Government attacks professional role of teachers

By Maree O’Halloran

In a small courtroom of the Industrial Relations Commission, in Phillip Street in Sydney, the State Government is perpetrating a gross insult to the public education profession.

The professional and industrial value of teachers' work is being questioned time and time again by the Government's legal team as they cross-examine teacher witnesses, Professor Tony Vinson and Professor Bill Mitchell.

The Government's legal team acts on the instructions of the Government/Department of Education and Training. Their instructions are clearly that the work value of teachers must be undermined in order to lower the potential salary increase that may be awarded. In order to carry out this instruction the Government's legal team has questioned the professional role and status of teachers.

Nowhere is this line of questioning more clear than in the cross-examination of Professor Tony Vinson. A small extract of the transcript of his cross-examination is set out below:

"Q. And you point out that teachers have complained that the dominant control exercise by central authorities over curricula and the tight prescription surrounding its presentation are counterproductive?
"A. Yes.

"Q. A very strong message that was being given to you by teachers in your inquiry was that there was a relationship between the move towards centralised control over curricula and typed prescription [sic] surrounding their presentation and the issue of professionalism?
"A. Yes.

"Q. And you tell us, again in your prologue, that teachers were complaining that they spent so much time dealing with the practicalities connected with the particular design of courses that they are left with little time to prepare classes and on vocational exercises that appear, drawing upon students' learning?
"A. May I elaborate slightly. I say, yes, that is correct and if I may elaborate, the teachers were constantly giving the message that they still, in the nature of their duties, had to tailor what they were doing anyway to the natures, backgrounds, make-up of the students in their class so in a way the complaint, if I could put it that way, if I am allowed to put it that way, was that this was an added burden for many of them, a distraction from their essential task which they still pursued, they claim to carry out."

And:

"Q. You go on to record that others argue that the strict adherence to standards-based outcomes restricts the teachers' autonomy and the exercise of professional judgment? Do you see that?
"A. Yes I do."

The tenor of the cross-examination was that teachers actually exercise less professional discretion and made less complex professional judgments now than before the outcomes-based approach.

During the course of his evidence Professor Vinson made it clear that he viewed teachers as highly dedicated, professional people. The following is an excerpt from Professor Vinson's re-examination by the Federation's legal team:

"Q. You were asked a number of questions about the issue of teacher professionalism. Can I ask you this, having seen what you say and having heard what you did in the course of your enquiry, what conclusions did you reach as to the extent to which school teachers in current circumstances exercise professional judgment and discretion on a day by day basis?
"A. To a very, very considerable degree. That observation I have to say was coupled with another one, where we are at pains to emphasise in the report, and that is the observable degree of dedication and commitment to the teaching role, despite some of the frameworks placed around the performance of their duties. They were determined to continue to meet the needs of individual children and young people. That has meant conversations with teachers, parents, and other professionals -- a high degree of professionalism in relation to trying to bring out the best possible performance from each student.

"Q. What you say in that regard, do you regard that as representing any change from the historical position?
"A. In so far as systematic records have not been maintained, one has to be a bit wary about these sort of historical comparisons. I have to rely in this matter on what teachers have had to say, both about the past and the reasons for their current approach to their job. I have formed the conclusion it is based on a very strong sense of inheritance, of a legacy of commitment and dedication. As to the facts of how well it worked in the past, I am not able to comment, but there is such a strong sense of inherited commitment and dedication that was manifest in the inquiry."

Outcomes-based assessment and reporting

• Teachers exercise less professional judgement and discretion now than they did in the past (that is, everything is more structured and we are "delivering a script").
• The work attached to outcomes-based assessment and reporting is not mandatory (and hence shouldn't be paid for).
• Outcomes-based assessment and reporting practices are local, school-based decisions and not centrally-mandated by DET (so if you are doing extra work it's your own fault).
• Even if teachers by their own choice at a local level have a greater workload, the actual work itself is of less value.

It is an outrage and an insult that the Government is questioning the work value of public education teachers at all.

Premier refuses to meet

The Industrial Relations Commission cannot decide these matters. Only the Government has the power to make such decisions. The Premier, however, has refused to meet or respond to Federation's letters.

Maree O'Halloran is the President.

Attend salaries case in the IRC

Federation school and TAFE witnesses tell it like it is

Increased work value and workload major themes

Presidential Officers take the stand

Teachers 'professional', despite impositions says Vinson

Wage relativity drops

Council to decide on December 2 action

Facts

For further information

November 2003 contents