Be watchful on priority transfer issues

Issues over codes continue to frustrate teachers trying to access priority transfers.

By Owen Hasler

Some recent cases brought to the attention of Federation have emphasised the need for teachers to be vigilant.

The first case involved a science teacher, Michael Latta, who was seeking an incentive transfer after five years permanent service at Walgett High School.

He sought an incentive transfer as a science-chemistry teacher and was surprised to see an advertised position for a Newcastle school seeking a science and chemistry and/or physics teacher.

He immediately contacted his local Federation Organiser who pursued the matter with the Department of Education and Training's Staffing unit to find that the position had been originally matched for three codes - science, chemistry and physics, not the two as in the advertisement.

The advertised position was withdrawn and the science teacher given the incentive transfer for which he was entitled and had a reasonable expectation of receiving.

This example re-enforces the need for teachers with active incentive transfers applications to be vigilant in watching advertised positions in order to identify any such position which they have applied for and not received.

The case of a second teacher from the same school also demonstrates how teachers may be under the misapprehension that an incentive transfer guarantees them priority to a subject vacancy in a school on their list.

Ms Roshni Singh, a science teacher, taught casual and temporary at Walgett High School from 2001-02 before gaining permanency in 2003. Ms Singh continued at Walgett High School until the end of 2005 when she sought to use her compassionate/incentive transfer to accompany her husband when he gained an incentive transfer to a Newcastle school.

Ms Singh has been waiting for two and a half years for her incentive transfer and despite contacting Staffing on a number of occasions, had no success.

She contacted Federation who made inquiries to Staffing Director Peter Johnson, who indicated that because Ms Singh was science-biology trained and does not have the chemistry or physics teaching code the likelihood of a match was "rare".

Subsequent inquiries have revealed "that Department of Education and Training appoints teachers to schools based on staffing codes requested by principals" and that in Ms Singh's case "if positions in schools require a teacher with these approved subjects (science and biology only) and no other subjects, you will match for those positions. You are also listed as willing to teach chemistry (CHE) and mathematics (years 7-10) (MTH). If a school requests a teacher who is approved to teach junior science or biology and is also willing to teach chemistry or mathematics (years 7-10) you will match for those positions."

This position taken by Department of Education and Training (DET) clearly demonstrates how "incentive transfer status" is no guarantee of a transfer despite a vacancy being available in a particular faculty area.

This case raises the following issues:

The DET was prepared to appoint a science-biology teacher (Ms Singh) for Walgett High School when they couldn't provide a science-physics teacher, as requested by the school.

For the DET to then say that the teacher can't be placed as an incentive transfer, because she doesn't teach physics, means the DET is advocating higher qualification standards for a Hunter school than for far western schools.

This is a straight equity argument.

What has the DET done to ensure that they can get a physics teacher to Walgett?

Why are there lower qualifications standards applicable at Walgett and other similar locations than for schools on the coast?

And why should the science-biology teacher be penalised by having reduced access to an incentive transfer compared with a colleague who may be more easily placed on incentive transfer, as an English teacher, for example?

It is about equity for students (access to qualified physics teachers) and equity for teachers (all teachers at Walgett should have equal access to the incentive transfer arrangements that apply to that school).

Federation is not arguing that a school with a legitimate vacancy for a physics teacher should not be able to request such a teacher, but this does not absolve the DET from its responsibility to place the incentive transfer from Walgett. Not every science vacancy in a Hunter school will have physics on the timetable, and it is one of those vacancies that should be set aside for the placement of the incentive transfer from Walgett.

Federation is still pursuing this case.

Owen Hasler is a Country Organiser.

©2000-2002 NSWTF Online is a resource for teachers
provided by the NSW Teachers Federation.
[Authorisation of election comment] [Privacy]

http://www.nswtf.org.au/journal_extras/watchful.html
Last Modified: 07 Aug 2008