Education Spending

So, Victorian students get less money spent on them, according the Productivity Commission. The article is in The Age here:

 

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pressure-builds-on-education-spending/2008/01/30/1201369229697.html

 

We're the lowest funded in the country, $1000 less than NSW and $2000 less than WA.

 

Bronwyn Pike gave the predictable line, which of course cannot be proven: "our education system is one of the most efficient". Bronwyn is confusing frugality with efficiency. Not spending money does not make you efficient. But she doesn't care that our students work in appalling conditions. I know that she wouldn't work in the conditions she expects us to work in. But she doesn't care, she's comfortable.

Preppies Beginning School

Have you ever noticed that all the media outlets do the same boring thing every year on the first day of school? It seems to be a competition amongst the primary schools to have the most twins and triplets featured in the newspapers or on the TV news.

New National Çurriculum

Once again we will have to put up with a new curriculum. The Herald Sun has the article here:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23134813-2862,00.html

 

and in The Age here:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/national-plan-to-tackle-education/2008/01/30/1201369229670.html

 

As a practicing teacher, you just get tired of it. We've just had the VELS curriculum shoved down our throats and now the federal government is having its go at it. (VELS is a farce but I'll write about that later.)

 

Rudd promises it will drive up retention rates, improve student performance, blah, blah, blah. How it will do this is never explained. If it is like every other initiative it will die through lack of resources. They produce plenty of paper work and then expect teachers to put it into practice, all on top of all the work they are still expected to do.

 

I notice that there don't appear to be any teachers on this new National Curriculum Board. That's really gone to help it work! The Age notes that unions will not be on the Board. Predictably, they're complaining about that but they're pretty useless anyway, at least in Victoria.

 

About the only advantage I can see is for the kids who are transferring between the states and territories.

 

The best way to fix all the problems is to get rid of all the states and territories with all their inefficiencies and duplicate bureaucracies. But that isn't going to happen as the state MPs have their own interests to look after.

 

With a bit of luck I will have retired before the waste begins.

Teacher Should Strike

Catherine Deveny, who I assume is a staff reporter, wrote a very nice piece titled 'Teachers should strike for more pay. Our kids are worth it'. The article in The Age is here:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/teachers-should-strike-for-more-pay/2008/01/29/1201369130959.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1 

 

I am not in favour of striking, I think that there are better ways of doing it. Staff should stop doing all the extra work, all the PPW (pointless paper work), ignoring all the department surveys or filling them in incorrectly, not paying the VIT (Victorian Institute of Teaching) black mail etc. Of course, it won't happen.

 

Speaking of the VIT, they are the biggest leeches in teaching fraternity, the blood-suckers of bureaucracy. They do nothing useful for teachers. I know of no teacher that is happy with them. Some of their useless ideas are pathetic. They want CRTs (relief teachers) to participate in professional development. They are usually retired teachers and schools are desperate to get them to fill in when needed. There aren't wandering herds of CRTs just desperate to become employed, it's the other way around. If they aren't available then the work load on teachers goes up, which has happened with some small country schools without a pool of CRTs.

 

Teachers used to be registered by the education department. The VIT came about as the government decided to put the costs onto teachers. Unfortunately, the useless teachers' union agreed. This means that the union won't do anything about the VIT. Another reason why teaching now sucks. It was Mary Delahuntly who started the VIT and, boy, was she a useless flash in the pan.

 

They've increased the work load of first year out teachers with all the paper work - the VIT calls it support. What it means is they are busy collecting work off other teachers and passing it off as their own. I'm proud to say I have supported this! Why should they have to suffer? They also expect other staff to increase their work load above what they normally do just to fill in VIT's useless paper work. That's the type of work that should be black banned until we are properly rewarded.

 

Thanks for the support Catherine, but the government (and especially Bronwyn Pike) just doesn't care.

The Teaching Answer

A Leigh Williams in the letters to The Age neatly put something that I hadn't realised. The letter is below. The temporary link is

http://www.theage.com.au/letters/index.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

 

From a personal point of view (and being an 'older' teacher), I will not take on a job if there is insufficient time given to perform the task properly. Schools tend to not give money and, even if they do, it is usually a pittance after you take out tax.

 

The comments about training days (pupil-free days) are also most apt. They are always a waste of time and money. I have never been to one that has been worth the time and money. The number I have had to suffer would be over 100. Occasionally, a segment out of the day would be interesting and useful but as I look around at the $1000s spent all I can see is waste.

 

What is it with principals and leadership teams that they believe that they have to inflict their rubbish on the staff. I can only believe that it must be in their performance plans and they are doing it for a bonus. It must be easier not to run them so why not make most people happy. A couple of years ago, one staff member said she liked pupil-free days. They allowed her to catch up socially with other members of staff that she doesn't normally get time to speak to.

 

Leigh William's writes:
PHILIP Riley (Opinion, 28/1), in highlighting the attrition rate of new teachers, mentions fundamental points such as wage rates and training.

However, he fails to get to the heart of the matter. As in any job, the first few years are a mixture of challenge and reward.

New teachers are bombarded with training days, coerced into leadership roles and treated little better than the students they are paid to teach. Older, more experienced teachers handball responsibilities onto new teachers, mainly because they are not supported with the time or pay, they have a revolving door of seminars and school leaderships that treat teachers like children.

Those in education who provide the framework for training, curriculum, timetables and pay refuse to understand the basic needs of new teachers.

Teachers are voting with their feet. They move to other, less stressful, better paid jobs.

Put simply, older teachers are saying that the profession has got harder, while new teachers are … well, not teaching any more.

Keeping our Teachers

A university lecturer from Monash University, Philip Riley, has penned his thoughts on how to keep teachers teaching. His article is here:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/keeping-our-teachers/2008/01/27/1201368941242.html

He makes some good points. Nearly half the teachers who start teaching do not last longer five years. A quarter last only one year. All this means a lot of money and effort are wasted.

 

His solution seems to be better training and professional development. I seem to remember that the practicum (practice teaching) was the best part of Dip Ed. It will be interesting to see how Melbourne Uni's two year teaching course goes. I gather it has a strong emphasis on the practicum. Unfortunately for Melb Uni's students they do not get any more money when they start teaching (except, possibly, if they can obtain a position in an obliging private school) and they will have a higher HECS debt.

 

Increasing teacher training costs money and short-sighted governments don't like spending money, unless they can get a few quick votes.

Editorial Letter by Chris Curtis

Chris Curtis had another letter publish in The Age today. It can be found here:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/letters/a-fight-for-the-bay-and-a-battle-for-hastings/2008/01/27/1201368939652.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap3

I have put a copy of his edited letter at the end of this post.

 

He criticises both the union and the government over their incompetence. I tend to agree with him. The union and the government are both useless. I am proud to say that I was one of two people in our school (out of about 80) who didn't vote for the current agreement. I could see what was going to happen. It is interesting that within two days of us getting 2.25% pay rise, the politicians gave themselves a 4% pay rise. We have to increase our work load to get more money so why don't they? They are hypocrites. They claim they have an independent tribunal to give them pay rises. What rubbish! The members of the tribunal know they won't remain in their quango junket if they don't give the necessary pay rises. We should tie our wages to politicians wages (and allowances).

 

Chris didn't answer the original writers questions as to why an experienced teacher has trouble getting a job. Another writer did. In a word, money. Graduate teachers are cheap so schools are encouraged to employ them. Experience is irrelevant. Once again, the learning of students is put last. As graduate teachers find out, you learn the most in the first few years as you find out what does and doesn't work.

 

I did my Dip Ed with a Chris Curtis at Rusden college many moons ago. The same Chris Curtis?

 

Chris wrote:
AMANDA Campbell is the latest in a long list of teachers complaining abut their working lives. What none of them has mentioned is that the decline in pay, staffing and working conditions is exactly what they themselves actually agreed to.

Victorian teachers foolishly endorsed the 2004 enterprise bargaining agreement, and were forced to accept higher teaching loads, longer periods, inadequate time allowances and the abolition of their management advisory committee, while secondary schools overall remained almost 2000 teachers short of their previous staffing levels.

The Government expects teachers to cave in because that is what they did in 2001 and 2004. If teachers think they deserve the pay and conditions that a much poorer state could afford more than 25 years ago, they will have to stop being wimps, stop voting for deals that make their working lives worse and start walking out of their schools en masse.

Finding Sufficient Teachers

The Age published a major article reporting a survey showing the difficulty that schools (particularly regional schools) have in recruiting teachers. It is here:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/state-schools-struggling-to-find-teachers/2008/01/27/1201368944842.html

 

Unfortunately, it was a survey produced by the teachers' union, the AEU (Australia Education Union). This means that the government can ignore it claiming the union is just pushing their own barrel. Of course, the government doesn't do any surveys so that it can say that there is no problem. This means it doesn't have to do something.

 

40% of secondary teachers (and I am one of them this year) teach subjects outside their expertise. Doesn't help the kids, but Bronwyn Pike (the minister) doesn't care.

 

28% of schools (and we are one) have unfilled positions. We had to reduce the range of subjects offered, which a third of schools do. Does Bronwyn Pike care? You have got to be joking.

 

The minsterial syncophant quoted contradicts themselves by saying that there is no teacher shortage but some subjects were 'harder to staff'. If you can't staff a subject doesn't that meant hat there aren't enough staff?

Boxing in Schools

In the Herald Sun, Les Twentyman is advocating that we introduce boxing into schools. The aim is to reduce some of the anti-social behaviour and giving boys in particular an outlet for their energy. The article is here:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23117473-2862,00.html

 

Les is a social welfare worker, well-known in Victoria. Personally, I have no objection to boxing in schools. However, before going all out I would like to see the evidence that it works. I seem to recall boxers are good at getting into to trouble just as much as other people, e.g. Mike Tyson! This is a job for super crunchers (statisticians).

 

Bronwyn Pike (the education minister) might give a tentative go ahead (by turning a blind eye to it) but you can be sure that after the first letter to the paper complaining about a blood nose it will be instantly banned.

Our Name

Do you know who we actually work for? Whenever we get a new government or minister they change the name of who we work for. They seem to think that we will be impressed by the fact that they are doing something. Actually, we just see it as a shocking waste of time and effort for the egos of politicians.

 

Incidentally, we work for what we know as DECEASED, which is more a comment on them than anything else. Officially it is the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, DEECD. Only the environment/forestry/conservation has more name changes. No, I don't know what their name is.