Page 2322 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The union and its members are understandably angry about this. They have argued that the whole profession is being punished because of the transgressions of a few. But of course—I forgot—it is not the minister’s fault! Just as he claimed the efficiency dividend idea was the responsibility of his department, this new attendance record has been adopted because his department told him to do it. Let me quote from the letter that Ms Penny Gilmour from the Australian Education Union, ACT branch, wrote to the minister. She says:
Since the first mention of this process, AEU officers have strongly and repeatedly expressed concern over how this additional compliance procedure would operate in schools. We foresaw a situation where supervising teachers would be distracted from their core business of teaching and educational leadership.
Ms Gilmour goes on to list their concerns. Firstly, she said, it creates administrative work for teachers when we should be working to reduce it. She said that supervising teachers now spend considerable time chasing up missing absence records, particularly in schools with large numbers of staff and/or offices with flexible or part-time working arrangements. There is a table attached to her letter which looks even more complicated than the extract I described earlier. Secondly, she said, the extra workload is significant. Ms Gilmour argues that a teacher with a perfect record of leave form submission is now spending additional time each fortnight performing a task they were previously not required to perform, with no discernible benefit for the department of education.
Principals in larger schools have told the Australian Education Union that this process has increased their workload by an average of 40 minutes per fortnight, as they cross-check, sign off and follow up paperwork. At one school an administrative officer supplements this extra teacher work by spending up to five hours per fortnight following through on the process. Ms Gilmour also suggested that the new arrangements duplicated work and relied on computer access by all teachers, which is not always easy; and that clearly the environment was of little concern, with so much paperwork.
Ms Gilmour also said there was a lack of clarity. Teachers are now not sure whether they are required to submit fortnightly absence records during stand-down or annual leave periods.
Ms Gilmour also made the point that it undermined professional trust. This is probably one of the most jackboot consequences of this; and, sadly, I doubt whether the minister is even the slightest bit aware that he may have offended the professional integrity of his teaching community. And as unaware as he might be, he would care even less. As Ms Gilmour says, teachers understandably see this as the equivalent of an entire class of students being punished due to the poor behaviour of a few.
Her last point, that it is unclear how this will address recalcitrance, is the most telling. Again I quote Ms Gilmour: “There is something ironic about trying to fix a problem of missing forms by requesting more forms.” And indeed, what does happen to the few that remain unwilling to fill in these forms? If they have previously refused to fill
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video