Geoff Newcombe is a dedicated educator and an excellent leader in education, personal criticisms are unhelpful.

Liz poses an excellent question in relation to the performance review/remuneration of teachers who teach students with special needs. I would suggest that the review of performance of special needs children, particularly those in mainstream classes, may give rise to more resources for teachers who are not sufficiently supported in such a class. Many teachers I am sure find it difficult enough to meet the needs of mainstream students and when a significant percentage of those students have special needs then it is unfair to all in the classroom if the resources are scare and inadequate.

Perhaps remunerating at a higher rate in the first instance those teachers who teach special needs students in whatever setting would go a long way towards removing any inequity at the outset. It may even tempt some teachers to try their skills in the special ed area.

In any event my best wishes to all teachers. You are a noble and giving group of professionals who work under demanding and often difficult situations created by policy makers who so often haven’t a clue. And you do so for the better future of our children.

Glenwriter, the question: What is quality? is a good one- one that Geoff Newcombe hasn’t clearly defined in his article.

Perhaps it can be described as: the degree in which schools successfully reach their achievement goals- not only to their own satisfaction but also to the satisfaction of the government, the parents and the children. What do others think quality should mean?
The aims/goals of schools/teachers must be very clear and acceptable by all involved.
Goals must be set not only by the schools and parents, but in close relation with the government.

On the basis of these goals, a school then decides on methods to reach these goals.
Teachers must make sure that:

* they do the right things (the right things the school decided on) correctly. Having agreed on the right things to reach the goals, teachers now must make sure that they choose the right methods to teach those right things the right way.

* there is a reliable way to evaluate that s/he is doing the right things right? There should be a system and a govt appointed assistant available to schools who can help teachers evaluate this. No, NOT by endless testing of pupils. I gave my opinion on this here: see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4651 .

* they find out whether others agree. Parents as well as children, and an appointed government person, other schools/teachers could have input.

* the school can use this input. The teacher should be able to discuss usuable input at regular meetings, and input should have a positive effect on their teachings.

All this will mean some more hours per week work for teachers- therefore I think that all teachers should be awarded.

I’m not convinced about the idea of rewarding individual teachers for improving their skills and knowledge base.
I think it should be part of all teachers’ jobs and not a choice to keep updated.
ALL teachers should be expected to constantly improve their skills, the government should make this easily available to teachers, and I think that ALL teachers’ wages should be updated as well.

Celivia, if by a "government-appointed person" you mean a state government bureaucrat, I'd have to say "AAGGGHHHH!!" Queensland Education is highly politicised, for several years their website carried a Marxist critique which claimed that ALL of the problems in the state school system were caused by the expansion of non-Catholic private schools, and that the answer was to wind back private enrolments. [Catholic schools had to be excluded to avoid offending their higher proportion of ALP voter parents.] This politicisation and related favouritism, together with political correctness and the government's mad "no public service redundancies" policy adversely affects the standards and morale in schools.

One of the merits of private schools is that they are outside of this, except for the State-imposed curriculum.

As for teacher registration in Qld, when I reviewed it in the early '90s, it existed (1) to restrict entry and protect incumbents and (2) to raise money, with teachers required to re-register annually at a relatively high fee. If it's improved since, Liz - e.g. by genuinely contributing to raising teaching standards - I'm delighted

Fine in theory. In practice, not so easy. In Queensland, teachers seeking permanency are assessed on teaching ability at School level. In some Schools, it is impossible to gain a Level 1 [most proficient teacher]. In other Schools, it is very difficult not to gain a Level 1 rating. Both Schools are using the same set of Departmental guidelines. How does a teacher appeal a lower Rating? It requires a challenge against a group of colleagues who have been in the system for a long time. Assessment of teacher ability is, and will always be, a fine art, not an exact science.

Could a system where a teacher's salary is based on an assessment of teacher ability ever be consistent or fair to all? What guidelines would be chosen?

Student success is affected by so many variables that it would lead to great inconsistencies.

Different Schools in different locations vary in their level of resourcing. Some teachers are restricted to chalk and OHTs. Other teachers have access to the latest technology. There are great inequities in our teaching systems. In this debate, let's acknowledge that inequity.

Perhaps we could put our energies into increasing resourcing to resource-poor Schools, so that students are less disadvantaged.

Then we might be in a better position to assess teacher ability.

I think I hit a raw nerve with Liz.There are a lot of highly intelligent and articulate older professionals who had UAI's in the top 5% who can contribute a lot to education.Gifted leaders/teachers are born,the system does not manufacture them.You can become a teacher on a UAI of 65% or less.

Back in the sixties I was fortunate enough to be taught by some really capable and exciting teachers.They seem to be a rarity these days,even with all the salary increases and extra time off.

Mediocrity seems to reign supreme.

I have so often seen the word "disadvantage" when applied to students. It is a very emotive word. Can someone in online land opine a definition of what it means to be a disadvantaged student. Thank you