Ian K

Besides joining the union, what are teachers' meant to do as far as putting pressure on government?

I'd love to see change.

I am really struggling to make ends meet and feel I must leave the profession because it's not financially viable.

A young student teacher at our school recently confided that he won't end up teaching because it 'doesn't pay enough'. He has a human movements degree, so he's decided to follow that line.

A couple of teachers in my staffroom are working at two jobs.

It works well for couples in double-income households, particularly with avoiding vacation care and before and after school care for their children.

What would your suggestion teachers's do as far as effectively putting pressure on the powers that be, when we are, at the same time, being denigrated as a profession.

Response to Liz:

Yes the big issue is building up respect for the profession in face of denigration. I would consider three approaches:
(1) I would hope (but can’t be sure) that a change in the Federal Government might help. Compare the gushing way Brendan Nelson as Defence Minister approaches the troops in Iraq or Afghanistan with his far less positive attitude to the teaching profession when he was education minister. Julie Bishop was a good Minister for the Ageing but has to my mind been a disappointment in her attacks on the profession. Is she just following the party line?
(2) Teacher’s themselves must be ambassadors for the teaching profession and at barbecues and dinner parties promote the positives of the profession. We are a vital part of the glue that holds society together. Australia’s educational systems are far from perfect, because they are run by imperfect people like ourselves, but we must never retreat from admitting that we do have one of the BEST systems in the world. Similarly we must not divert our energies into “turf wars” between public and private (and I hear disdain from both sides of the divide). Yes, let us work on more equitable funding arrangements, but keep respect for each other – we are both doing essentially the same job.
(3) Consider becoming involved in the Australian College of Educators http://www.austcolled.com.au/. It is the one National organisation that represents educators at all levels and across all sectors and actively promotes the interests of the profession.

Sorry Ian K, Sir Ivor, Chris C and Co but you all have a socialist view of the world of teaching. Sure, teachers tend to reach the maximum salary after only 9 years or so, but this was because over time Teacher Unions were successful in getting the number of salary "rungs" reduced.

Any principal who spends time about his or her school knows that there are teachers who teach better than others and relate well to the kids. Some just really stand out. They really do. And some stand out because they do a relatively poor job. Why some people baulk at the notion of rewarding better performing teachers is beyond me. And why some baulk at the notion of removing teachers who underperform is also beyond me. After all schools are actually there for the betterment of the students. That is their primary purpose. Too many teachers tend to view schools as being primarily for their benefit.

Rather then admit the obvious and examine a range of ways whereby top performining teachers are rewarded for their efforts, people such as Ian K and others go for the socialist idea whereby if there is to be any extra money it should go to all teachers irrespective of their relative impact on students. Then of course, out comes the "Howard Hater" type bagging of Brendan Nelson and Julie Bishop and the raising of the Labor/Union Party flag.

Nevertheless performance pay is now on the agenda and will happen sooner or later whichever party is in government. I'm for teachers to be on AWA's myself, including the principal, who should be accountable to some local or regional body.

Yesterday's wire news stated that this government is the highest taxing government for 30 odd years taking almost 25% of GDP in tax revenues. The federal government is currently allocating the states less of the revenue raised and the article also mentioned that the Federal government threatened to withhold GST from the states for some punishment or other.

What's that got to do with education? The states can only spend money on salaries when the federal government allocates it.

Chris C keeps quoting the golden age of teacher salaries, after Whitlam - when teachers pay matched community expectations of teachers' role in society. Prior to Whitlam getting into power teachers in Victoria didn't earn enough for a male teacher to support his family. In fact, all public servants were scrimping on low salaries that hadn't been increased for a decade. Graduate starting wages for teachers in 1973 were just over $3000 per annum and that was the highest pay because that profession has the least prospects. Private industry paid less but promised better prospects.

I think we are currently in a period of low wages growth ( coupled with massive growth in profit - the greatest share since 1929). It doesn't make sense to work hard to do a job for less pay. If you have to think about supplementing your income to pay living expenses then you clearly aren't able to give your job all of your attention.

At this following government web-site, you will find many statistics relating to girl and boy student performance.

http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/policy_initiatives_reviews/key_issues/boys_education/boys_education_research_and_websites.htm

I cannot find any statistic that shows that the performance of boy students have improved over the last 30 years, while there are some statistics that show that girl students have improved in some areas, although only marginally.

Combining the performance of girl and boy students, then teachers should not be given any pay increase for improvements in overall student performance, because there haven’t been any.

As far as Australia being in No5 position on some list of countries, then this has minimal consequence in terms of performance pay for teachers. I once worked in an agricultural industry that was regarded as being the most efficient of its type in the world. It was at No. 1 position in the world (and not just No.5), but we did not receive any type of performance pay or bonus payment because of this.

Instead if we wanted an increase in pay, we had to demonstrably prove that we had increased our productivity. If we could prove this, then we could receive a pay increase. If we wanted a pay increase each and every year, then we had to prove that our productivity and performance had improved from the year before.

If we could not demonstrably prove that we had improved our productivity or performance, then we had absolutely no chance of getting a pay increase.

So teachers should get no increase in pay because of improvements in student performance, because in general the students have not improved their performance. In fact, boys have gone significantly backwards.

I also know that a teacher’s attitude towards boys is the main determinant in the outcome of boy students. So if a teacher is found to have a negative, maligning, feminist or gender prejudiced attitude towards boy students, then the teacher could actually get a cut in pay, and also counselling and disciplinary action is immediately undertaken on that teacher.

' ...if a teacher is found to have a negative, maligning, feminist or gender prejudiced attitude towards boy students, then the teacher could actually get a cut in pay, and also counselling and disciplinary action is immediately undertaken on that teacher.'

I've yet to come across a teacher that is even close to that description. Teachers' tend to care a lot about their students and their achievements.