27 September 2011

Why ACT Teachers are Striking on Tuesday

26 September 2011 | TomGreenwell

On Tuesday morning, ACT teachers will stop work from 8.30 to 11.30am and rally outside the legislative assembly to demand better pay and conditions. While this reflects fierce disagreement between teachers and the Government, the one thing everybody can agree on is that the disruption of normal classes is highly regrettable. Canberrans, especially parents of school-aged children, will no doubt be wanting to know how it has come to this.

The centrepiece of the teachers’ claim is pay parity with their NSW colleagues. Currently, classroom teachers at the top of the pay scale earn $6000 a year less than their counterparts in NSW while deputy principals earn $15,000 a year less. Relief teachers earn $35 a day less in Canberra than they do across the border. No matter what level a teacher is at in the ACT, they earn significantly less than they would in the equivalent position in NSW.

Poor teacher pay is undermining the quality of education provided to ACT children. Each year, fewer and fewer applicants are seeking to join the teaching profession in Canberra. Schools can’t find relief teachers when staff are absent. There is no counsellor provision at over 20 Canberra schools. Those counsellors that are in the system work across multiple sites and are stretched between a massive number of students. There is 1 counsellor for every 918 students, far in excess of the recommended ratio. As Glenn Fowler from the Australian Education Union (AEU) told ABC Radio recently: “There’s been an effort to recruit them from all over the world, it has failed… There needs to be an attractive proposition for people to come into that and not go into private practice or other government agencies.”

The last time a pay agreement was negotiated, back in 2009, it was the height of the Global Financial Crisis. In the circumstances, teachers acted responsibly and settled for less than they would have liked. In return, there was an informal understanding that this restraint would be recognised in the next pay negotiation. Rather than honouring that understanding this time round, the Government offered annual pay increases that would not even have kept up with forecast inflation. In other words: a cut in real wages.

In the face of this intransigence, over 2000 Canberra teachers stopped work for four hours on September 1 to demand real investment in our public education system and the professionals that are its lifeblood. The Government reconsidered its position and on September 9 made a new offer which included pay parity with NSW for classroom teachers. However, under the offer, executive teachers and deputy principals would still lag thousands of dollars behind their NSW counterparts. Nothing serious has been presented to address the chronic shortage of counsellors in our system. Relief teacher pay would still be more than $20 a day less in Canberra than in Queanbeyan.

To fund pay parity with NSW for classroom teachers in 2011, the Government is now demanding teachers accept annual increases of just 2.5% in 2012 and 2013 . These would not keep up with growth in the cost of living and do not equate to increases enjoyed by other public sector workers.

Given that the September 9 offer, though unsatisfactory, was a move in the right direction, teachers cancelled planned rolling stoppages and sought, in good faith, to negotiate a deal with the employer. Additionally, teachers have tried to influence the Government with bans that have a less direct effect on students and their parents, like refusing to use personal cash or vehicles for work purposes. Unfortunately, the Government continues to refuse to commit to the serious investment our schools need and our students deserve.

As well as falling short in this fundamental respect, the Government is failing to win public support for its position. A majority of respondents in a Canberra Times online poll support the strike action. An even greater majority support the principle of pay parity. As P&C Council president, Jane Tullis, has said: “step up Mr Barr and let’s see you reward teachers for the high standard of service they are providing.”

Tom Greenwell is a Canberra teacher and a member of the Australian Education Union. The views expressed here are his own.

Join the conversation

104

All Comments

All Comments
Website Comments
Facebook Comments

LatestOldest

TruthTeller991:41 pm 05 Oct 11

Jim Jones said :

TruthTeller99 said :

So the entire study some guy linked to only factored in selective schools (which are maybe 2% of schools in Australia, some of which are public, and none of which are in the ACT private or public). That basically invalidates his study then, doesn’t it? Because it can’t measure what it claims to.

Me making a statement in the alternative in response to someone else’s claim? Yeh, great reading there.

Jim Jones1:28 pm 05 Oct 11

TruthTeller99 said :

So the entire study some guy linked to only factored in selective schools (which are maybe 2% of schools in Australia, some of which are public, and none of which are in the ACT private or public). That basically invalidates his study then, doesn’t it? Because it can’t measure what it claims to.

TruthTeller9912:40 pm 05 Oct 11

Jim Jones said :

TruthTeller99 said :

The poor formatting alone makes your reply unreadable. It isn’t helped by the substance, or lack thereof. I think you should go back and re-read earlier posts that have been made and make sure you actually understand what is being argued here.

Try this: “Please indicate where in the report it says it only factored in selective schools? You are again being selective in how you read responses.”

It doesn’t, and I never said it did. The guy I was replying to said it could be using selective schools as the way of measuring student “value” independently of their system, something I’d queried. I then replied to him “well if it’s only able to get that info off selective schools, which are a tiny, tiny % of total schools, then it’s not a good study is it, because it fails to measure what it claims it can. Like I said, you’re the ones who need to start reading a little more closely here.

Jim Jones12:32 pm 05 Oct 11

TruthTeller99 said :

The poor formatting alone makes your reply unreadable. It isn’t helped by the substance, or lack thereof. I think you should go back and re-read earlier posts that have been made and make sure you actually understand what is being argued here.

Try this: “Please indicate where in the report it says it only factored in selective schools? You are again being selective in how you read responses.”

TruthTeller9912:20 pm 05 Oct 11

The poor formatting alone makes your reply unreadable. It isn’t helped by the substance, or lack thereof. I think you should go back and re-read earlier posts that have been made and make sure you actually understand what is being argued here.

Gerry-Built11:44 am 05 Oct 11

TruthTeller99 said :

Firstly, that need not be the case. The family may be sending their kids to Daramalan or wherever so they get a Christian upbringing.

TruthTeller99 said :

…and this itself, shows a commitment to their child’s education.

TruthTeller99 said :

parents aren’t the morons your argument assumes,

TruthTeller99 said :

By all means, point out how my argument assumes this. YOU are the one making a whole lot of baseless assumptions, using these to build an argument and failing to provide evidence; even when asked.

TruthTeller99 said :

You know, when I wrote that baking analogy, I was actually thinking “am I going to need to explain it’s an analogy, or will he just get it?” I’m sorry I presumed.

TruthTeller99 said :

I forgive your vague analogy. I also built (constructively) on it, rather than create an analogy of my own (why reinvent the wheel?).

TruthTeller99 said :

You claimed teacher’s were being impeded in their roles as a response to my criticism of their performance in class, I asked how, and you gave a list of irrelevant (and vague) stuff like “social support networks” or “the infrastructure of learning”, and when I asked you to explain what you meant by it, you admitted that you were not impeded in your classroom teaching by a lack of resources.

TruthTeller99 said :

Irrelevant and vague? I gave an indication; I built on that when asked. I don’t have all the answers, but I’m sure that in discussion with teachers, many answers could be found. What I didn’t do was to make some bold claim such as your “it HAS to be the teachers fault”. We have a more challenging clientele (on the whole); and there should be support available to teachers to help them perform their tasks, and for students to help them deal with whatever life has thrown at them.

TruthTeller99 said :

Kids who need psychiatrists are a fraction of a fraction of the students in public schools,

TruthTeller99 said :

Whilst there may not be many, a “fraction of a fraction” greatly underestimates the number. But firstly, there are more of them in public schools and secondly, behaviour problems are not limited to kids who need professional, psychological help.

TruthTeller99 said :

Well, you can’t give your product away, so I’d say there has to be a cause for that.

TruthTeller99 said :

Which, without any basis whatsoever, you immediately claim is the responsibility of the teachers in the system; whilst completely dismissing my argument about the clientele. Arrogant – in the extreme. The private sector has superior performance because of the students it attracts (and retains). In the public school I each in, we have a small handful kids who were asked to leave private schools; a luxury we don’t get. The quality of teachers in the public system would be every bit the match for that of teachers in the private system.

TruthTeller99 said :

So the entire study some guy linked to only factored in selective schools (which are maybe 2% of schools in Australia, some of which are public, and none of which are in the ACT private or public). That basically invalidates his study then, doesn’t it? Because it can’t measure what it claims to.

Please indicate where in the report it says it only factored in selective schools? You are again being selective in how you read responses.

TruthTeller999:09 am 05 Oct 11

Gerry-Built said :

Of course they look bad when compared to private schools; public schools have to take all-comers (which is as it should be, not me complaining). Anyone who goes to a private school already has a family that has shown a commitment to education – they come from a family who values education, and generally perceives that they will get a superior education in the private sector. Public schools will always have a substantial tail-end in NAPLAN results, and any other form of standardised assessment as a result.

Firstly, that need not be the case. The family may be sending their kids to Daramalan or wherever so they get a Christian upbringing. But leaving that aside, parents aren’t the morons your argument assumes, they can make intelligent educational decisions just like they do intelligent decisions in other areas of the marketplace. They can understand that a selective or private school might score higher, heck they might not even want an academic school for their child, who is interested in technical skills, and has an aptitude for them. They will weigh up the cost of public schools (nothing) and decide whether what they give away for free outweighs some test score advantage that a private school may or may not have (Bundah scores high, so it’s possible for the public school to do well, and we should be adopting policies like this that increase the incentives for them to do well).

Using your baking analogy; this is akin to supplying a baker with some sub-standard ingredients; but being disappointed at the resulting product because it isn’t as good as the product made by the baker up the road, who picks all his ingredients. It is simply unfair to say the first baker does lousy work compared to the second. It is an unfair advantage. You cannot compare the public system to the private system in this way.

You know, when I wrote that baking analogy, I was actually thinking “am I going to need to explain it’s an analogy, or will he just get it?” I’m sorry I presumed. Of course in the school analogy the baker is being given the ingredients by the parents, and the parents know the quality of the ingredients better than he does, so they can make a judgement from watching how he uses them, etc, to decide if his performance is a satisfactory use of those raw materials. People aren’t morons you know, they don’t leave their Honda in the carshop, and come back in a week and ask why it isn’t a Ferrari. When parents only spend $1 on a packet of coles biscuits, they’re likely not going to expect them to be as good as a $5 packet of deluxe biscuits. As usual, the AEU explanation requires everyone is stupid, except the AEU.

You have made a series of assertions about the public system using a very flawed set of assumptions in your “logical causation”. Yet anytime I have commented on your individual assertions, you’ve told me it is simply white noise and not related to the argument.

You claimed teacher’s were being impeded in their roles as a response to my criticism of their performance in class, I asked how, and you gave a list of irrelevant (and vague) stuff like “social support networks” or “the infrastructure of learning”, and when I asked you to explain what you meant by it, you admitted that you were not impeded in your classroom teaching by a lack of resources. Kids who need psychiatrists are a fraction of a fraction of the students in public schools, and frankly I doubt the “social networks” in place to deal with that are much better (if at all) in most private schools. What do Daramalan and Eddies have? One 3rd rate school counselor (which most public schools have anyway) and a priest? I doubt kids with serious psychological issues will be much better off in either situation.

To insist that the results in public education are the fault of the teachers in it is simply a slap in the face to those teachers, who, almost without exception, perform a very good job of educating the children in their care. And in no way do I say this to the detriment on my colleagues in the private sector, whom I personally believe do a job on par, with a slightly different set of challenges.

Well, you can’t give your product away, so I’d say there has to be a cause for that. I’d suggest the less arrogant and illogical claim would be that teacher’s in the public sector are just like most other employees, and their behavior when you remove competition is too. Imagine if we told garbage men or bus drivers or plumbers “no matter how badly you do your job, we’ll make sure you always have customers. Your boss can’t fire you, and the longer you stay the more we’ll pay you”. Do you think on average they would work harder, or be more apathetic? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

No – not a distraction; exactly my point. You asked how “they know who were the most successful students before they picked their schools?” – and I was suggesting they were talking about selective public schools (of which, there are none in Canberra – though Lyneham and Telopea probably come closest in terms of student representation).

So the entire study some guy linked to only factored in selective schools (which are maybe 2% of schools in Australia, some of which are public, and none of which are in the ACT private or public). That basically invalidates his study then, doesn’t it? Because it can’t measure what it claims to.

Jim Jones9:06 am 05 Oct 11

Gerry-Built said :

But apparently you are able to make generalisations and assumptions about the success of the ACT public system and the teachers in it without empirical proof (then expect everyone to accept them), and use these to support your assertions.

Seems to be a common thread in the posts. Where evidence to the contrary exists, it’s ‘not relevant’ or ‘lefty propaganda’ or ‘not the main point’. But no attempt made to present evidence supporting his own argument – (‘why should I bother’) little more than arrogant assumption and dictating to others where the discussion should go.

Gerry-Built8:23 am 05 Oct 11

TruthTeller99 said :

Of course, the limited standardised tests we have so far like NAPLAN also look bad for public schools.

TruthTeller99 said :

Gerry-Built said :

TruthTeller99 said :

How on earth can they know who were the most successful students before they picked their schools? What data is that being based on? And how can you empirically measure whether the public school system is “doing well” based on this if it were true? What measurements did they use?

But apparently you are able to make generalisations and assumptions about the success of the ACT public system and the teachers in it without empirical proof (then expect everyone to accept them), and use these to support your assertions.

I’d assume the schools with “successful students” would be selective schools, where students had proven track record prior to being invited into/applying for those selective schools.

I’m able to point to logical causation. My proposal doesn’t require parents to use tests or studies to determine a schools worth, they can decide that from interacting with it, and if they don’t like it, they move, and if they do, they stay. That’s called the market, and it works for basically every other profession, including food service provision. Of course, the limited standardised tests we have so far like NAPLAN also look bad for public schools.

The narrative of the AEU only makes sense if everyone is wrong except the AEU; private school teachers, parents, kids, schools.

The study cited here makes no sense because there is no logical or statistical way to determine if a student who, say, goes to the public system all their life, and is deemed to be a lesser calibre of student. How on earth can you separate whether they actually were a lesser calibre of student, from whether the public system failed them? I don’t mind if the study doesn’t rely on statistics, logic is good too, I just don’t see any possible way you could conclude such a thing. It’s akin to me collecting a stack of ingredients and mixing them together in unknown proportions, producing a tasteless cake. How can I prove the fault was in the ingredients and not my skill, if there’s no evidence to support it? Of course, if customers watched this baker in action, got a feel for his work, and had seen his previous efforts and were satisfied with them, they’d be sensible enough to understand that he was restrained by his materials sometimes, and they can choose to shop there or not.

Also, many selective schools are public, and many private schools are not selective (there are no selective schools in the ACT at all!), so this is another distraction point.

Of course they look bad when compared to private schools; public schools have to take all-comers (which is as it should be, not me complaining). Anyone who goes to a private school already has a family that has shown a commitment to education – they come from a family who values education, and generally perceives that they will get a superior education in the private sector. Public schools will always have a substantial tail-end in NAPLAN results, and any other form of standardised assessment as a result.

Using your baking analogy; this is akin to supplying a baker with some sub-standard ingredients; but being disappointed at the resulting product because it isn’t as good as the product made by the baker up the road, who picks all his ingredients. It is simply unfair to say the first baker does lousy work compared to the second. It is an unfair advantage. You cannot compare the public system to the private system in this way.

You have made a series of assertions about the public system using a very flawed set of assumptions in your “logical causation”. Yet anytime I have commented on your individual assertions, you’ve told me it is simply white noise and not related to the argument.

To insist that the results in public education are the fault of the teachers in it is simply a slap in the face to those teachers, who, almost without exception, perform a very good job of educating the children in their care. And in no way do I say this to the detriment on my colleagues in the private sector, whom I personally believe do a job on par, with a slightly different set of challenges.

TruthTeller99 said :

Also, many selective schools are public, and many private schools are not selective (there are no selective schools in the ACT at all!), so this is another distraction point.

No – not a distraction; exactly my point. You asked how “they know who were the most successful students before they picked their schools?” – and I was suggesting they were talking about selective public schools (of which, there are none in Canberra – though Lyneham and Telopea probably come closest in terms of student representation).

TruthTeller9911:48 pm 04 Oct 11

Gerry-Built said :

TruthTeller99 said :

How on earth can they know who were the most successful students before they picked their schools? What data is that being based on? And how can you empirically measure whether the public school system is “doing well” based on this if it were true? What measurements did they use?

But apparently you are able to make generalisations and assumptions about the success of the ACT public system and the teachers in it without empirical proof (then expect everyone to accept them), and use these to support your assertions.

I’d assume the schools with “successful students” would be selective schools, where students had proven track record prior to being invited into/applying for those selective schools.

I’m able to point to logical causation. My proposal doesn’t require parents to use tests or studies to determine a schools worth, they can decide that from interacting with it, and if they don’t like it, they move, and if they do, they stay. That’s called the market, and it works for basically every other profession, including food service provision. Of course, the limited standardised tests we have so far like NAPLAN also look bad for public schools.

The narrative of the AEU only makes sense if everyone is wrong except the AEU; private school teachers, parents, kids, schools.

The study cited here makes no sense because there is no logical or statistical way to determine if a student who, say, goes to the public system all their life, and is deemed to be a lesser calibre of student. How on earth can you separate whether they actually were a lesser calibre of student, from whether the public system failed them? I don’t mind if the study doesn’t rely on statistics, logic is good too, I just don’t see any possible way you could conclude such a thing. It’s akin to me collecting a stack of ingredients and mixing them together in unknown proportions, producing a tasteless cake. How can I prove the fault was in the ingredients and not my skill, if there’s no evidence to support it? Of course, if customers watched this baker in action, got a feel for his work, and had seen his previous efforts and were satisfied with them, they’d be sensible enough to understand that he was restrained by his materials sometimes, and they can choose to shop there or not.

Also, many selective schools are public, and many private schools are not selective (there are no selective schools in the ACT at all!), so this is another distraction point.

blimkybill8:54 pm 04 Oct 11

TruthTeller99 said :

And just so we’re clear, I’m not suggesting the literature section of the test contained questions about how to program source code, but if the components are measuring the ability of elderly people to be familiar with the Zeitgeist and slang of the modern day, alot of the time they’re obviously going to be lost, technology is evolving at a fast pace… but I don’t think the “minimum required for individuals to meet the complex demands of everyday life and work in the emerging knowledge-based economy” is a useful benchmark for measuring skills like math and literacy. A 60 year old may have no idea how to use a computer, or even understand what you’re talking about when you bring up the internet, but I don’t doubt the average grammar, literacy, arithmetic, etc, of people from that generation is higher than it is currently in the public school system, because there is currently a crisis in the public education system… standards are lower than they have ever been.

still waiting to see any kind of evidence of declining literacy standards at all… please guide me in the direction of some and I will read it myself.

To address your criticisms:

“1) As I was saying in my previous post, “illiteracy” (the inability to read at a certain standardised level) has almost nothing to do with school quality, it has to do with school access. The illiteracy rate can be much lower, but the quality of education much worse, because literacy (or lack of it) only measures the absolute bare minimum skill. It says nothing about the level of the 99%+ of people who are not illiterate, or what level they are at. Obviously there is more illiteracy among old people, because many of them didn’t have access to the education system, whereas today education is more or less compulsory.”

– This report is not talking about which percentage of people have no literacy at all. It scored all the people tested on a range of measures and for each measure gave them a level of 1-5. It is not at all talking about a tiny 1% percent minority, as I said overall in Australia 47% of all people could not read prose to Level 3. The content of the prose test is described as “Prose literacy: the ability to understand and use information from various kinds of narrative texts, including texts from newspapers, magazines and brochures. ” Nothing to do with computer literacy at all. I claim that the literacy measured in these tests is indeed a reflection of the level of literacy learned at school (and in other places of learing such as uni or the workplace). The 47% who did not score well did not get that result due to not going to school at all. There is no evidence that that the quality of literacy learned at school is lower now than 30-50 yearsa ago, the evidence clearly points to the contrary.

And yes there ws a small drop in the percentage scoring 4/5 between 1996 and 2006, but also a larger drop in the percentage scoring at only Level 1. No overall decline at all, just a small redistribution towards the middle but the average is probably similar or slightly higher in 2006.

“More dishonesty here, since you either didn’t read or ignored the section which says “Literacy levels tended to decrease with age, with higher proportions of people in the older age groups attaining skill scores lower than Level 3. The exception to this was the 15 to 19 years age group, which had lower levels of literacy than the 20 to 24 year age group”. So in fact, the more recent school graduates and school students in 2006 are scoring the worst. “

Most 15-19 year olds are not actually school graduates but are in fact still at school or in some form of higher education. Ie they are still learning. this is enogh reason to explain why 20-24 year olds score higher than 15-19 year olds. And 15-19 year olds did not score “the worst”, they only scored lower than 20-24 year olds, not lower than any other age group.

I could go on but I suspect you aren’t actually interested in the truth or in reading any evidence fairly. I am confident in my ability to read and interpet data like this correctly but there isn’t much point explaining it to you as you don’t want to see what is there. However, as I’ve said, I’d like to see any actual data (not mere opinion) showing evidence of declining standards in the population or declining test scores over the past 30-50 years.

TruthTeller997:41 pm 04 Oct 11

You’re very confused, for 2 key reasons (there are others, but I’ll focus on the two that make the others moot).

1) As I was saying in my previous post, “illiteracy” (the inability to read at a certain standardised level) has almost nothing to do with school quality, it has to do with school access. The illiteracy rate can be much lower, but the quality of education much worse, because literacy (or lack of it) only measures the absolute bare minimum skill. It says nothing about the level of the 99%+ of people who are not illiterate, or what level they are at. Obviously there is more illiteracy among old people, because many of them didn’t have access to the education system, whereas today education is more or less compulsory. The days of kids being made to stay on the farm were many decades ago. I think this is particularly dishonest given the very page you link us to explicitly says that the number of kids with high achievement in 1996 was higher than in 2006.
2) Your study makes no differentiation between the public and private sectors, which is surely the point of this discussion. For all we know any benefit is because of the ever growing private sector dragging up the lagging public system.
3) More importantly however, your use of these statistics does nothing to help your argument. People “under 35” are more literate. Ok, but that tells us little even about the ability of the modern education sector to combat illiteracy, because someone 35 years old at the time of this study would have finished school in 1988 (23 years ago). More dishonesty here, since you either didn’t read or ignored the section which says “Literacy levels tended to decrease with age, with higher proportions of people in the older age groups attaining skill scores lower than Level 3. The exception to this was the 15 to 19 years age group, which had lower levels of literacy than the 20 to 24 year age group”. So in fact, the more recent school graduates and school students in 2006 are scoring the worst. That tends to confirm my point, not the reverse. I also think some disingenuous terms are available in this survey, for instance they define literacy in a way that appears to suggest they are basing it on the “minimum required for individuals to meet the complex demands of everyday life and work in the emerging knowledge-based economy”… does this mean the test factors in being computer literate too? I don’t see any metrics available here, but I’m not going to look for them because…

4) But I am not really very impressed by this as evidence anyway, it’s a survey of a handful of people, not a comparison of comprehensive tests, and doesn’t include an analysis of what is ON those comprehensive tests either. I don’t think anyone who has had any interaction with the public school system could refute the declining standards… I’d be more astonished if we’d dropped an entire subject like Grammar and there hadn’t been a decline.

blimkybill7:08 pm 04 Oct 11

TruthTeller99 said :

I’m not going to bother digging up evidence for someone whose response is LMAO, and to sneer at grammar and latin. You make a decent argument, and I’ll invest the 30 minutes of digging it would take. I’ve definitely seen plenty of evidence supporting it.

In fairness I will also say this, I think there probably were more illiterate people back in the 50’s (it depends how far you go back, in the 70’s I doubt you’d see any meaningful difference), because of a small proportion of people who generally avoided the system completely by being farmers who never left the farm, or because of services not reaching them (or because you’re talking about adults who got under the net when they were kids decades earlier). But at any rate, the number of people here is a fraction of a fraction of the education system, because almost nobody in Australia is illiterate, and that’s been the case for quite a few decades now. I don’t think it’s an impressive analysis of the education system to say “0.0003% of Australians were illiterate in 1950, compared to only 0.0001% today, so education is clearly better!”

I too am intrigued to know whether literacy levels have genuinely decreased in the past 30-50 years – or even the past 10-20 years for that matter. Although there are plenty of people who complain that it must be so, I tend not to believe it. I’d love to see some evidence. I suspect that people with lower literacy skills are just more noticeable these days because participation in higher education is much higher and the need for literacy skills in the workplace is also much higher.

To start the ball rolling with evidence, I looked at ABS data on adult literacy rates.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/4228.0Main%20Features22006%20%28Reissue%29?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=4228.0&issue=2006%20%28Reissue%29&num=&view=

This report indicates that the age group with the highest ability to interpret prose (ie read and understand what they read) are 20-24 year olds and 30-34 year olds. Age groups older than this have steadily lower literacy rates. 37% of 20-24 year olds obtained level 1 or 2 scores for reading prose, meaning their scores did not reach the “minimum required for individuals to meet the complex demands of everyday life and work in the emerging knowledge-based economy”. This proportion increased in all age groups over 35, and for ages 60-64 the proportion of adults scoring only Level 1 or 2 was nearly 60%.

So the key points I derived from this report are:
– older Australians are less literate than people under 35, becoming increasingly less literate with increasing age.
– a very high proportion of adult Australians do not have sufficient literacy skills to meet the “minimum required for individuals to meet the complex demands of everyday life and work in the emerging knowledge-based economy” – overall 47%. So much for a tiny minority being illiterate. lack of literacy skills is an important issue across all age groups.

TruthTeller995:32 pm 04 Oct 11

You really think that literacy and numeracy rates were better then?

I think it’s definitely fair to say that today’s kids are more street savvy and aware, they live in a more open, technologically integrated society, so that’s hardly surprising. But the fact things like numeracy, reading, etc, have declined is pretty old news. In fact, it’s true in other Western countries like the UK and the US, which is why there is so much scrutiny of the public system in both places (and alot of calls for scrapping comprehensive education). In fact, in Ireland (where they didn’t go comprehensive) the category 2 schools score higher than the average schools in the UK, an incredible statistic. I don’t know why this concept is so hard to believe. Take the 3 R’s, and imagine we scrapped one of them almost completely… it’d be a massive blow to education provision in this country. Yet that’s exactly what Australian schools have done, by scrapping grammar (which used to be a separate subject along side them), and which is now a tiny sub-part of English classes. Kids today do not know what a declension is, do not know a sentence needs a verb, or why Latin matters to the construction of words and language. Only private schools still teach these disciplines as compulsory subjects.

Now that’s just a bloody slap in the face to public school teachers. By all means, feel free to expand on that argument. I’m interested in knowing how we, as public school teachers, develop boring curriculum that follows uniform education program (the very same curriculum and uniform education program private schools must follow).

As someone with alot of experience in private and public schools in the ACT, I can say with confidence it’s nothing of the sort. Look, nobody is denying there are good teachers, as there are bad ones… except the AEU, who basically claims teachers are flawless, and provides a flawed and illogical narrative for why there is an exodus from the public system, and why the public system is losing on all the scoring metrics. It’s the AEU who opposes these sorts of changes, and who advised on many bad ones in the past.

If you think teachers in public schools are all doing an awesome job, and no changes are needed (say giving principals the ability to fire ones who aren’t good), then what is the CAUSE of the current crisis?

I have not been “blaming the kids”(though they have to wear at least SOME of the blame), merely asserting that they are a problem and we need resources and structures to deal with them appropriately

That’s basically what you’re doing though. Private schools get troubled kids, just like decades ago there were just as many troubled kids if not more… yet only the modern public school system is in decay, and bleeding students and being caned on standardised tests. Why are kids not the problem for the first two, but are for you? And are all the reasons (like inability to expel kids) opposed by the AEU?

kaleidoscopic array of demerit cards to kids”; I do so LOVE that term!

I claim full copyright

Almost without exception, the teachers I teach with (and have taught with in past) are dedicated to their occupation and their students; to developing meaningful and interesting education programs, to educate their students, helping them learn and supporting them through difficulties of any sort. I take great exception to your comments that state that public school teachers are the problem with public education, and also to those comments that indicate the level of education provided by those teachers are of a lesser standard that private education offers

You’re kind of glossing over all the reasons I went over, which do not suggest there are no good teachers, but that it makes no sense to treat teachers differently to other people in the marketplace just because some of them are good, and some of them like their job (that’s true of most professions). I also pointed out that the logic being employed by the people arguing against me here (including yourself) leads to the conclusion that teacher’s aren’t actually that great anyway.

Let me give you an example of how teacher’s are no different to other employees (I’ve already given some, and explained why you can’t treat them differently, but this one is particularly telling I think). In the last round of teacher negotiations in the ACT, the teachers traded away their right to be paid for extra-curricular activities in exchange for a higher wage. Many teachers (though not all) then took the attitude that they would not do EC’s requiring out of class time anymore, because “they’re not paying me for it”, and generally walked around with an attitude of “that’ll show them”. Now, of course, they’re well within their rights to do that, as a Libertarian leaning individual I won’t ever demand someone else give up their time to me for free, but in doing this they showed that their self interest (a tiny salary bump) outweighed the interests of their students (to participate in EC’s). That’s because in reality, as well as conceptually, teacher’s are just like other employees in the marketplace, who put their own interests first. Sure, alot of teachers still generously gave their time (partly because of the sense of satisfaction they got no doubt, which raises the question of whether you can ever be “selfless”, or whether you’d know it if you were), but that’s true of alot of industries. The Sewage cleaner might volunteer at nights to help inner city youths learn how to burnish wood, the Football coach at the local club might give up his time to take the kids to an interstate soccer trip. That’s nice and all, but you’ll find examples of it in every workplace, and to pay people more because they sometimes do nice things (or mean well, however you’d determine that) is an untenable proposition.

The additional things schools do include pastoral care, road ready, band, drama productions etc Most of these are mandated (to all schools). I’ve slipped in to “white noise” because you required further explanation or to support what I was saying.

Yeh, but what the heck does this have to do with scores being down in English, Math, etc? I mean, nobody has a mechanism for comparing band and drama production performance across schools, and I doubt 1% of 1% of kids are moved from a school because of superior band culture, or a better road ready course. For you to say “we lack the resources for these things” has nothing to do with the exodus from public schools, which is about failure of basic education and discipline in schools.

No resources are impeding my ability to teach; I already do a fine job; though I’d love to have the resources to teach using up-to-date equipment, exposing my students to what the current technologies are (I teach Technology elective subjects). But for the public education to be able to improve results (both metrically, and what it can do for individuals), extra supports are needed to assist those that are struggling through education, for whatever reason.

I think this is the closest you get to grappling with the problem. Think about this logically here. On the one hand you’re saying “nothing impedes my teaching” (so you agree with me there), but on the other hand you can’t really explain why the kids performance is unsatisfactory, grasping at “whatever reason” they are failing. I’d urge you and the AEU members reading to be a little self critical for once, and ask if the majority of kids are being moved because they have sociological problems that prevent your (apparently awesome) teaching from working. Were there really less sociological problems in decades past when scores were higher and the public system wasn’t in crisis (and when a school system can’t give their product away, they’re in crisis)? Are there really less troubled and “tough” kids in alot of private schools like Daramalan or Eddies (famed more for their football culture than any academic program)? I also don’t think there is much in the way of support services at those schools either, and don’t think it is anything but a distraction from the real problems, namely the public school system needing reform. And that’s important, because the AEU opposes reform to the system (they just want more pay). Most kids do not need counsellors or special help, they just need teachers who are able to evoke their interests, schools who can tailor their programs to different levels of kids, and principals who have real authority over (and accountability for) the school. Again, all these things are opposed by the AEU, and by extension the majority of the AEU’s members. Maybe your civic minded friends should leave the AEU, and encourage other teachers at your school to do likewise.

Gerry-Built11:40 am 04 Oct 11

TruthTeller99 said :

Maybe schools shouldn’t be trying to do more? I also don’t think they really are, and I notice you’ve once again slipped into white noise. I have absolutely no idea what you mean when you say this. What resources are impeding your ability to teach properly?

The additional things schools do include pastoral care, road ready, band, drama productions etc Most of these are mandated (to all schools). I’ve slipped in to “white noise” because you required further explanation or to support what I was saying.

No resources are impeding my ability to teach; I already do a fine job; though I’d love to have the resources to teach using up-to-date equipment, exposing my students to what the current technologies are (I teach Technology elective subjects). But for the public education to be able to improve results (both metrically, and what it can do for individuals), extra supports are needed to assist those that are struggling through education, for whatever reason. These supports/resources could include out-of-school suspension centres (like the one being trialled in a northside school), support staff like counsellors and community mentors, tutprs, in school time-out rooms (where unruly kids could be sent to remove them from classes they are disrupting). Then there are the physical school buildings, most of which are in a poor state of repair due to school-based management (as opposed to centralised facilities management) and low funding, outdated (older style workshops, kitchens etc) and adequate subject resourcing (to replace the money that doesn’t come in from levies – now called Voluntary Contributions) to cover consumable materials (food, timber, fabric, art supplies etc). It would be nice to have an office that isn’t decked out in 40 year old furnishings, and inadequate space too – but the Department tells me I’m dreaming. Those things should give you an idea of the resourcing I am talking about.

Gerry-Built10:52 am 04 Oct 11

TruthTeller99 said :

It sounds like you’re conflating real behavioral issues with “kids who behave badly”, which is not the same thing. There are maybe 1 or 2 kids at each school who fit into the former category, far less than 1% of all kids, while to some degree almost every kid ever fits into the latter category. I also think it’s disingenuous to say that kids behaving badly has no correlation to the culture that is fostered by the schools. Private schools (and public schools) who succeed often do so because they address these problems, and many parents who have kids with behavioral problems send them to private schools to try to help them.

I was conflating, sure; but I wasn’t trying to separate the two; merely discussing the kids that have a pattern of disrupting classes through anti-social behaviour (not just an occasional low-level disruption), and taking up otherwise useful class time. Clearly, both types have an impact on the smooth running of a class. You are right that Private schools deal with these issues better, but they don’t have their hands tied with how they deal with these kids. They also do not have either the sheer numbers, nor the degree of the bad behaviour to deal with. They also (probably) don’t have a department that discourages suspension, and have the ability to expel, should their other attempts be unsuccessful.

TruthTeller99 said :

If private schools failed at addressing these problems the parents would just pull them out again, but that rarely happens (either in reality, or using the logic you’ve been pushing). Public schools are failing because the teachers and curriculum do not evoke children’s interest, and they are following a uniform educational program that gives many kids very little incentive to do what is necessary to fit in a school they probably haven’t chosen to go to, and can’t be expelled from.

Now that’s just a bloody slap in the face to public school teachers. By all means, feel free to expand on that argument. I’m interested in knowing how we, as public school teachers, develop boring curriculum that follows uniform education program (the very same curriculum and uniform education program private schools must follow).

TruthTeller99 said :

I think there are alot of badly behaved kids in public schools, but I think that’s largely the fault of the teachers and department of education. I mean, not only can you not expel kids, but you often can’t even punish them properly, issuing a kaleidoscopic array of demerit cards to kids, many of which have no effect (like an “in school” suspension, which fails to punish the kids/parents, and allows them to disrupt everyone else in the process). Teacher’s have no incentive to try and fix these problems (it’s easier to blame them on the kids anyway, as you’ve been doing), or to find ways to engage with them, because they interact with parents as hostages, not clients. We need a system where they have to make parents actively decide to stay at the school, and so need to show they’re doing something about these problems.

I have not been “blaming the kids”(though they have to wear at least SOME of the blame), merely asserting that they are a problem and we need resources and structures to deal with them appropriately. I actually agree with most of this paragraph. Except the bit in the middle, where you blame teachers once again. Since the ACT government closed the out-of-school programs, and insisted schools deal with problem kids themselves, there is very little incentive for students to improve their behaviour, as they know once they have “served their time” they can return to their school and run through the whole process (“kaleidoscopic array of demerit cards to kids”; I do so LOVE that term!) again. By the time a child is suspended, they have already failed to improve their behaviour on (at least) three occasions.

Almost without exception, the teachers I teach with (and have taught with in past) are dedicated to their occupation and their students; to developing meaningful and interesting education programs, to educate their students, helping them learn and supporting them through difficulties of any sort. I take great exception to your comments that state that public school teachers are the problem with public education, and also to those comments that indicate the level of education provided by those teachers are of a lesser standard that private education offers.

TruthTeller9910:16 am 04 Oct 11

Gerry-Built said :

No. “Buzzwords” from a teacher that actually works in the education sector (and not currently an AEU member). I apologise if it sounds jargonistic, but being in the sector, I use that talk, as anyone does of their own occupation. We are talkind about education; so use of the metalanguage of education seems, ummmm… obvious. The AEU, also being a part of, and composed of members from the education sector also uses the terminology and phraseology of the sector… as you would, and should, expect. It’d hardly sound professional if they said “stuff money can be used to buy” instead of resourcing – would it? Besides; that was hardly jargonistic…

Um, ok… but what are these things you don’t have? What did your jargon actually MEAN in real terms.

Do you honestly think the only things required to educate are simplistic resources like paper and pens, and a teacher out the front of the room?

Well, for alot of classes that’ll do (along with source material, which schools already have). I mean, how do you think they did it 30-50 years ago, and if that method was inferior, why were test scores higher? Why was there no exodus from the public system? Why did they manage to teach classics and latin still? Sure, some other resources can be helpful, but I don’t see resources as an issue. And most schools have ample add on resources anyway, from computers to slide projectors.

Appropriate resourcing includes the support networks at the school and in the sector, the physical environments, staffing and many, many other things that impact upon any school’s ability to provide an education. There are a lot more resources required in schools these days, because school do a lot more than they did in the heydays you mentioned.

Maybe schools shouldn’t be trying to do more? I also don’t think they really are, and I notice you’ve once again slipped into white noise. I have absolutely no idea what you mean when you say this. What resources are impeding your ability to teach properly?

By all means, provide a link to that document that shows public schools sitting on all that money. Make sure you read the fine print, though; so you know what that money actually is.

It sounds like you don’t disagree with any of what I said, so I don’t see the need to bother about it.

Gerry-Built10:05 am 04 Oct 11

TruthTeller99 said :

Again, I’m getting a collection of buzzwords from the AEU. English involves a pen, paper and some books, all of which are cheap, and all of which the school already has copies of. The same is true of most subjects. The basics of education are not expensive, or out of the reach of public schools, they have them aplenty (often too much junk, though I won’t get into stories of this). How many supplies did they have in decades past with higher scores? When kids used to do classics and latin, all they had were some dusty tomes, lead pencils and paper, while the teacher used a blackboard and chalk. Are you seriously trying to claim schools are failing in English because they can’t afford this stuff? That’s absurd. Indeed, I could link you to school reports showing many public schools in the ACT with hundreds of thousands of dollars sitting in their accounts. Try harder, really.

No. “Buzzwords” from a teacher that actually works in the education sector (and not currently an AEU member). I apologise if it sounds jargonistic, but being in the sector, I use that talk, as anyone does of their own occupation. We are talkind about education; so use of the metalanguage of education seems, ummmm… obvious. The AEU, also being a part of, and composed of members from the education sector also uses the terminology and phraseology of the sector… as you would, and should, expect. It’d hardly sound professional if they said “stuff money can be used to buy” instead of resourcing – would it? Besides; that was hardly jargonistic…

Do you honestly think the only things required to educate are simplistic resources like paper and pens, and a teacher out the front of the room? Appropriate resourcing includes the support networks at the school and in the sector, the physical environments, staffing and many, many other things that impact upon any school’s ability to provide an education. There are a lot more resources required in schools these days, because school do a lot more than they did in the heydays you mentioned.

By all means, provide a link to that document that shows public schools sitting on all that money. Make sure you read the fine print, though; so you know what that money actually is.

TruthTeller999:49 am 04 Oct 11

Gerry-Built said :

TruthTeller99 said :

I agree more should be done, like allowing kids to be expelled to start with, but you used it as a key reason for the public sector being outperformed by the private sector, and that’s a ridiculous thing to say about a group of people who are a minute part of the public system.

No. I used it as a reason for the “exodus” of students from the public to the private system. This is what parents perceive as a lack of discipline; the opposite of which they perceive they get from private education. This group is not minute, but is still a minority of each class; but they certainly disrupt the learning happening in any class, by disrupting the flow of a class and dominating the teaching time.

It sounds like you’re conflating real behavioral issues with “kids who behave badly”, which is not the same thing. There are maybe 1 or 2 kids at each school who fit into the former category, far less than 1% of all kids, while to some degree almost every kid ever fits into the latter category. I also think it’s disingenuous to say that kids behaving badly has no correlation to the culture that is fostered by the schools. Private schools (and public schools) who succeed often do so because they address these problems, and many parents who have kids with behavioral problems send them to private schools to try to help them. If private schools failed at addressing these problems the parents would just pull them out again, but that rarely happens (either in reality, or using the logic you’ve been pushing). Public schools are failing because the teachers and curriculum do not evoke children’s interest, and they are following a uniform educational program that gives many kids very little incentive to do what is necessary to fit in a school they probably haven’t chosen to go to, and can’t be expelled from.

I think there are alot of badly behaved kids in public schools, but I think that’s largely the fault of the teachers and department of education. I mean, not only can you not expel kids, but you often can’t even punish them properly, issuing a kaleidoscopic array of demerit cards to kids, many of which have no effect (like an “in school” suspension, which fails to punish the kids/parents, and allows them to disrupt everyone else in the process). Teacher’s have no incentive to try and fix these problems (it’s easier to blame them on the kids anyway, as you’ve been doing), or to find ways to engage with them, because they interact with parents as hostages, not clients. We need a system where they have to make parents actively decide to stay at the school, and so need to show they’re doing something about these problems.

TruthTeller995:46 pm 03 Oct 11

Gerry-Built said :

TruthTeller99 said :

Extra needs students are a tiny minority of students, they do not account for the massive shift to the private sector, even were we to concede your point. This is just a distraction from the real conversation. But it’s hard to see how the current PC culture fostered in schools does anything to help these problems. Some kids need to be expelled from schools. But again, this is a distraction that should be avoided, because this tiny minority does not account for the seismic shift from public schools (who have all the advantages, since it’s free). I’m pretty sure parents are not paying thousands of dollars a year to send them to a school who has an extra Councillor, given they could pay a small amount of that to hire a tutor or Councillor to assist their child anyway.

Yep – by all means, if this doesn’t suit your arguments, feel free to ignore it entirely… even if it directly responds to a comment you made earlier…

Whilst students with learning difficulties might make up a “tiny minority”, the (financial support to schools) bar has been lowered, and lowered for many years, so that many students, who obviously have support needs simply are not catered for. For example, students with emotional or mental health problems simply don’t qualify for assistance. Another issue is that only core subjects are subsidised for those that do qualify, so where other subjects require assistance, that resourcing has to come at a cost to somewhere else.

Besides, what I was trying to get at was how schools are simply unable to deal with behaviour issues from a minority of students who disrupt the learning for the majority of students as well as the staff. The government has all but removed external support for managing these students (such as Dairy Flat School); making it nigh on impossible to affect change in their behaviour.

I agree more should be done, like allowing kids to be expelled to start with, but you used it as a key reason for the public sector being outperformed by the private sector, and that’s a ridiculous thing to say about a group of people who are a minute part of the public system.

TruthTeller995:39 pm 03 Oct 11

Gerry-Built said :

Every other branch of the Public Service has tenure, with pay based on longevity, not merit (at least for a majority of the workers). The Performance Management Systems used in the public service are difficult to fail; and therefore not receive an incremental step. Why should it be different for teachers?

I see, so because public servants are overpaid and have an unjustified salary metric, you should also be treated in an illogical and inequitable way. That’s not an argument that washes with me, and certainly doesn’t help the AEU argument that they’re morally superior to the Government and private sector. I oppose the way the public sector is paid too, and am waiting for the slash and burn of the public sector we saw under Thatcher, and were promised by Rudd (instead there has been a huge increase of PS workers). That’s the core of my argument, the public sector (be it the Department of Health or teachers under the Dept of Education) are paid in a ridiculous way that is anti-competitive and hurts taxpayers/consumers. It’s true in most areas of government in fact, though I’m not sure any government service provider is losing market share to the private sector in as embarrassing a way as the public education system is (you can’t beat the private sector when you’re giving the product away for free!).

There are already processes available to remove teachers who are not performing, and I’m sure most teachers would be happy to see these stepped up, if necessary, to remove the hundreds of teachers that are not performing, by your scale.

1) That is utter rubbish. I have never heard of any teacher in the ACT being removed, ever, except in cases of sexual misconduct. There is no real process or review, and certainly nothing done independently. I invite you to link me to evidence to the contrary, it’s just not true.
2) The AEU definitely doesn’t claim there is a teacher quality problem, they claim teachers are doing great, and bad results have nothing to do with them.
3) The best way to reward/punish teachers is via a market based mechanism like vouchers, which creates actual competition.

Afterall, it is teachers who are performing their work adequately or better that pick up the slack.

Hardly. The English teacher who sucks is the only teacher those kids will get for the whole year usually, sometimes for several years in a row, and by the time another teacher (who is good) teaches the kids English it might be too late. In addition, it’s tough to prove the teacher did a bad job, he’ll just say it’s the fault of the kids (the AEU sure does), and other teachers will defend each other as usual anyway, they certainly won’t ask the principal to fire them (assuming he could for a moment). Consumers need to be the ones who hold them to account, and right now they can’t.

Despite what you have assumed, the education sector is not full of people who “couldn’t cut it” in the private sector; it is full of people dedicated to educating young people and getting those young people to meet their full potential.

1) This is extremely naive, and frankly incorrect in alot of cases, but let’s leave it aside for a moment.
2) You guys are citing the fact that you are really qualified and have degrees when noting how you should be paid more, it’s cited again and again in this comment section. Yet the entry level for teaching is very, very low. In point of fact, you are much less qualified than public servants often are… they will commonly have degrees which required a higher entrance score and more time studying. So by your own argument, they had to work harder to get in (how many people with an ATAR score in the mid to low 70’s do you think work for DFAT?). Again, this is you guys wanting it all ways. First your qualifications count, then they don’t, depending on the argument you’re advancing.
3) Assume it was true that teachers were public minded individuals who wanted to do the right thing. That can be true of almost any person in almost any profession. It could be true of the local sewer worker (“I just wanted to keep the sewers clean, and be the silent hero”), or baker (“I just wanted to make cookies for small children to enjoy”), or local basketball coach. It doesn’t follow that the government should suspend ordinary market forces in their case. More to the point, the government has no way of knowing if it’s true (it’s a subjective mindset), and couldn’t afford to do it for everyone who claims to have a higher purpose (“oh, you’re doing this for the good of society? Here, have a 20% raise”). Everyone has a sad story.

I would hate you to be under the impression that we are “on the same page”, so let me make it clear to you that you have selected individual words from my responses to pad out and further your argument; which itself is based on a heap of assumptions that are incorrect in themselves.

My comment was wholly sarcastic, I’m just showing you where the logic you’re espousing takes you. Not where you think it does.

By all means, point everyone in the direction of the AEU commentary that spells out the assumptions you have presented as given… I don’t recall ever hearing the comments you attribute to them from our Union, nor from any individual member of the teaching profession. I’d like to point out that ACT teachers, generally are awesome; but never have I heard it said (lest in print) we are “awesomerer” than our private education colleagues.

Why not save us both the trouble and tell me if YOU think they are, since your rather Jesuitical answer has avoided answering the question. I’ve certainly heard public sector teachers claim it though.

That “casual connection” hasn’t been used in any way as far as I am aware. The problems leading to this “exodus” are well known by teachers, schools and parents; the problem is the Department, and in particular, the Minister, think they can wallpaper over it with a lousy handful of alternatives.

I have to confess, this sounded like white noise to me. Could you explain clearly what you feel the problem is? I’m afraid what you just said was wholly unhelpful. What is the reason parents have for years been leaving the public sector.

Obviously dealing with the issues has been placed in the “too hard” basket. You’ve again made an assumption that it must be the staff; on this, you clearly have been mistaken. The issues are with how the system has disadvantaged schools by not allowing them to deal adequately with students that have behaviour or learning issues

Behavioural or learning issues? Look, I know “learning disability” has become a catch all way to excuse the fact your child is under the average (someone has to be, that’s why they call it an average), but this is a tiny minority of kids. In a classroom of 30 how many kids really have “behavioural issues”? Especially when classes are already streamed (will my level 1 math class really have any kids with behavioral issues? And if not, why am I still showing such poor internal improvement?). Besides, I want these kids to be able to be expelled, it’s the AEU who opposes it. This whole issue is a distraction from the real problems. Besides, kids are kids, I daresay just as many had (or didn’t have) these problems a generation ago, but the exodus from public schools wasn’t as great in the 50’s, or 60’s or even 70’s (it was almost non-existent).

as well as inadequate funding to supply resources and training to improve the quality of the environment and delivery of education (yet alone the removal of many of these structures over the last decade or so).

Again, I’m getting a collection of buzzwords from the AEU. English involves a pen, paper and some books, all of which are cheap, and all of which the school already has copies of. The same is true of most subjects. The basics of education are not expensive, or out of the reach of public schools, they have them aplenty (often too much junk, though I won’t get into stories of this). How many supplies did they have in decades past with higher scores? When kids used to do classics and latin, all they had were some dusty tomes, lead pencils and paper, while the teacher used a blackboard and chalk. Are you seriously trying to claim schools are failing in English because they can’t afford this stuff? That’s absurd. Indeed, I could link you to school reports showing many public schools in the ACT with hundreds of thousands of dollars sitting in their accounts. Try harder, really.

TruthTeller995:02 pm 03 Oct 11

Gerry-Built said :

That is pretty ignorant. The “great majority of parents” (at just over 50%) are choosing private education over public because for a number of reasons; primarily, in my experience, due to the fact the difficult kids are either dealt with, or removed (to public schools which HAVE to take them). Until ACT DET and Minister Barr face up to that fact, and deal with it, the private system will probably remain more attractive. The quality of teaching in the public system is every bit the equal, if not better, than the private system. Another issue is that involved parents will always pay their way, as they see this as only fair; whilst a vast majority of parents in the public system refuse to contribute voluntary contributions. The families that pay (less than 20%), subsidise those that refuse because “education should be free”. The Government should get real about delivering funding that covers the true cost of delivering an education; covering those “voluntary contributions”.

I’m always astounded to hear public school teachers and their advocates claim that they would do EVEN BETTER than private schools, if they simply had the same students… Radford would somehow have a median ATAR score even higher than 92 (95 perhaps? Still too low?). I worry when I hear people make these sorts of claims in an earnest tone.

You say it’s terrible that public schools have to take any and all comers, because it disadvantages them. Here’s the thing, I don’t disagree with you. I want public schools to be able to expel kids too, and I’ve said so several times now. I want public schools to be able to specialise, so you don’t have a situation where a bunch of kids with no academic interests or inclinations are forced into a school which ignores this fact. Not everyone can be a doctor or lawyer, the reality is some people need to be tradies or plumbers, and our education system has ignored this for far too long, which is why there is a chronic shortage of skills in Australia, and immigration is used as a band-aid to fix the problem. More selective schools are needed, more ability of schools to specialise, more control in the hands of principals (to expel students, and to decide who they hire and under what circumstances), who right now are little more than ceremonial figures. The AEU opposes all this, not me.

I can’t imagine what else you think the government should “DO” about it. How would increased funding make any difference to 99% of students, if teacher’s are already doing the best they can (and still losing students left, right and center?)

The last remark you make, about voluntary contributions, is a distraction of no relevance to this topic. Those voluntary contributions don’t even go towards paying teachers, they’re kept in a separate account the school has to cover building costs and administrative extras and such, and is usually too full of cash as it is (I remember seeing Hawker College had about half a million dollars in funds in their account, and there is no real accountability or oversight for how that money is spent).

blimkybill4:44 pm 03 Oct 11

I think you’re confused about the national curriculum, since ‘Every chance to learn’ was in place in 2007 (http://activated.act.edu.au/ectl/framework.htm), but I guess if you just invoke the phrase “Howard Government!” indignantly enough you’ll always win a cheap cheer from chardonnay sipping leftists.

No I’m not confused about it at all. The national curriculum is a major undertaking, not something that could be dreamed up and implemented within a year or two. It was initiated by the Howard government before 2007. It is also supported by the current federal government. It has just taken a number of years to write it, get agreement from the states, and begin to implement it. Even now not all of it is written. There were a number of reasons the national curriculum was initiated, including making life easier for children who move interstate, but an important reason was for the federal government to have greater control over what teachers and schools (who they didn’t trust) did.

I don’t believe private schools, on the whole, have better teachers. What they do have is greater resources, the ability to get parents contributing to bolster resources and to back up their requirements of the students, and overall a more engaged and supported cohort of students. They also have status, so the perception of superiority may be just as valued as actualy superiority. Private schools are free to expel those who don’t live up to their eexpectations where public schools need to cater for all comers – and this make a big difference to what a school can do.

As for selective schools – well I went to one myself in Sydney, many years ago, and at the time would have supported them. But they have changed a lot over the past nearly 30+ years, and now are not places for naturally bright students to get a well rounded education, but hothouses where only kids who have had extensive coaching get places and where the constant focus is on achieving high marks. The great majority of kids from selective schools these days come from cultures where studying hard/coaching throughout childhood in the quest to “be the best” is the norm. Fine for some I guess but not what I’d want for my own children.

As for Naplan – teachers don’t oppose the existence of Naplan, but they do oppose it as a tool to judge schools against each other. Teacher know from first hand experience that Naplan marks are more than any other thing a reflection of the nature and qualities of the students in that school. Lowr marks may for example, reflect an inclusive school which caters well for special needs tudents and therefore attracts more students with additional needs. A bright capable student will get a high Naplan mark wherever they are. And moving a child from a low scoring school to a high scoring school will not make that student’s marks, or skills, any better.

As for shadow boxer’s mate, he must be one of those slack teachers you mention. He is in no way indicative of the majority of teachers I know, who work much, much harder than that.

Gerry-Built4:41 pm 03 Oct 11

TruthTeller99 said :

So you think principles of competition should govern the education sector? Cool, then I guess the first thing we should do is break up the monopoly that currently exists in the public sector, so that true competition can function. I’m pleased to see we’re on the same page.

Wages right now aren’t based on demand for your services at all, they’re based on tenure, which is the exact problem. Get rid of that, and allow schools to contract with teachers like normal workplaces, and you’ll see higher wages for teacher’s who deserve it, and lower ones for those whose services are less valuable. Right now, the system discourages the best candidates out of Uni, because the entry wage is low, and encourages the candidates who went into education because they couldn’t cut it in the private sector to stay, because they’ll get a higher wage the longer they stay in. Pay people on merit not longevity, you’ll fast solve much of that problem.

Every other branch of the Public Service has tenure, with pay based on longevity, not merit (at least for a majority of the workers). The Performance Management Systems used in the public service are difficult to fail; and therefore not receive an incremental step. Why should it be different for teachers? There are already processes available to remove teachers who are not performing, and I’m sure most teachers would be happy to see these stepped up, if necessary, to remove the hundreds of teachers that are not performing, by your scale. Afterall, it is teachers who are performing their work adequately or better that pick up the slack. Despite what you have assumed, the education sector is not full of people who “couldn’t cut it” in the private sector; it is full of people dedicated to educating young people and getting those young people to meet their full potential.
I would hate you to be under the impression that we are “on the same page”, so let me make it clear to you that you have selected individual words from my responses to pad out and further your argument; which itself is based on a heap of assumptions that are incorrect in themselves.

TruthTeller99 said :

But the other problem with this argument is that it flies in the face of the AEU narrative anyway. The AEU claims public school teachers are already awesome, and couldn’t be better, they do it only for love of work, not money (otherwise the “superior” public school teachers would all have left to the private sector, including the private teaching sector, already… whereas public school teachers often claim they are even better than higher paid private school teachers, and the only reason for lower scores than the private sector are due to superior resources and creaming of talent). If that really is true, as the AEU claims, then NSW being slightly better paid shouldn’t matter. This removes the practical consideration, and leaves only the principled question of whether it’s “fair”, but as I said (among other things) I don’t see any reason to think NSW is the correct rate in the first place. The fact teacher’s are being paid too much somewhere else isn’t an argument to overpay them here too… at least not on principle.

By all means, point everyone in the direction of the AEU commentary that spells out the assumptions you have presented as given… I don’t recall ever hearing the comments you attribute to them from our Union, nor from any individual member of the teaching profession. I’d like to point out that ACT teachers, generally are awesome; but never have I heard it said (lest in print) we are “awesomerer” than our private education colleagues.

TruthTeller99 said :

But the casual connection between salary and public sector exodus just isn’t there, the exodus began long before recent union negotiations, it’s been happening for years. Even now, schools have enough teachers, and are being killed by their private sector counterparts… the problem is clearly with the current teachers.

That “casual connection” hasn’t been used in any way as far as I am aware. The problems leading to this “exodus” are well known by teachers, schools and parents; the problem is the Department, and in particular, the Minister, think they can wallpaper over it with a lousy handful of alternatives. Obviously dealing with the issues has been placed in the “too hard” basket. You’ve again made an assumption that it must be the staff; on this, you clearly have been mistaken. The issues are with how the system has disadvantaged schools by not allowing them to deal adequately with students that have behaviour or learning issues, as well as inadequate funding to supply resources and training to improve the quality of the environment and delivery of education (yet alone the removal of many of these structures over the last decade or so).

TruthTeller9912:29 pm 03 Oct 11

blimkybill said :

Teacher here, wanting to address just a few of Truthteller’s claims:

“Want a more dynamic curriculum? Let schools have more flexibility in their educational package,”

The ACT has had, up until now, a flexible curriculum which does allow for variation between schools and teachers. Our curriculum, “Every chance to learn”, is one of the most flexible in Australia. It was the Howard government which pushed for a more rigid national curriculum, which is now being impemented. The National Curriculum is MUCH more rigid and prescriptive than the previous ACT curriculum and all the push for it comes from the commonwealth..

At any rate, the curriculum problems (and exodus from public schools) long pre-date the Howard Government, just as the abolition of trimesters in the ACT was not a Howard Government policy, it was a policy of the ACT Dept of Education (the de facto lobby of the AEU), supported by the AEU, and ignored by Narrabundah. Diverse cirriculum doesn’t mean “teacher’s can teach whatever they like with no accountability” (I’m sure the AEU would love that), it means that schools should be able to have different focuses and education packages… some schools might want to focus on special needs students, or on technical skills. This sort of diversity is adamantly opposed by the AEU.

My opinion, after living and working in three states and sending my children to governemt schools in three states, is that ACT public schools are the best in Australia. I think a greater proportion of parents here choose private schools simply because they can afford to and they believe a private school will give their child a competitive advantage in a competitive world.

More later…

1) This doesn’t really address my point at all, which is “why not make the public school system better?” I’d readily believe the ACT system is no worse than the rest of Australia, but that’s because the whole Australian education system suffers from this sort of stupidity, and to the extent it doesn’t it tends to be due to advocating the sorts of policies I’m calling for (eg, selective schools).
2) The logic you invoke in this argument suggests one of 2 things: a) private schools are better at teaching kids than public schools (my point), or b) parents are fools. If the teacher’s at public schools are just as good (or better as they often claim), then why would parents be leaving? Why would test scores be worse (and they’re worse in all sorts of metrics like internal improvement, not just group dependent ones like ATAR). Sure, in year 11-12 your peer group might hurt you (or might not, like the girl who got 100 at Lake G 5-6 years ago), but students are being pulled out of the public school system at high school, in primary school, in areas where peer group doesn’t affect your marks at all. Parents are paying thousands of dollars to send kids to the private system because of a superior learning culture, better and more diverse curriculum, teachers who are held accountable for their progress, and because of a lack of all these things in the public sector.

TruthTeller9912:46 am 03 Oct 11

Gerry-Built said :

NSW teachers are not even the highest paid in the country. However, as one of the larger jurisdictions, and our immediate neighbour (and therefore most likely competitor for the same pool of new teachers), wages should be competitive with theirs.

So you think principles of competition should govern the education sector? Cool, then I guess the first thing we should do is break up the monopoly that currently exists in the public sector, so that true competition can function. I’m pleased to see we’re on the same page.

Wages right now aren’t based on demand for your services at all, they’re based on tenure, which is the exact problem. Get rid of that, and allow schools to contract with teachers like normal workplaces, and you’ll see higher wages for teacher’s who deserve it, and lower ones for those whose services are less valuable. Right now, the system discourages the best candidates out of Uni, because the entry wage is low, and encourages the candidates who went into education because they couldn’t cut it in the private sector to stay, because they’ll get a higher wage the longer they stay in. Pay people on merit not longevity, you’ll fast solve much of that problem.

But the other problem with this argument is that it flies in the face of the AEU narrative anyway. The AEU claims public school teachers are already awesome, and couldn’t be better, they do it only for love of work, not money (otherwise the “superior” public school teachers would all have left to the private sector, including the private teaching sector, already… whereas public school teachers often claim they are even better than higher paid private school teachers, and the only reason for lower scores than the private sector are due to superior resources and creaming of talent). If that really is true, as the AEU claims, then NSW being slightly better paid shouldn’t matter. This removes the practical consideration, and leaves only the principled question of whether it’s “fair”, but as I said (among other things) I don’t see any reason to think NSW is the correct rate in the first place. The fact teacher’s are being paid too much somewhere else isn’t an argument to overpay them here too… at least not on principle.

Wages were pretty close between the two until the second last, and then the last, EBA; both of which saw ACT Teachers lose ground to their NSW counterparts. On the flipside of your question; why should ACT teacher wages not be the barometer, particularly given the system’s success on national assessments?

This is another instance of the AEU lobby wanting it all ways at once. On the one hand, you invoke the national assessments here to claim you deserve a pay increase, on the other hand you want to ignore those same assessments when compared to OTHER school in Canberra (eg, private ones). Which is it, do the national assessments count, or not? And if you need to look deeper at things like “the quality of students”, why wouldn’t we bear that in mind for the NSW/ACT comparison, when it’s obvious that an artificial city composed largely of 300,000 public servants and 10 homeless people is obviously going to have a higher level of student than a diverse area like NSW, that includes rural areas, poor areas, has less middle class students with access to parents assistance, etc.

But frankly, I’m more interested in how the ACT is the worst public system at retaining students/customers, since how people vote with their feet is the most crucial test in a market economy (now over 50% of students in the ACT go private). When you can’t give your product away, something is wrong.

I’d be interested to see how you determined this point; I can tell you from experience that ACT DET has trouble trying to fill positions in many schools.

There was a long discussion of it on another forum (much more painful than this one), which I had with an AEU nutter, in which he ended in basically conceding that (despite his claims to the contrary) teachers earnt about the same (or more) than they did 30+ years ago when you adjust for inflation, etc. But I also think teaching suffers from being both over regulated and under demand. It’s over regulated because I personally don’t think you need a 3 year degree to learn how to teach students, and in some private schools you don’t need any such qualification. It’s just an absurd waste for some law student to have to tack on an extra year to qualify to teach high school law. But in addition, teaching isn’t in demand precisely because of the problems I noted above- the pay structure is low when you enter, and you can’t increase your salary due to merit. All this is a significant barrier to entry (on the other hand, short of sexual assault, you basically can’t be fired either).

But the casual connection between salary and public sector exodus just isn’t there, the exodus began long before recent union negotiations, it’s been happening for years. Even now, schools have enough teachers, and are being killed by their private sector counterparts… the problem is clearly with the current teachers.

The teaching profession recognises the need for improvement to come from the inside also (ie performance based). However, no suitable or acceptable method has been suggested which all parties can see as fair and equitable; as yet.

This is the sort of meaningless jargon that I find typical of the AEU. They accept the need for a metric “in principle” (at best), but refuse to say what these metrics could be, and oppose any suggested ones. Test scores? They don’t count (unless it’s convenient to your argument… see above). Whether parents want to send their kids to our school? Also “unfair”. Give me a break, that’s how almost every other profession gets judged… why not you too.

The fact that the ACT community is abandoning the public system “in droves” is more reflective of the system, rather than the staff within it. A system which is unable to provide support to schools or staff for those students that have extra needs (Even conversation on RA points to the systemic failures, rather than quality of teaching).

Extra needs students are a tiny minority of students, they do not account for the massive shift to the private sector, even were we to concede your point. This is just a distraction from the real conversation. But it’s hard to see how the current PC culture fostered in schools does anything to help these problems. Some kids need to be expelled from schools. But again, this is a distraction that should be avoided, because this tiny minority does not account for the seismic shift from public schools (who have all the advantages, since it’s free). I’m pretty sure parents are not paying thousands of dollars a year to send them to a school who has an extra Councillor, given they could pay a small amount of that to hire a tutor or Councillor to assist their child anyway.

In addition, teachers have gradually had more and more added on to their workload over the years, to the point where it is difficult to manage that entire workload; and in particular, many of the recent workload issues do not receive support or training to administer these functions (the complex new VLC being a prime example). Teachers recognise the need for change, and embrace it more wholly; more so than most occupations; new system and school priorities as well as personal priorities are constantly being incorporated into a teacher’s personal practice.

In addition, your later posts paint an interesting stereotype that bears no resemblance to fact… Movies and TV get it far more accurate; especially that semi-documentary series “Summer Heights High”… Besides; when would a teacher get time during the workday to go out for coffee?

None of this really has anything to do with what I said, or what I suggested, which was a wholesale reform of the public education system involving a vouchers model. Assume for a moment some teachers have had their workload increase, and assume for a moment that they weren’t overpaid since that work increased (I don’t think I agree with either claim really, but let’s assume it for a moment). We can all agree some teachers HAVEN’T had their work increase as well, or that some teachers have had MORE or LESS of an increase… why is the most sensible way to compensate for these varying increases to give a uniform pay increase which is based on tenure? It’s completely illogical, because the current salary structure is illogical.

Gerry-Built11:09 pm 02 Oct 11

TruthTeller99 said :

1) Their claim they deserve the same wage as NSW teacher’s is based on a false premise, namely that NSW teachers are paid correctly, something I’ve never seen justified once. Why is NSW the barometer for wages?

NSW teachers are not even the highest paid in the country. However, as one of the larger jurisdictions, and our immediate neighbour (and therefore most likely competitor for the same pool of new teachers), wages should be competitive with theirs. Wages were pretty close between the two until the second last, and then the last, EBA; both of which saw ACT Teachers lose ground to their NSW counterparts. On the flipside of your question; why should ACT teacher wages not be the barometer, particularly given the system’s success on national assessments?

TruthTeller99 said :

2) Teachers are well paid relative to demand (more on this later).

I’d be interested to see how you determined this point; I can tell you from experience that ACT DET has trouble trying to fill positions in many schools.

TruthTeller99 said :

3) The AEU, and teachers within it, seem wholly unable to recognise the need to make any changes themselves. Look at the evidence: a) people are leaving the public schools in droves, and have been for years, b) teacher’s are apparently already doing the best job they can, and are super qualified already. What’s not right with that picture? I have never heard any concessions about fixing the public system (say with a vouchers model) by the AEU, except “spend more money, and things will get better”. Why would money help, given teachers are already doing the best they can, and are well qualified? It’s not like most educational materials cost much, paper, pens, old text book, etc. The primary cost is you guys. That’s the problem with the AEU narrative, it’s inconsistent and illogical.

The teaching profession recognises the need for improvement to come from the inside also (ie performance based). However, no suitable or acceptable method has been suggested which all parties can see as fair and equitable; as yet. The fact that the ACT community is abandoning the public system “in droves” is more reflective of the system, rather than the staff within it. A system which is unable to provide support to schools or staff for those students that have extra needs (Even conversation on RA points to the systemic failures, rather than quality of teaching). This is one of the points of contention the AEU (and teachers more generally) have with recent priorities pushed by Barr. What is needed is some support services to take the difficult kids out of schools when that is required, and give them more appropriate support. Additionally, some of the (ever increasing group of) students with learning difficulties that don’t qualify for assistance could be supported with additional tuition or in-class assistance. Your assumption is that the AEU is talking about that additional funding being all directed to teacher pay… Your assumption is wrong.

In addition, teachers have gradually had more and more added on to their workload over the years, to the point where it is difficult to manage that entire workload; and in particular, many of the recent workload issues do not receive support or training to administer these functions (the complex new VLC being a prime example). Teachers recognise the need for change, and embrace it more wholly; more so than most occupations; new system and school priorities as well as personal priorities are constantly being incorporated into a teacher’s personal practice.

In addition, your later posts paint an interesting stereotype that bears no resemblance to fact… Movies and TV get it far more accurate; especially that semi-documentary series “Summer Heights High”… Besides; when would a teacher get time during the workday to go out for coffee?

26042:52 pm 02 Oct 11

TT99, your error is assuming that the AEU is interested in improving education and helping students. That is its rhetoric. However, the truth is that the AEU has never been interested in improving education outcomes, or doing anything for students. All it stands for is protecting its own revenues, and growing those revenues, and every campaign it runs is directed at those ends. For example:

– Reduced class sizes. Aimed at increasing the number of teachers in the public education system, where most will become AEU members.
– Unreasonable wages claims. As AEU membership is levied on a percentage-of-salary basis, the more teacher salaries get jacked up, the more money the AEU makes. If ACT teachers win an 8% overall pay increase in 2011, the AEU’s revenues from ACT members will automatically increase by 8%, as well.
– Campaigns against non-government schools. The AEU would close all non-govt schools tomorrow, if it could. This would force students into the government system, which would need to hire more teachers, who in turn would likely become AEU members.
– Campaigns against performance pay and leading teacher allowances. The more teachers are on a standard salary scale and not receiving bonuses, etc, the easier it is for the AEU to bargain collectively. By contrast, employees getting paid differentiated salaries are in an individual bargaining position and have no need for a union to bargain on their behalf. This is one of the reasons why the CPSU’s membership has dwindled within the Commonwealth Public Service.
– Campaigns against NAPLAN. NAPLAN enables parents to make a relative comparison of the standards to which students are being taught in each school. If such comparisons are not positive for a government school, parents will remove their children, meaning fewer teachers are required, meaning fewer AEU members.
– Standardised salaries between states. One reason why the AEU wants ACT teachers to get paid the same amount as NSW teachers is that its ideal situation is one where every teacher in Australia is paid on the same salary scale. This will enable the AEU to bargain collectively on behalf of teachers in all States and Territories and exercise maximum leverage against individual education departments. So for example, if the ACT Government refuses to meet an unreasonable pay claim in future, the AEU could call a national strike in support of its ACT members. The pressure on the ACT would be irresistible.

TruthTeller9910:13 am 02 Oct 11

Tom, I find it very difficult to feel any sympathy for the teacher’s union for the following reasons:
1) Their claim they deserve the same wage as NSW teacher’s is based on a false premise, namely that NSW teachers are paid correctly, something I’ve never seen justified once. Why is NSW the barometer for wages?
2) Teachers are well paid relative to demand (more on this later).
3) The AEU, and teachers within it, seem wholly unable to recognise the need to make any changes themselves. Look at the evidence: a) people are leaving the public schools in droves, and have been for years, b) teacher’s are apparently already doing the best job they can, and are super qualified already. What’s not right with that picture? I have never heard any concessions about fixing the public system (say with a vouchers model) by the AEU, except “spend more money, and things will get better”. Why would money help, given teachers are already doing the best they can, and are well qualified? It’s not like most educational materials cost much, paper, pens, old text book, etc. The primary cost is you guys. That’s the problem with the AEU narrative, it’s inconsistent and illogical.

More generally, the AEU opposes a raft of measures that cripple the chances of schools to improve. They like the current system with a rigid cirriculum, no competition between schools, no flexible teacher contractors, a rigid payment system based solely on tenure, and the inability of principles to even hire and fire their own teachers! No wonder the Education system is a mess. And it’s obvious how these things would improve the system. Want to get better teachers straight out of Uni? If you can tailor salaries to offer more to better quality teachers, you’ll be able to do exactly that. Instead the Union is boringly typical, clinging to tenure based salary (how can that possibly be the correct way to measure teacher merit?) Want a more dynamic curriculum? Let schools have more flexibility in their educational package, that’s a key reason why Bundah is outperforming other public schools, they ignored the Dept of Education (the AEU’s lobby) and kept trimesters, kept unique subjects (of course the feeder area helps). Say a teacher is good at teaching level 1 math, but terrible at helping level 2 or 3 kids… what you’re really saying is he can’t do 66% of his job, so why is he being paid to? Why not hire him as a casual teacher for level 1 math… he can get jobs at other schools as a level 1 math teacher too, he’ll probably have less hours anyway. But to hear the AEU there is no such thing as a bad teacher. Competition is the cure to these problems (and many more), making schools independent entities, and giving parents the choice. Bundah is doing well? Great, let it open up a Northern campus and buy out the buildings of a bad school with a bad learning culture.

For all their speeches about doing it for the kids, the claims of the AEU are incredibly selfish and arrogant. They believe that teaching is a “special” profession, that should be immune from all ordinary market based factors of supply, demand, accountability, etc. That’s an incredible proposition. Of course, there are caring teachers who love their jobs, but that’s true of most professions. I can find a truckie or a plumber who care deeply about their jobs, but it doesn’t follow the government should create a monopoly for those professions, and destroy ordinary principles of competition to help them.

TomGreenwell7:29 am 27 Sep 11

2604 said: “If teachers and their union are really motivated by altruistic concerns for student outcomes, rather than naked self-interest and money grabbing, why go on strike at all? Why not settle for 3.5% or whatever the current deal is?”

As I explained in the article, the Government has offered 2.5% annual increases (not 3.5%). These increases would be below forecast inflation and below what other public sector workers have been awarded. I make no apology for fighting for a fair day’s pay for the hard work I do. However, it is also the case that underpaying teachers is harming the quality of education delivered to students.

c0mm3nt3r makes the very good point that our job is made that much harder by the failure of the employer to recruit people to the profession:

“…inability to recruit is a concern for teachers – it means that some ACT schools, particularly those out of the inner regions, are very hard to staff which adds to the burden of teachers when they can’t staff classes, individual classes have multiple teachers in the same year and relief staff are impossible to get some days which leaves classes collapsed and staff in the school working over hours and stressed just to get through the day.”

2604 said: “If the final sticking points are exec pay, relief teacher pay, and pay for counsellors, surely this could have been resolved by further negotiations or by those particular levels of teacher going on strike, rather than having a general strike of all unionised teachers.”

As noted above, the sticking points relate to every person covered by the agreement (only 2.5% annual increases that would not keep up with inflation). Moreover, the notion that teachers should accept the agreement and defer unsatisfactory matters to further negotiation is either very naive or disingenuous. We would then be in a position of having given up any bargaining power we have and be begging for the Government to be nice and do what they had refused to when we did have some bargaining power.

2604 said: “I’d also be interested in knowing whether any empirical data exist (for example exit surveys) which show that increasing salaries would aid in retaining teachers and attracting new ones. I suspect that this is just a glib assumption being used by the AEU because it suits its agenda.”

My argument here is not that pay is the only factor that affects the appeal of the profession, just that it is a significant one. The assumption that the level of pay affects the attractiveness of a job is a wholly uncontroversial one shared by all seriously involved in the debate. Only actually existing data – rather than idle speculation – which conflicted with this assumption would warrant questioning it.

26049:15 pm 26 Sep 11

Greenwell and other AEU cronies should stop insulting our intelligence by pretending that this strike is really about better educational outcomes for children. The AEU has spent years disadvantaging school children by fighting against transparency measures (eg threatening to boycot NAPLAN) and resisting performance pay (leading teacher positions and differentiated pay for higher-performing teachers).

If teachers and their union are really motivated by altruistic concerns for student outcomes, rather than naked self-interest and money grabbing, why go on strike at all? Why not settle for 3.5% or whatever the current deal is? If the final sticking points are exec pay, relief teacher pay, and pay for counsellors, surely this could have been resolved by further negotiations or by those particular levels of teacher going on strike, rather than having a general strike of all unionised teachers. As has been noted in previous comments, this is the second day this term which has been disrupted because of of striking teachers and comes on top of a planning day. Three days gone out of a fifty day term.

I’d also be interested in knowing whether any empirical data exist (for example exit surveys) which show that increasing salaries would aid in retaining teachers and attracting new ones. I suspect that this is just a glib assumption being used by the AEU because it suits its agenda. Based upon experiences of friends, my wife, and other Rioters, what drives most people out of the profession isn’t lack of a good salary, but the lack of any real will on the part of school principals to discipline students and the frustration of working your arse off and getting paid no more than a teacher of equivalent experience who does the bare minimum and couldn’t care less about students. In fact, I’m pretty certain that most teachers would take a pay cut if their job satisfaction could be ratcheted up a notch or two, and addressing issues like these would be a good first step.

Regarding pay parity with NSW, NSW teachers work more school days each year than ACT school teachers. They also, generally, have inferior teaching facilities, larger class sizes, and can be required to move long distances for work. In any case, why should ACT teachers automatically be paid the same as NSW teachers? It’s like arguing that a public servant working for Defence should automatically be paid the same as one working for DEEWR or Environment, and reflects a way of thinking that the rest of the world abandoned in the 1980s. (Of course, the AEU’s hidden agenda is to have every teacher in the nation on the same payscale, so that it can gain maximum leverage by bargaining nationally, but that’s another story…) ACT teachers who want the same wages as their NSW colleagues can move to NSW and get higher NSW pay and inferior NSW working conditions, any time they want.

TomGreenwell8:14 pm 26 Sep 11

Mr Magoo said: “I support better pay and conditions for teachers whole heartedly but my question to the AEU is what happens when NSW teachers get a pay rise??”

Thanks for your support – it’s greatly appreciated. I think there is an understanding that we can only talk about pay parity with other jurisdictions at a particular moment – we don’t know what’s going to happen elsewhere over the life of the agreement. However, teachers want to make demands that are reasonable and that the community can see are reasonable. Comparisons with other jurisdictions, particularly NSW which directly competes with the ACT for teaching staff, help us do that. Moreover, they help everyone understand why the ACT is failing to attract the education professionals it needs (eg. new teachers, relief teachers, school counsellors) to give students the best possible start in life.

trevar said: “I have one question remaining; why do teachers only ever take half-arsed industrial measures? If parity is so important, why not have a proper strike to resolve the issue permanently instead of piddly little do-nothing strikes on a permanent biennial basis?”

I believe my colleagues and I are very determined to get a fair outcome. However, we find taking strike action highly regrettable, not least because it does cause disruption to parents and, particularly, to students. As I see it, we’re trying to take a balanced approach to minimise the disruption and maximise the result.

Fuzzy said: “Most people (myself included) agree that teachers are underpaid but 2 strikes plus the planning day in less than 6 weeks makes many an unhappy parent.”

Fuzzy, I understand your annoyance. We have made every effort to avoid this. As an act of good faith, we deferred rolling stoppages which had been planned in order to try and negotiate a deal with the Government. As I wrote above, we’ve implemented more minor bans to try and influence the Government. Despite this, they’re just not listening and thus we feel this is the only tool we have.

Rollersk8r, miz & Jethro – thanks for your support!

View more conversations

Featured Businesses

Lawyers

BDN Lawyers

BDN has provided legal services to to Canberra, Queanbeyan and the region for over 160 years.

Find out more

Mortgage Brokers

Clarity Home Loans

A passionate team of Canberrans helping other Canberrans secure their home loans. No frills, no commissions, no brainer.

Find out more

Insurance Brokers

allinsure

Allinsure has been a trusted insurance advisory to thousands of Australian business owners for almost 20 years.

Find out more

Professional Services

RSM

We share skills, insight and resources, as well as a client-centric approach that's based on a deep understanding of your business.

Find out more

Community Club

Canberra Southern Cross Club

We're proud to give you a place where friends and family can come together for good food and great entertainment.

Find out more

Electricians

True Connection Electrical

Since 2014, True Connection Electrical have been servicing residential and small commercial clients with reliable, trustworthy and top-quality electrical work.

Find out more

Lawyers

Kamy Saeedi Law

When you need a criminal or commercial lawyer, you don’t want to take any chances. You want someone in your corner that you can trust like your life depends on it - because it does.

Find out more