Post by buzz on May 12, 2006 13:23:58 GMT -5
Maralyn Parker Gets It Wrong Regarding Teachers: Daily Telegraph
Maralyn Parker, in her Daily Telegraph column yesterday, demanded changes to legislation in order to expediate the removal of allegedly 'dud' teachers. Firstly,
there has always been a means of removing allegedly 'dud' teachers or other public servants by
sending them to HealthQuest, the government medical office, where they
have been certified 'insane', unfit to continue and forcibly medically
retired. This can happen within days, never mind ten weeks. Whether the new director of HealthQuest, Dr Peter Dodwell from New Zealand, will allow this practice to continue remains to be seen. HealthQuest has undergone some changes in recent years due to complaints by whistleblowers that Soviet-style psychiatry was being used there.
The problem with any method of expediting the removal of alleged 'dud'
teachers, a very offensive term, is the problem of abuse of power. This
abuse of power has happened many times in the past, most notably when T.A.F.E. teacher Val Kerrison was removed in this manner after speaking up about
discrimination against Aboriginal students. There are many more cases.
Giving the Department of Education and Training more powers is a dangerous thing. Teachers can be
accused of being 'duds' for many reasons, and indeed have been: causing
'problems' by holding certain viewpoints; standing up to a dictatorial
principal or supervisor; speaking up against corruption or child abuse;
or in any other way rocking the boat.
Teachers have spent four years at university and it is difficult to
find other employment. The most common reason for a teacher being found
'inefficient' is lack of classroom control. Of course, all teachers in
their first few years of teaching are going to have this problem.
Parents will certainly complain about these inexperienced teachers and
probably even write letters to Maralyn Parker. In other cases, teachers are
experiencing problems in their personal life and their working life
suffers temporarily as a result. The answer is not to sack them.
At times teachers may need up to two years away from the classroom
environment in order to recover from many and varied problems. I know
there are cases where teachers have caused such a kerfuffle they can't
remain in their current schools. There have been cases where individual teachers have somehow got on the wrong side of all the staff and parents. Obviously they cannot stay in that particular school. They could be given administrative
jobs for a time. Another solution is to recreate the old district relief teacher positions and allow these teachers with problems to take
classes temporarily when another teacher is on leave. In this way they do
not have the pressure of programming, parent interviews and being
responsible for the progress of a class of students. Relief teaching
also increases skills in many different ways. It has the advantage that
if a relief teacher has a bad day and can't control a particular class,
they can walk away from the class without suffering a nervous breakdown
over it.
Teaching is a terribly stressful job. Teachers suffer breakdowns every
day. They are assaulted and sworn at by children and even parents.
Teachers having difficulties need understanding and help, not to be got
rid of as 'duds'. The word itself is extremely offensive.
Another solution would be to enable
teachers to be stood down but placed on the casual relief list. At
least they could still work, and casual relief work is self-regulating:
if they don't do a good job, they won't get invited back. With the
current practice of certifying teachers as permanently unfit, they
cannot ever be employed again including in the private school system,
where many teachers who have discipline problems might do better, as
the children are generally easier to manage.
There are plenty of teachers who are single parents, responsible for providing for their children. There are teachers who are the sole income earners in their families. I know of one teacher in this position who was sacked from his job after making too many complaints of unsafe working conditions in the manual arts room. His family was devastated and destitute. The Department can't be allowed to do this to its employees.
No-one deserves to lose their job and Maralyn Parker's hard-line solutions are unnecessarily harsh.
Let's see the regulations changed so that if a supervisor believes a
teacher is in trouble, they can be taken off class and placed in the
regional office for other duties. They can then be re-assessed as a
teacher after a year or so and left on non-teaching duties if problems
continue.
At least give the teacher experiencing problems some choices: relief teacher duties, clerical duties at regional office, a year's leave without pay if they prefer it, or transfer to the casual relief list. Certainly they need to be told that the situation is such that they cannot be permitted to remain in their current school. And as long as they are still going to be employed, or do something of their own choice - even medical retirement if that's what they want - the Teachers Federation should not oppose the solution.
I was in the position where I was Relieving Principal of a school in the country. As soon as the principal went on three months' leave, the complaints started to pour in: she was 'abusive', she shouted at the children and they were frightened to come to school, she had caused two administrative assistants and two librarians to resign due to her unreasonable behaviour. On telephoning Regional Office in Blacktown for advice, I was told there were 'ways and means' of removing her permanently, if I would be willing to create a 'dossier' on her, solicit written parental complaints and so on, and she could be sent to a government psychiatrist who would 'deal with' the problem.
I am not corrupt and I was not willing to do this. At that stage I had never heard of 'HealthQuest' and knew nothing of its human rights abuses, but I smelt a rat and refused to do such a thing to a fellow union member. The second article of the N.S.W. Teachers Federation Constitution states that no teacher may speak ill of a fellow unionist.
But it did make me realize there was no proper solution to this kind of problem. The principal's contract was up within two years and no doubt due to my phone call, she was transferred back to a large town on classroom duties and demoted to classroom teacher.
My suggestion in this case would have been to firstly caution her about her shouting and abusive behaviour towards students, parents and staff and if she was unwilling to co-operate, put her on clerical duties for 12 months while she received some kind of counselling and re-education.
Maralyn Parker, in her Daily Telegraph column yesterday, demanded changes to legislation in order to expediate the removal of allegedly 'dud' teachers. Firstly,
there has always been a means of removing allegedly 'dud' teachers or other public servants by
sending them to HealthQuest, the government medical office, where they
have been certified 'insane', unfit to continue and forcibly medically
retired. This can happen within days, never mind ten weeks. Whether the new director of HealthQuest, Dr Peter Dodwell from New Zealand, will allow this practice to continue remains to be seen. HealthQuest has undergone some changes in recent years due to complaints by whistleblowers that Soviet-style psychiatry was being used there.
The problem with any method of expediting the removal of alleged 'dud'
teachers, a very offensive term, is the problem of abuse of power. This
abuse of power has happened many times in the past, most notably when T.A.F.E. teacher Val Kerrison was removed in this manner after speaking up about
discrimination against Aboriginal students. There are many more cases.
Giving the Department of Education and Training more powers is a dangerous thing. Teachers can be
accused of being 'duds' for many reasons, and indeed have been: causing
'problems' by holding certain viewpoints; standing up to a dictatorial
principal or supervisor; speaking up against corruption or child abuse;
or in any other way rocking the boat.
Teachers have spent four years at university and it is difficult to
find other employment. The most common reason for a teacher being found
'inefficient' is lack of classroom control. Of course, all teachers in
their first few years of teaching are going to have this problem.
Parents will certainly complain about these inexperienced teachers and
probably even write letters to Maralyn Parker. In other cases, teachers are
experiencing problems in their personal life and their working life
suffers temporarily as a result. The answer is not to sack them.
At times teachers may need up to two years away from the classroom
environment in order to recover from many and varied problems. I know
there are cases where teachers have caused such a kerfuffle they can't
remain in their current schools. There have been cases where individual teachers have somehow got on the wrong side of all the staff and parents. Obviously they cannot stay in that particular school. They could be given administrative
jobs for a time. Another solution is to recreate the old district relief teacher positions and allow these teachers with problems to take
classes temporarily when another teacher is on leave. In this way they do
not have the pressure of programming, parent interviews and being
responsible for the progress of a class of students. Relief teaching
also increases skills in many different ways. It has the advantage that
if a relief teacher has a bad day and can't control a particular class,
they can walk away from the class without suffering a nervous breakdown
over it.
Teaching is a terribly stressful job. Teachers suffer breakdowns every
day. They are assaulted and sworn at by children and even parents.
Teachers having difficulties need understanding and help, not to be got
rid of as 'duds'. The word itself is extremely offensive.
Another solution would be to enable
teachers to be stood down but placed on the casual relief list. At
least they could still work, and casual relief work is self-regulating:
if they don't do a good job, they won't get invited back. With the
current practice of certifying teachers as permanently unfit, they
cannot ever be employed again including in the private school system,
where many teachers who have discipline problems might do better, as
the children are generally easier to manage.
There are plenty of teachers who are single parents, responsible for providing for their children. There are teachers who are the sole income earners in their families. I know of one teacher in this position who was sacked from his job after making too many complaints of unsafe working conditions in the manual arts room. His family was devastated and destitute. The Department can't be allowed to do this to its employees.
No-one deserves to lose their job and Maralyn Parker's hard-line solutions are unnecessarily harsh.
Let's see the regulations changed so that if a supervisor believes a
teacher is in trouble, they can be taken off class and placed in the
regional office for other duties. They can then be re-assessed as a
teacher after a year or so and left on non-teaching duties if problems
continue.
At least give the teacher experiencing problems some choices: relief teacher duties, clerical duties at regional office, a year's leave without pay if they prefer it, or transfer to the casual relief list. Certainly they need to be told that the situation is such that they cannot be permitted to remain in their current school. And as long as they are still going to be employed, or do something of their own choice - even medical retirement if that's what they want - the Teachers Federation should not oppose the solution.
I was in the position where I was Relieving Principal of a school in the country. As soon as the principal went on three months' leave, the complaints started to pour in: she was 'abusive', she shouted at the children and they were frightened to come to school, she had caused two administrative assistants and two librarians to resign due to her unreasonable behaviour. On telephoning Regional Office in Blacktown for advice, I was told there were 'ways and means' of removing her permanently, if I would be willing to create a 'dossier' on her, solicit written parental complaints and so on, and she could be sent to a government psychiatrist who would 'deal with' the problem.
I am not corrupt and I was not willing to do this. At that stage I had never heard of 'HealthQuest' and knew nothing of its human rights abuses, but I smelt a rat and refused to do such a thing to a fellow union member. The second article of the N.S.W. Teachers Federation Constitution states that no teacher may speak ill of a fellow unionist.
But it did make me realize there was no proper solution to this kind of problem. The principal's contract was up within two years and no doubt due to my phone call, she was transferred back to a large town on classroom duties and demoted to classroom teacher.
My suggestion in this case would have been to firstly caution her about her shouting and abusive behaviour towards students, parents and staff and if she was unwilling to co-operate, put her on clerical duties for 12 months while she received some kind of counselling and re-education.