em”-type packs is simply jaw-dropping… a total embarrassment to the teaching profession…

I’m so glad you’re in our schools, Gerry-Built! You sound like a passionate teacher and somebody genuinely motivated by the profession. If it were up to me, I’d be paying you top dollar as teaching is without doubt one of the MOST important (and one of the toughest!) jobs going.

That’s all!

2604 said :

It is particularly high for someone who may have only studied for three years

I’m pretty sure any teacher has undertaken a minimum of 4 years of tertiary study (first degree + GradDipEd or 4 year combined degree/B.Ed). And many, like myself, have come into teaching after several years working in other fields; bringing many years of life experience/industry experience. For me, a drop of $18,000 in pay (a decade ago, from APS 6 to Beginning Teacher), was extremely unattractive – but I felt truly “called” to the profession through my experience working with adolescent kids and my interests in technology and the arts(and still enjoy most of it, despite the stress caused by difficult kids – now if we could just get some support to help deal with their “issues” and behaviour)…

2604 said :

and for someone who is only being asked to spend a few hours per week in face-to-face teaching duties. While I acknowledge that each lesson requires planning and marking etc, I still think that $150 is too much for ACT taxpayers to stump up for every hour of lessons being delivered by a brand-new teacher.

What the additional time off teaching will allow new teachers, is to have some professional mentoring from an experienced teacher, as well as time to observe experienced teachers in practice. That will have benefits in the short term of enabling new teachers to quickly pick up skills that otherwise take years to develop from experience and trial and error. I do wonder how you reached the $150/hr figure, too…

Principals do not teach (certainly not regular, scheduled classes); their role is a purely administrative one.

I don’t understand how you could be married to a High School PE teacher and believe they undertake no marking and perform limited preparation… I simply cannot fathom a professional in the same profession as I, performing minimal planning for lessons and not undertaking regularly assessment of student progress, development and achievement… Either you do not truly understand what she(sorry, assuming you are male) does, or she is not accurately reflecting the role of a High School Teacher to you (or, least likely, not doing a fair dinkum job). And the suggestion that teachers develop “pick-’em-up-‘n’-teach-’em”-type packs is simply jaw-dropping… a total embarrassment to the teaching profession…

Gerry-Built said :

2604 said :

Also, let’s not forget that there are subjects which require no marking and minimal lesson planning, like PE and dance.

Well – this comment just proves you have no idea of what is actually involved in teaching… in fact, that whole comment is really full of half-truths and over-simplifications (which is pretty standard for your attacks on teachers). I sure hope there are a few Dance teachers and PE teachers on RA that could give you a more informed idea of what they in fact do, because I teach Woodwork, Metalwork, Media and Computing subjects; and if anyone had stated something similar about my subjects, I’d be furious.

“Incidental” tasks, whilst falling lower in importance than actual face-to-face teaching, certainly don’t take a lesser amount of time than that of that primary task and are certainly just as much an expectation of the job…

Gerry – my post wasn’t intended as an “attack” on you or any other teacher. In fact, from our discussions over the last few months, you come across as a dedicated teacher and one who is reasonable enough to discuss the pros and cons of the ACT system without taking stuff personally.

I actually have a pretty fair idea of what teachers in the subject areas I named “in fact do”, given that I am married to one.

My beef is not with teachers. It is with the idea being put by their union. My view is that $66,000 (not $65,000 – my mistake) per year is too high a graduate salary for any profession. It is particularly high for someone who may have only studied for three years, and for someone who is only being asked to spend a few hours per week in face-to-face teaching duties. While I acknowledge that each lesson requires planning and marking etc, I still think that $150 is too much for ACT taxpayers to stump up for every hour of lessons being delivered by a brand-new teacher.

By comparison, it would cost the taxpayer less – $144.83 per hour – to have a Category 2 Principal teaching each class. (Assuming that Principal teaches an 18 hour face-to-face teaching week, and based upon current pay rates for Principals, not future ones).

2604 said :

Also, let’s not forget that there are subjects which require no marking and minimal lesson planning, like PE and dance.

Well – this comment just proves you have no idea of what is actually involved in teaching… in fact, that whole comment is really full of half-truths and over-simplifications (which is pretty standard for your attacks on teachers). I sure hope there are a few Dance teachers and PE teachers on RA that could give you a more informed idea of what they in fact do, because I teach Woodwork, Metalwork, Media and Computing subjects; and if anyone had stated something similar about my subjects, I’d be furious.

“Incidental” tasks, whilst falling lower in importance than actual face-to-face teaching, certainly don’t take a lesser amount of time than that of that primary task and are certainly just as much an expectation of the job…

Watson said :

Hey! I was genuinely just asking! I am all for improving teachers’ working conditions.

Wow… having just re-read my response, I realise that came off a whole lot more sarcastic than the humourous tongue-in-cheek I was going for… my apologies…

2604 said :

…which will minimise if not eliminate the need to undertake lesson planning in future.

Any teacher worth their salt is constantly reviewing what content they deliver and how they deliver it. Any move to create such units eliminates the need to have professionally trained educators. You may as well replace classroom teachers with APS 4-6 staff and be done with it (or record a whole package of videos and throw them up on YouTube). What an absolutely shocking state-of-affairs for a school (and one I quite simply find unbelievable). Even the standardised National Curriculum simply states what needs to be covered, with no detail and certainly no prescribed method of teaching it. Any teacher that would pick up last year’s materials and reteach them, or pick up a package and simply deliver that; isn’t worth having in front of a classroom…

2604 said :

Gerry, the 10.8 contact hours figure is 0.6 of the reduced 18-hour per week contact load the Union is pressing for.

I still don’t get that one. My child in year 1 does get to see her teacher for well over 18 hours a week? And that’s not including the playground duties that seem to typically be given more often to first year teachers?

Grail said :

2604 said :

If the union has its way, by the end of the new EBA first year teachers will be getting paid $65,000 per year to teach 10.8 classroom hours per week. That salary is around $15,000 more than graduate lawyers get paid and would work out to $150.46 for every hour the first year teachers would spend in front of a class.

Seriously? You’re expecting to only pay teachers for hours they spend in the classroom with students?

Would you also expect to only pay your lawyer for the time they spend in the courtroom with you? Would you also expect your surgeon to be paid based on the hours they have a patient on the table? Should we also only pay police for the time they spend arresting felons or directing traffic?

In what version of reality does it make any form of sense to divide yearly salary by hours spent doing one facet of a job?

Bizarre doesn’t begin to cover your argument.

You need to (a) calm down and (b) stop building strawmen at 1.30am.

Like it or not, teachers are paid to teach students. As my wife is a high school teacher I am well aware that teachers have to undertake lesson planning, reporting, student management and marking which are incidental to classroom teaching. However, the amount of time taken up by all of these should not be overestimated – particularly given the increasing incidence of standardised curricula and teaching and learning materials. Indeed, the principal at my wife’s school is making his staff develop teaching units – complete with resources – which will minimise if not eliminate the need to undertake lesson planning in future.

Also, let’s not forget that there are subjects which require no marking and minimal lesson planning, like PE and dance.

Gerry, the 10.8 contact hours figure is 0.6 of the reduced 18-hour per week contact load the Union is pressing for.

creative_canberran said :

2604 said :

If the union has its way, by the end of the new EBA first year teachers will be getting paid $65,000 per year to teach 10.8 classroom hours per week. That salary is around $15,000 more than graduate lawyers get paid and would work out to $150.46 for every hour the first year teachers would spend in front of a class.

Using the phrase “graduate lawyer” just proves one doesn’t know Jack Scheiße.
Clerk, solicitor, paralegal? What the heck is a graduate lawyer?

In any case, that $15,000 figure has no basis.

“Graduate lawyer” is what non-admitted graduates are called in the firm that I work for. You can call them “first year lawyers” or “first year solicitors” or “graduate solicitors” if it helps you sleep better.

$50,000 is what they get paid in our firm.

2604 said :

That salary is around $15,000 more than graduate lawyers get paid

…and the chronic shortage of people in the legal profession has been clearly identified, too, right? I hear it is a really hard industry to recruit to. 😛

Gerry-Built said :

Watson said :

Fair enough. But why are principals mentioned separately?

Well; clearly that is all part of the conspiracy… that, or there were separate claims against the previous offer as far as Principals are concerned (which obviously have not been addressed in the latest offer)… I’ll let you judge (again, this was clearly addressed to the membership of the Union, so there is some contextual basis to the document – which is part of a series addressed to members in the last few months).

Hey! I was genuinely just asking! I am all for improving teachers’ working conditions.

2604 said :

If the union has its way, by the end of the new EBA first year teachers will be getting paid $65,000 per year to teach 10.8 classroom hours per week. That salary is around $15,000 more than graduate lawyers get paid and would work out to $150.46 for every hour the first year teachers would spend in front of a class.

Using the phrase “graduate lawyer” just proves one doesn’t know Jack Scheiße.
Clerk, solicitor, paralegal? What the heck is a graduate lawyer?

In any case, that $15,000 figure has no basis.

And even if it did, trying to distil the work teachers do into a single sum of classroom hours is as useless as trying to gauge the academic performance of a university student based on how many ours they’re in lectures.

2604 said :

If the union has its way, by the end of the new EBA first year teachers will be getting paid $65,000 per year to teach 10.8 classroom hours per week. That salary is around $15,000 more than graduate lawyers get paid and would work out to $150.46 for every hour the first year teachers would spend in front of a class.

Seriously? You’re expecting to only pay teachers for hours they spend in the classroom with students?

Would you also expect to only pay your lawyer for the time they spend in the courtroom with you? Would you also expect your surgeon to be paid based on the hours they have a patient on the table? Should we also only pay police for the time they spend arresting felons or directing traffic?

In what version of reality does it make any form of sense to divide yearly salary by hours spent doing one facet of a job?

Bizarre doesn’t begin to cover your argument.

2604 said :

OK then, I’ll answer my own question and let you correct me if I’m wrong.

If the union has its way, by the end of the new EBA first year teachers will be getting paid $65,000 per year to teach 10.8 classroom hours per week. That salary is around $15,000 more than graduate lawyers get paid and would work out to $150.46 for every hour the first year teachers would spend in front of a class.

yeah, by all means use your $150.46/hr rate for the 10.8(?)hrs face-to-face. All the prep time and administrative work required undertaken in the other 27 hours+/week can be provided free of charge…

Also keep in mind that even with such generous starting pay, attracting and retaining staff is problematic.

@2604: whilst you’ve over simplified my responses in that post (I think I mentioned that at the time), personally; I’d take an improvement in conditions and support over a more substantial pay rise, for sure. I’m pretty sure I made that clear in previous posts, too (although many of these conditions may be specific to my current School, judging by some responses).

Right now, even with pay at parity with NSW, I don’t see myself teaching in the public system in 5 years time if conditions continue as they are (Hell… at the moment, I’m not sure I’ll make the 2012 teaching year – and I am looking at some alternatives). I have mentioned, in other posts, that Mr Barr’s answers to dwindling student numbers are all way off the mark… and if he bothered to ACTUALLY listen to teachers and others in our school communities, he’d have a very clear indication of where more constructive measures could be found. Although he might need to start with the more basic “what are the problems driving families away from public education?”.

Don’t make the mistake of getting fixated on the face-to-face teaching hours a new teacher is presented with – there is a LOT MORE to teaching then standing in a classroom, presenting to students (it isn’t like they’d do the 11 hours and then bugger off home, or shopping, or out to sip lattes)… and most of that (even for experienced teachers) requires at least as much prep time behind the scenes. All that before you then factor in other parts of the job that don’t involve teaching lessons… New teachers (as in any career) have an awful lot of work in front of them to help them establish themselves in the career…

Gerry-Built said :

2604 said :

Out of interest, Gerry, how much is the union requesting that the government pay first-year teachers to teach their 0.6 load? Both at the start and the end of this proposed new EBA.

.6 reflect “teaching load” ie face-to-face class teaching time. That reduction in teaching time (not hours worked) was traditionally to allow new teachers time to develop their own classroom techniques and resources – including attending PD (training) in a formal and informal (observation etc) sense. The lack of this internship-type loading in the last 15 or so years is one reason that people leaving the profession have given (not just in ACT). It is hard for new teachers to keep their “head above the water” whilst learning the new job, with full teaching load. Keep in mind that the current retainment of new teachers averages around 5 years.

OK then, I’ll answer my own question and let you correct me if I’m wrong.

If the union has its way, by the end of the new EBA first year teachers will be getting paid $65,000 per year to teach 10.8 classroom hours per week. That salary is around $15,000 more than graduate lawyers get paid and would work out to $150.46 for every hour the first year teachers would spend in front of a class.

As for retention, as I said in response to an earlier post of yours regarding the link between higher salaries and staff retention rates:

2604 said :

Gerry, you have posted at length about how frustrating it is being a teacher in a government school because classroom teachers get no support from their executive and every bit of bad behaviour by kids gets excused and/or validated. Don’t you think that fixing such issues is a better solution than pumping up graduate salaries to whatever the ACTEU is demanding?…

Watson said :

Fair enough. But why are principals mentioned separately?

Well; clearly that is all part of the conspiracy… that, or there were separate claims against the previous offer as far as Principals are concerned (which obviously have not been addressed in the latest offer)… I’ll let you judge (again, this was clearly addressed to the membership of the Union, so there is some contextual basis to the document – which is part of a series addressed to members in the last few months).

alaninoz said :

Gerry-Built said :

…made their previous agreement with the impending GFC…

If I’d known there was an impending GFC I’d have made a fortune!

Would you prefer me to modify the comment to say “impending *impact* of the GFC”? It was clear by the time the previous negotiations ceased, that impact was approaching…

2604 said :

Out of interest, Gerry, how much is the union requesting that the government pay first-year teachers to teach their 0.6 load? Both at the start and the end of this proposed new EBA.

.6 reflect “teaching load” ie face-to-face class teaching time. That reduction in teaching time (not hours worked) was traditionally to allow new teachers time to develop their own classroom techniques and resources – including attending PD (training) in a formal and informal (observation etc) sense. The lack of this internship-type loading in the last 15 or so years is one reason that people leaving the profession have given (not just in ACT). It is hard for new teachers to keep their “head above the water” whilst learning the new job, with full teaching load. Keep in mind that the current retainment of new teachers averages around 5 years.

Gerry-Built said :

…made their previous agreement with the impending GFC…

If I’d known there was an impending GFC I’d have made a fortune!

Gerry-Built said :

First year teachers used to get a .6 loading in their first year to allow them to prepare lessons, develop student management techniques and observe lessons (etc). That was a condition removed as a trade-off in a previous EBA negotiation. The Union membership has been arguing that to help retain new teachers, this is a condition that needs to be reinstated so new teachers don’t feel like they are drowning in their first year. Obviously new starters are being offered a .9 load….

If that isn’t a blatant attempt by the union to get more teachers hired and therefore increase their own membership, revenues and influence, I don’t know what is.

Out of interest, Gerry, how much is the union requesting that the government pay first-year teachers to teach their 0.6 load? Both at the start and the end of this proposed new EBA.

alaninoz said :

“Prospective “Teaching Leaders” competing not only against professional standards but against each other for up to 50 positions in the first year.”

And the problem with this is? How does it differ from the situation in most other areas or employment?

What? You mean employees actually have to compete for promotions? Anyone would think this is a normal profession and not a hotbed of lefty whingers.

Gerry-Built said :

Except that teachers got a lot less than ACT public servants were offered last time around… and the Union and Government made their previous agreement with the impending GFC, agreeing that the shortfall would be made up his time around (ie a return to parity with NSW – which is the opposite of what has been offered; an increase in the gap)…

Fair enough. But why are principals mentioned separately?

Yes – the trouble with circulating correspondence intended for Union members is that you have no frame of reference, nor contextual basis for which to understand it… hence the lack of “plain English”…

First year teachers used to get a .6 loading in their first year to allow them to prepare lessons, develop student management techniques and observe lessons (etc). That was a condition removed as a trade-off in a previous EBA negotiation. The Union membership has been arguing that to help retain new teachers, this is a condition that needs to be reinstated so new teachers don’t feel like they are drowning in their first year. Obviously new starters are being offered a .9 load…

Watson said :

That’s quite a bit more than what other ACT Govt employees are being offered.

Except that teachers got a lot less than ACT public servants were offered last time around… and the Union and Government made their previous agreement with the impending GFC, agreeing that the shortfall would be made up his time around (ie a return to parity with NSW – which is the opposite of what has been offered; an increase in the gap)…

I didn’t get most of that either. Except for this “Nothing for our principal members except a salary increase of 3.5% – an inadequate reflection of an increasingly complex role.”

Well ladida! That’s quite a bit more than what other ACT Govt employees are being offered.

“Prospective “Teaching Leaders” competing not only against professional standards but against each other for up to 50 positions in the first year.”

And the problem with this is? How does it differ from the situation in most other areas or employment?

“A reduction in teaching load for first year teachers that is one-quarter of what was available until the mid-1990s.”

What does this mean? A plain English reading would be that first year teachers have a teaching load that is one-quarter of what it was in the mid-1990s. That can’t be what they mean, so I’ll assume that the “one-quarter” applies to the reduction. Still doesn’t make a lot of sense.