Change needed before Institute gets union support
The bill for the creation of a NSW Institute of Teachers, in its current form, does not have Federation's support, writes JENNIFER LEETE.
Late at night on May 12, Education Minister Andrew Refshauge introduced to the NSW Parliament's Legislative Assembly, a bill for the creation of a NSW Institute of Teachers. He moved promptly to give the second reading speech for the bill and debate was then quickly adjourned.
The bill he introduced was not provided to Federation and the Government has ignored the union's calls for the distribution of 'exposure drafts' ahead of its consideration by the Parliament.
Federation wanted the union and its members to have ample time to look at the legislation, to see if it was in accord with Federation policy and to seek amendments if it was not.
An examination of the bill now reveals that it is not consistent with Federation policy in a number of respects and Federation Executive and June Council, if necessary, will consider opposing it.
Federation's concerns about the current legislation are:
1. A Board of Governance will "filter" and oversee the Quality Teaching Council in the exercise of its functions. The composition of the Quality Teaching Council appears to be in accord with the union's policy in that it has elected representatives of teachers, with non-government and government school teachers elected separately and in proportion to their numbers in the teaching service, as well as a majority of practising teachers. However, the legislation makes it plain that a so-called Board of Governance made up of three people plus the chairperson and the Chief Executive Officer will "oversee" the functions of the Institute. The Minister's media material referred to the three people having 'business and financial expertise' and being directly appointed by the Minister. The chairperson, who will be "an outstanding educator", will also be directly appointed by the Minister and will also chair the Quality Teaching Council.
The legislation makes it clear that it is this chairperson who will report to the Minister. Thus, the Quality Teaching Council doesn't even have a direct role in reporting to the Minister. The role of the Board of Governance in overseeing the functions of the Institute clearly encompasses educational matters such as requirements for teachers to become accredited against professional teaching standards.
Federation's policy supports a professional body made up of elected teacher representatives who would determine standards of entry into the profession based on rigorous academic qualifications, including teaching qualifications. The union's policy is about a body of teachers for teachers. The proposed Board of Governance, which clearly sits above such a group, demonstrates this government's contempt for teachers. The voice of teachers apparently must be reinterpreted by those with business or financial expertise.
Clearly, the government is more comfortable with that kind of language.
2. Principals of non-government schools will have enormous power to determine whether a non-government school teacher meets the standards. This appears to include the right to assess whether the teacher holds an appropriate degree and teaching qualification or a "recognised equivalent" of such a qualification. Correspondence from the Minister indicates that these decisions by non-government school principals will be "moderated" by an independent person appointed by the Institute but it is unclear how this might practicably be done or how "thorough" the moderation will be. The Minister also states that "accreditation will require all teachers in all sectors to have a degree or a recognised equivalent as a prerequisite to any level or type of accreditation". It is unclear how "recognised equivalent" will be interpreted.
3. Avenues of appeal on accreditation decisions appear to be limited to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. The legislation states that a decision of a teacher accreditation authority to refuse or fail to accredit a teacher or to revoke such an accreditation is "not reviewable by any other court or tribunal (including in any proceedings in the nature of disciplinary proceedings or in any proceedings for unfair dismissal)". While Federation has had oral advice from the Minister that this doesn't restrict access to the Industrial Relations Commission, the union continues to have concerns that to all intents and purposes there is no further avenue of appeal.
4. The Institute is "subject to the direction and control of the Minister (except in relation to the preparation and content of any report or recommendation made by the Institute to the Minister)".
5. A number of the Minister's statements in the second reading speech caused Federation's alarm bells to ring. These include "the provisional and conditional accreditation pathways into teaching are intended to facilitate entry into teaching rather than to present unnecessary barriers into the profession" and "the higher levels of professional accomplishment and leadership will apply to a small minority of teachers in schools" and "accreditation at the level of professional leadership will comprise by definition a very small proportion of teachers".
The second reading speech also refers to existing teachers who either do not hold a teaching qualification or do not hold a degree or a teaching qualification. These persons will be "conditionally accredited" and will be required to work under on-site supervision while they complete a degree relevant to their teaching. The person must pursue that degree at a reasonable pace; if not, their accreditation will cease after seven years.
A number of important matters may not become clear until the regulations associated with the legislation are known.
It is thought that the bill will be debated in the Lower House around the time of the next Council (June 5) and then go to the Upper House some weeks later.
Federation will not support the bill in its current form.
Jennifer Leete is the Deputy President.
For further information
May 2004 contents
|