Statewide staffing needs improvement, not axing

By

Maree O'Halloran

The NSW Government's proposed system would be open to nepotism and corruption.

The current industrial agreement about the method of staffing public schools expires at the end of term 1. Federation is, of course, still seeking to negotiate a new agreement.

In those negotiations Federation is proposing significant improvements including:

• greater transparency in the process
• "on the job assessment" before promotion
• more incentives for rural and remote areas (in addition to incentive transfers).

Two of these improvements require additional funding to the Department from Treasury. To date the State Government has refused to provide that funding. The issue of transparency also seems too difficult for the Government. Their new system will be opaque, open to corruption and nepotism. School Education Directors will wield all power in the new system. For example, teachers will not even be included in panels for executive staff or principals. This section of the proposal shows the Department's utter contempt for the teaching profession as "underlings" who have no place on such panels. Perhaps we should not forget that the main proponent of the government's staffing proposal is Michael Coutts-Trotter who "transferred" from Commerce to Education with no interview, no panel and no transparency whatsoever.

Federation is also seeking to engage an independent auditor to analyse the cost of the Government's proposed staffing changes. The burden on schools needs to be analysed in terms of time, workload and interruption to the continuity of educational programs.

A statewide staffing system has the advantage of time and cost efficiency as well as being equitable. To make the system more efficient and less disruptive for parents and students, Federation is also proposing that schools be staffed each year according to anticipated enrolments. Where there is an increase in enrolment, an extra teacher is gained. Where there is a drop in enrolments, there would be no loss of staff until the end of the year.

Clearly the negotiating process has been compromised by the bad faith entailed in the State Government's distribution to the media of its unilateral announcement while Federation negotiators were actually at the negotiating table.

School Education Directors (SEDs) across the state have been sent out to sell government policy through the media and at principals' meetings. As Senior Executive Service members on five-year contracts, the SEDs are not independent civil servants supporting public schools. They are a politicised caste acting in the interest of the government of the day. The SEDs also have a vested interest in the increase in managerial prerogative inherent in the Government's proposal. It seems that no promotion, appointment or "transfer" will occur without the approval of the SED.

The current system may have been corrupted to some extent by the behaviour of departmental officials. The proposed system, however, will have no safeguards. It will be open to nepotism and corruption with no independent oversight or genuine appeals process.

Federation had hoped that 2008 would be a year of negotiation with no disruption to workplaces. The aim was to have a new industrial agreement in place for school staffing by term 2 and new salaries awards by January 1, 2009. In addition, Federation planned to negotiate the employment of additional permanent teachers in schools, TAFE, AMES, Corrective Services and the Department. For example, at least 1000 extra teachers in schools would be a good start.

Unfortunately, the State Government seems intent on a form of "WorkChoices" for teachers. Deregulation of staffing, a wage cut and the removal of teacher education qualifications for permanent TAFE teachers are all manifestations of this intent. Education classifications are also being excluded from positions in the Employee Performance and Conduct (EPAC) Unit and staff support positions as well as in AMES. Once again, contempt for the value of the profession is on display from the Department.

The aim of WorkChoices was to increase employer power and provide virtually unfettered managerial prerogative. At its heart the Government's attempt to move to local selection is about increased managerial control. This is easily demonstrated when the demographic shift in teaching identified in the Auditor-General's report in February is examined. The system is about to open up. Transfers will easily be accommodated in the coming years, while still leaving many vacancies for other methods of appointment. Axing the system is not necessary to create more local "choice". Nor does local selection provide better results for students. Indeed the Premier has recently lauded the achievements of NSW students.

Joe Hockey has famously said that the former federal Cabinet did not understand the impact of WorkChoices. The state Cabinet has no such excuse, however pathetic. Then NSW Education Minister Carmel Tebbutt's words to Council two weeks before the 2007 state election show the duplicity and dishonesty of the Government's new proposal.

It was, of course, a Coalition Government which attempted to dismantle the system in NSW in 1991. It was also a Coalition Government which dismantled the Victorian system. (Victorian teachers now earn $11,000 less than their NSW counterparts at the top of the scale.)

However, it was this current NSW Labor Government which attempted in 2004 to impose five-year contracts on principals. That was only defeated by Federation after it sought the intervention of ACTU President Sharan Burrow.

On March 8 Federation Council was due to hear a report about negotiations on staffing. In the event that negotiations have broken down, a Sky Channel meeting has been booked for Tuesday, April 8, 2008. Members will be asked to vote about sustained action on staffing and government attacks on TAFE. Members will also hear reports about Federation's salaries, superannuation and workload claims.

Maree O'Halloran is the President.

For further information

March 2008 contents