Jonathan Ariel, your bio indicates that you have experience in Finance and that your last school experience was in as a high school student in a classroom, so let someone else with a Masters, experience in business and as a teacher set you straight.

In Victoria 40% of teachers are employed on contracts. A contract teacher that doesn't perform doesn't remain. Under Kennett so many teachers were dismissed that any incompetent teacher who remained would have had to be very well connected politically. Each year permanent teachers are assessed and if they are not performing their pay can be cut.

In Victoria government schools ahve to hire their own staff, which is a great impost on staff time, formulating position descriptions, advertising the job, reviewing candidates, interviewing applicants and selecting the new teacher. This HR function has been devolved to the school with no additional funding.

The newly minted teacher has to demonstrate their worthiness to get a full license by producing a folder of critical reflection on their teaching practice over 6 months. The folder is flicked through and rubberstamped - much like your tax return. Sounds like a similiar system was proposed for the merit pay application.

Your throwaway line about Victorian students deserting government schools for the private schools might sound grave to NSW audience but Victoria has always educated 25% of secondary school students in the private sector. As a Victorian I noticed that as the government sector raised its standards so did the private school sector.

The speed with which Julie Bishop the Federal Minister for Education gave up her merit based pay indicates that it was only an ambit claim, there was no additional funding forthcoming. Why would teachers and principals claw tooth and nail to get more pay at the expense of their colleagues?

Teachers are supposed to provide a warm, calm environment to facilitate enquiry and learning and that's very hard to achieve when your facing hormonally charged 13 year olds with a hostile staff room behind you all fighting for your piece of the wages pie.

Jonathan Ariel’s contempt for teachers is already known. He did write that the NSW premier “has a deputy who was a school teacher. God help us.” (“The people of NSW have lost”), so his “statement that students “remain saddled with the current crop of teachers” is no surprise. His comment about the “devotion state and territory education ministers have to their education union masters” cannot be taken seriously. If the unions were the masters, pay, staffing, conditions and security of employment and promotion would not have declined, suggesting weak rather than masterful teacher unions.

Beginning Victorian teachers would need a pay increase of more than 40 per cent to reach the relative pay scales of the past. In 1975, a beginning teacher was paid 118.8 percent of male average ordinary time earnings. That equated to $65,379 as of January last year. A beginning teacher was in fact paid $44,783 then - a relative cut of $20,596!

The 1981 Victorian secondary PTR was 10.9:1. Last year it was 12.0:1, meaning almost 2,000 teachers fewer than a poorer state could provide more than a quarter of a century ago.

Throughout the 1980s, the maximum teaching load was 18 hours (plus extras). It is now 20 hours. There used to be a time allowance pool of 90 minutes per teacher for organizational duties. It is now zero minutes.

Teaching used to mean ongoing employment. Now, six out of ten Victorian teachers under 25 are on short-term contracts. Promotion used to be ongoing. Now it is short-term to better facilitate bullying and exploitation of senior people.

In the last school I taught in, as a direct result of the latest EBA, teaching loads went up, period length went up and the management advisory committee was abolished.

Teacher unions are not powerful. They are weak – because teachers are weak.

I suggest that “better quality teachers will continue to be discouraged from entering the profession” because of the decline that has occurred in pay and conditions, and a “comply with the latest whim of the principal” performance scheme will not bring them back

Contrary to what some finance professionals might think money is not the best motivator.

"Performance based pay for teachers is a very risky thing - it often reasults in reward-driven teaching with all sorts of negative side-effects, like
- pushing less-performing students out of schools
- up-marking
- teaching-for-exams
etc...

It is the professional pride and the need for self-fulfillment that gives best performance in complex situations.

Unfortuantely, in most western countries (unfortunately, I have to include my home Poland) teachers are under-paid.

Of course, poor teachers should not be teaching and there is a need of some systematic assessment.

However, simplistic solutions can do more harm than good.

PJD

"Jonathan Ariel is an economist and financial analyst. He holds a MBA from the Australian Graduate School of Management."

But Johnno, you haven't managed to keep throw-away partisan remarks out of your analysis, have you?

I suggest you get in touch with Kevin Donnelly, if you haven't already. Perhaps he can point out the gains made by the minister and the states toward a national curriculum. Maybe Kev can even give you some insight into what it was like to be a classroom teacher, back when Hector was a pup.

I have no philosophical problem with performance for pay, just like I have no philosophical problem with energy efficiency. The difficulty is in the implementation.

Teachers are managers, too. The process they are managing is complex, and to award pay for results, without a thorough consideration of how results are measured and compared, without consideration of the stakeholders involved in the process, is to grossly oversimplify.

Nearing my dotage, the teachers I remember as helping me most aren't necessarily the ones that got the highest seal of approval from parents and administrators. They may not have been the best for the class as a whole, and may not have been the sorts that would raise the average test scores. But then I was a bright, male underachiever, of the sort that frequents many primary and high school classes, in both private and public systems.

Who are we aiming to make valuable members of our society? It takes all kinds to make the world go round, and any system to reward competent trainers and memorable educators has to be both multidimensional and subject to agreement by multiple stakeholders.

Direct, formal links between achievement test results, parent approval and teacher pay are not, in my opinion, a good idea at all.

Jonathan Ariel is lucky that OLO does not have a pay-by-peformance system. His diatribe against State Education Ministers is based on nothing more than sour grapes that Federal Minister Bishop's ill-considered scheme did not get their support. To Ariel, this somehow becomes 'rank hypocrisy' (strange use of the word).

Students will lose twice, says Ariel: 'first they remain saddled with the current crop of teachers; and second, better quality teachers will continue to be discouraged from entering the profession.'

On the first count, the Bishop plan was not about sacking the 'current crop' of teachers - it was about paying some teachers more and others less on as yet non-defined criteria (NB Jonathon, not 'criterions'). Bishop herself was clear on one aspect of her scheme: under her plan the 'better' teachers would be paid more but the pool of funds for teacher salaries would not be bigger. What other logical conclusion could be drawn than that a pay cut was envisaged for some? Is it any wonder that some of the 'current crop' were nervous about possible pay cuts? And among the 'current crop' aree some outsanding teachers confronting even more threats to their professionalism.

On the second count, then, the threat of pay cuts for some teachers is hardly likely to stimulate people to become teachers. Moreover, people are discouraged from entering the teaching profession because of a range of reasons chief among which are poor pay and conditions in general as well as the continuous denigration of teachers and teaching as a profession by people like Bishop and Ariel. What's that about 'rank hypocrisy', Jonathon?

Likewise, the so-called 'mass exodus' of students from the state-based government school systems' occurs for a variety of reasons. Among them are, again, the constant barrage of criticisms, often totally ill-founded, by politicians and supporters of private schools.

If people like Bishop and Ariel genuinely want State schools to be better places they should analyse more honestly the real impediments to performance which include, but are not confined to, the inadequate resource levels provided by governments at both State and Federal levels.

I worked as a teacher, advisory teacher and specialist teacher in England, NSW and Queensland for more than 30 years. I can honestly say that I never met an "underperforming" classroom teacher. Teachers work really, really hard in very difficult circumstances. And often there are factors that affect their work that they cannot explain to the parents.
When I moved from NSW to Queensland the high level of fear among classroom teachers was immediately obvious. As was the bizarre and dysfunctional behaviour of a number of people working in administrative positions - school principals , district office staff or Head Office staff.
I could not understand the fear at the time. But I do now.
The problem with performance pay is that principals may not always be selected for promotion on the basis of "merit". Some principals may be pretty unpleasant and dysfunctional people. And they may not be really literate. The "merit selection process" does not place enough emphasis on reading, writing, listening and thinking skills, a demonstrated record of collaborative decision-making and, most importantly, knowledge of the official Departmental policies. In my experience many decisions made by administrators are based on gossip and may be in absolute breach of the official departmental policies.
Before principals are given the right to assess the performance of teachers, the principals themselves need to undergo 360-degree evaluation to see if they are performing effectively.
The idea of principals selecting their own staff is interesting because it means that principals would have to treat their staff with respect in order to attract and keep good teachers. Principals in remote areas would have to offer huge salaries and terrific conditions in order to staff their schools. And these communities might really support their teachers in order to encourage them to stay at the school. Making principals responsible for selecting their own staff could really work well for teachers and hugely improve their working environment.
The Bad Apple Bullies website http://www.badapplebullies.com/ supports teachers who are dealing with workplace bullying, harassment, mobbing, disrimination, victiminsation or "payback" etc. You are not alone.

The biggest problem I have with performance pay is the lack of recognition that collegiality plays in providing an effective workplace for both students and teachers. Ariel briefly mentions this when he discusses the recommendations made in 2006 in the US: "teachers who perform at high levels and spread their expertise to other teachers deserve extra compensation for their performance and accomplishments." (my italics)

This is a crucial issue for all teachers, particularly beginning ones. If the experienced teachers are serious about ensuring that their new colleagues are going to succeed, an emphasis on assisting them in their planning, assessments and modelling good teaching strategies is essential. In a system where teachers are competing for a bigger slice of the same sized pay pie (see Julie Bishop's comments last weekend about the fact that the education budget will not be getting any bigger as a result of her plans), experienced teachers may be less willing to help the newbies.

It's not just about dollars and cents, it's about common sense. Teaching is not like other professions. The continuum of learning through 13 years of school means that, unlike a commercial enterprise where there is a beginning and an end to a project, no one teacher can be held up as the "reason" for a student's success.

You have all got to be kidding.

Whilst i acknowledge that there are pitfalls to performance based pay, teachers should no longer be in the bubble of equal pay. How can anyone argue that the better teachers who work harder should not be rewarded greater?

It is a joke that they get paid equally, considering the vast differnces in ability, knowledge and drive.

The reason alot of my mates became teachers is they had no motivation to move away from institutionalised systems, had little innovation and drive, and they felt that teaching seemed 'a pretty good life'. Tell me this is not the case for a lot of new teachers.

This is not the case for all i know and is a limited cross section, but this example shows why there are different mentalities you are dealing with here. I have found alot fothe good teachers end up 'ex teachers' as they quickly realise there is no room for people of a certain mindset in the education system.

It appears that those teachers who dont want this are worried that the easy life will not be so easy if this where implemented. 12 weeks holiday a year for starters.

As a student i had most teachers not give a toss. I evenhad a couple that told me to leave before year 12, and there 'was no way on earth' I would achieve the required marks to study my course. if they had a vested interest, maybe i wouldnt have been told this.

If it where guaged on attendance, performance based on previous years and averages, and on student feedback, there would no longer be a 'too hard basket' in sections of every classroom.

In business, if some of my staff arnt performing, i do everything in my power to help. If it didnt matter, i wouldnt care. this is the same in teaching.

As for the teachers out there, be prepared to enter the real world real soon, and aghast, lets see the improvement across the board with the performances of the students.

Billie said: “In Victoria government schools have to hire their own staff, which is a great impost on staff time, formulating position descriptions, advertising the job, reviewing candidates, interviewing applicants and selecting the new teacher. This HR function has been devolved to the school with no additional funding.”

Billie, I have worked in education for nearly 20 years and I can’t imagine in any school in SA ‘teachers’ having to formulate J&Ps, or advertise etc. This is the job of school management, and if we trained school managers to manage instead of clinging to the outdated headteacher notion of principalship, they would, like any other comparable ‘business’ in or out of the public sector, be able to accomplish the task.

You said “The speed with which Julie Bishop the Federal Minister for Education gave up her merit based pay indicates that it was only an ambit claim, there was no additional funding forthcoming.”

Why should Julie Bishop find more funding. It is up to state Ministers to fund education and if they were not trying to score points against a federal liberal government and give a rat’s about education, they would be looking at their own budget strategies and finding ways to reward and have the guts to sanction.

Victimhood looms yet again from the disgruntled ageing teachers who contribute to these fora. The constant whining and excuses about how ‘everything is too hard’, and’ how would you cope if…’, and ‘no one loves us’, and ‘why don’t you all stop that horrible teacher bashing’, would seem to point to the reason why teaching is under such scrutiny at the moment. We rarely hear about enthusiastic innovative teachers, We never hear a teacher or anyone in public education for that matter, admit that maybe some of the criticisms have weight, and that maybe things should be changed and that maybe some of the developments over the past twenty or thirty years have just not worked and can not any longer be defended.

Simon Templar cont.

Chris C. says ad nauseum that teachers unions are weak so how could they possibly dominate. Well I can tell you that at every level in education and especially during central teacher placement exercises, the union dictates each small step by step and calls a halt to proceedings if they don’t get their way. You might think that teachers should be paid twice as much, but over 80% of the billions of dollars of budget increases over the past 30 years have gone in teacher wages and conditions. Next to nothing for infrastructure and other resources for our children’s learning.

Paul, one of the things I remember from psychology, is that reward tends to increase the prevalence of a behaviour. Perhaps performance pay may just contribute to better teaching!

No Sir Vivor, let’s not have anything to do with accountability or any relationship between teaching and learning!

Simon Says:
"No Sir Vivor, let’s not have anything to do with accountability or any relationship between teaching and learning! "

But what I said was:

"I have no philosophical problem with performance for pay, just like I have no philosophical problem with energy efficiency. The difficulty is in the implementation."

and

"Who are we aiming to make valuable members of our society? It takes all kinds to make the world go round, and any system to reward competent trainers and memorable educators has to be both multidimensional and subject to agreement by multiple stakeholders."

and

"Direct, formal links between achievement test results, parent approval and teacher pay are not, in my opinion, a good idea at all."

It does you no credit to oversimplify, Simon.

So, Realist, there are "vast differences in ability, knowledge and drive" among teachers? But you also tell us about "alot of" [sic] your mates becoming teachers with no motivation, little drive, and just for the good life. And "a lot of new teachers' are like that. After all, most of your own teachers did not "give a toss".

So which is it - teachers are typically lazy or teachers are vastly different one to the other?

And, do tell, what is this 'good life' that teachers enjoy? Apart from the "12 weeks holiday a year' (teachers just turn up on day one each term fully prepared, eh?) What makes the job so cushy? Don't forget they knock off at 3.30.

At the same time, you found "alot fothe good teachers end up 'ex teachers'". Perhaps they despaired of teaching some pupils how to write English and think straight?

Simon Templar gives us the benefit of his SA experience - where they don't train "school managers to manage" but where he's confident managers would assess teachers' performance accurately.

Simon asks, "Why should Julie Bishop find more funding?" Just because it was her idea, perhaps? If she can find squillions for schoools so well off they don't know how to spend them, she can find funds to support her long-discredited idea.

The problem according to Simon is 'victimhood', 'disgruntled ageing teachers', 'constant whining and excuses' and ‘no one loves us’. Good knockabout distractions, but hardly plausible analysis.

Simon says, "We rarely hear about enthusiastic innovative teachers", but he never ask the obvious question: why?

Then he degenrates into union bashing and a cute variation on blame-the- victim. Teachers would have had proper resources if "over 80% of the billions of dollars of budget increases over the past 30 years have gone in teacher wages and conditions". Bloody teachers, why won't they teach for a pittance? Then there'd be money for rain-proof gutters, air-conditioning and computers.

Simon remembes from psychology "that reward tends to increase the prevalence of a behaviour". A good argument for all teachers to be paid better?

Simon I am not arguing with you about conditions in South Australia, I am simply telling you what conditions are like in Victoria.

In Victoria there is no central staffing function, it's up to each school to hire their own teachers. It's up to prospective teachers to contact all the schools they are interested in. Large schools with more than 3000 students have an HR manager but smaller schools don't and in one school I visited it was obvious they muddled on by. Anecdotally every one hates the on-line recruitment system, why the education department didn't just copy the TAFE online recruitment system beggars belief!

As the states don't raise taxes they rely on the Australian government for the money they spend on education, so if the Federal Minister for Eucation wants to bring in a new policy she should provide the funding to do so. On a philospohical point, why should the government provide more funds per capita to students in private schools than it spends on students in state schools? Although I don't have children I see it as my social responsibility to educate society's children. I believe my taxes should pay solid basic education in government schools not to provide swimming pools and multimedia centres for the privileged elite or religious indoctrination in the K12 schools in outer fringe.

It's really stupid to criticise all government schools when clearly the conditions vary markedly from state to state.
In Victoria this merit based pay debate has no impact on a third of all secondary school teachers who are employed outside the government system and has no impact on another third of teachers who are on contract.

The ugly sound of grinding axes fills the air.

I guarantee that performance pay will, at some point, be introduced into the education system.

It will be designed by bureaucrats, for bureaucrats.

There will be a thick, impenetrable instruction manual to school principals, who will be newly entitled "Senior School Executive", to reflect the fact that they are now management professionals as well as Head Teachers.

They won't be given management training, just a three-day seminar on how to observe the instructions in the manual.

The exercise will necessarily require a massive army of administrators, who will call themselves "inspectors" or some such quasi-official title, and they will be given strict instructions by the Department on how they should monitor the system.

They will tell the Senior School Executives that the inspector's job is to help the SSE with any aspect of the system (except management skills, of which they too will be bereft), but will instead implement a system to measure SSE conformance, and penalize any that show initiative.

The SSE will have three or four times the amount of paperwork to complete, but no additional financial recognition.

The system itself will be open to all sorts of abuse – teachers will quickly work out how to game the process. There will be fierce competition for i) the class that has the most improvement potential from the lowest possible base or ii) the class with the highest actual performance rating, depending whether an absolute or relative measure is used.

The measures used – absolute achievement, relative achievement, punctuality, cleanliness of fingernails – will determine absolutely the focus of the teacher. Students will become “inputs” to their payment process.

This happens with every, repeat every, pay-for-performance system. Think “outbound call centre”, and the role of the customer in the process.

After a couple of years, the Department will ask itself why school standards have not improved, despite the introduction of performance-based pay.

They will then tweak the measurement system and discover - lo! it hath in fact wrought wondrous changes.

And give themselves a pay rise.

Neither the Liberal or Labor party care

as Mr Rudd said Politics is all about the power

I didnt see schools in this comment

kevin Rund has also said it is the responsibilty of the states.

www.tapp.org.au

Let me first deal with the idea that teachers do not work in a place called the “real world”. Even in a well-run school, teachers can be responsible for 150 human beings, and in a poorly run one, many more. They have to bring together a diverse group of students to engage a class in learning. They give up lunchtimes and after-school time in voluntary activities. They are on duty 24/7 on school camps. They have to respond to the latest fads (self-managing schools, performance appraisal, etc, etc). They are often exhausted by the demands placed on them. They do all this and more while subject to the criticism of those who are manifestly ignorant of what teaching is like. Some of them deal with refugee children who have seen members of their own families murdered. The idea that schools are not part of the “real world” is absurd.

As I understand it, those who promote the ill-defined concept of performance pay believe that educational standards have got worse over the past few decades and that this latest panacea will improve them. Yet, 30 years ago, teachers were far better paid, movement up the pay scale was automatic, there was no performance review circus, staffing was centralised and all promotion positions were determined by the department. Since then, relative pay has been cut dramatically (making Simon Templar’s claim of 80 per cent of budget increases going on teacher salaries and conditions impossible), movement up the scale is no longer automatic, time-consuming and bullying annual performance reviews have been introduced, school principals appoint their own staff and all promotion positions are locally determined (meaning that there is no central placement process to be dictated by the union). Apparently, the introduction of the competing small business model has accompanied a claimed decline in standards, yet its advocates think we should go further down the road to failure.

The great bulk of teachers is intrinsically motivated to work hard. Performance pay will narrow the focus of education just as it did in the nineteenth century when it was called payment by results.

Kevin Rudd's Trojan Horse - Industrial Relations

The Labor party have campaigned hard against the new Workchoice regime of the Federal Liberal party, insisting that they will rip it up and decentralise its power.

Kevin's proposed changes to the unfair dismissal laws whereby employers with less than 15 employees have 12 months to dismiss their employees, and 6 months for those employers with more the 15 employees, does not give any job security to any National Australian worker.

The Labor advertisments whereby a mother is told that she will be dismissed if she does not show up for work and has no baby sitter, clearly indicates the Trojan that the Labor party have handed Australian women, part time and casual workers.

Labor is currently aware that business is in the grip of a Labour crisis, whereby they can console themselves, that an Employer would only want to keep a good employees.

But as Kevin says, what's going to happen after the Resources boom?

Conceded, strike action by ballot is taking away the power of Union executives and those who presume to represent it, and return power to the members.

As we suspected, Labor will not change the Workchoice regime, but give it a new title at the cost to the Australian taxpayer.

Kevin Rudd and the Labor parties strategy on vote analysis, is to gain the conservative business vote of the Liberal party to tip the scales in Labor's favour.

Labor is willing to do so by continuing to serve Australian workers heads to business on a 6-12 month platter.

Labor is already selling out on the Nuclear debate. Trojans

Simon Templar you seem to have similar experience to Graeden Horsell, he all comes from South Australia also, perhaps you two should get together sometime.

In Victoria schools are responsible for selecting their own staff, all position descriptions have to include 5 key selection criteria but often they don’t. Schools and individual teachers put a great deal of effort into selecting staff and being seen to select staff fairly. In my experience the selection process is process is followed meticulously because the decision is announced publicly and unsuccessful candidates have the right of appeal, so their decision must be able to be audited.

I think the major reason for not implementing performance based pay systems is the sheer numbers of teachers involved. There are about 100,000 teachers in Victorian government schools but probably at least 250,000 teachers in NSW government schools. Imagine the bureaucracy involved in subjecting them all to merit based pay. When large private employers implement merit based pay schemes it’s usually restricted to permanent staff at head office and involves less than 5% of their workforce.

Forget Performance Pay and Teacher bashing .

Lift Teachers pay to Reflect their Qualifications and Work Load ; bring renumeration up to what other people in Private Enterprise receive .

Reduce teachers workload ; remove "ALL" Fad Education Concepts ; OBE , SBE , PEEL etc that load Teachers up by about 40% "Better a Teacher than a Clerk".

Return Education to the Traditional Owners , Parents and Teachers ; kick "ALL" the Bureaucrats out of the Classroom .

Insist on Democracy , treat Parents and Teachers like Stakeholders ; allow total freedom of speach on all facits of education .

Reject all appendages like "to enter the new age" ; "the smart age". This is all BS ; if you think not so ask someone 2 or 3 times your age if it's easier today than when they were kids , take care they may be very frank , you may find yourself chagrined and or humiliated.

Billie,

I don’t know where you get your figures from. There are just over 40,000 teachers in Victorian government schools and about 100,000 teachers in the state registered with VIT. About 18 per cent of the former are on contracts.

When I began secondary teaching in 1974, there was a 14-point automatic scale, with university graduates beginning on step 7. There were post of responsibility positions which paid above these points. There was a senior teacher class, to which promotion was by merit, but not comparative merit. Next there were deputy principals and principals. Schools worked democratically.

In 1975, the PORs were abolished and replaced by Special Duties Allowances, and appointment to these positions was school-based and on merit.

In 1992, senior teachers were abolished (a disgraceful case of the unions selling out their senior teacher members) and replaced with three levels of advanced skills teacher. AST appointment was school-based and on merit. AST 2 and 3 positions were for educational leadership not classroom teaching, and were subject to review at the end of tenure.

The 1992 Liberal government halted the implementation of the AST process and brought in two levels of leading teacher. Appointment was school-based and supposedly on merit. They were not for classroom teaching but administration and were short-term positions. That government also brought in annual reviews of all teachers before they could proceed up the scale. It also paid bonuses to the most compliant leading teachers, assistant principals and principals and made schools very exploitaive.

There have been various tinkerings with the system (e.g., the end of bonuses), but basically the Victorian Labor Government has kept the Kennett Government “career” structure in teaching to this day. In other words, there is no automatic progression in salaries, there is a performance review process, promotion positions are supposedly based on merit and are short-term, and all appointments are school-based, which means ultimately the principal decides.

None of these changes has led to one child in the state being better taught. They have made education worse, and still people want to go further down the same road.

Just getting back to Jonathon Ariel for a moment. I have taught at primary, secondary and tertiary levels as well as having run a business with a considerable turnover. And yes like Jonathon, I also have an MBA which was considerably easier than any other degree I have completed before or since. Running a business was a cinch compared with teaching. When those who have never taught suggest that teachers need to come into the real world, I think that they have no idea what they are talking about and that the reverse is true. Teachers are in the real world and deal with the most staggering social problems, obtuse bureaucracy and increasing demands from the public, parents and government. Those who think that teaching is such a cushy job, should try it for themselves for a month or so and see what they think then. In fact I challenge Jonathon Ariel to do just this.

And yes I taught successfully and have students who still keep in contact and ran a business successfully. Running a business is a piece of cake after you have negotiated classroom managment.

Billie – You raise several points. I could answer them, but note that Simon Templar has already addressed them far, far better than I could ever hope to.

Chris C – my ‘contempt’ as you put it is not for teachers but for the system in which good teachers must function. The system being the many interests involved: bureaucrats, parents, unions and other teachers. If what you say about lower pay and increased load is true, then that is an issue that must be addressed. It is highly improper to have teachers work more, be paid less and for someone to think that such conditions will attract quality candidates. BUT, surely it is fair to measure if the teachers’ output has climbed and not just dwell on their input.

Also my concern is not merely over the size of the pay chq but also that those teachers with the right attributes (as defined by the schools where they wish to work) are recruited. Too high or too low a salary paid to a person to teach at a particular school (but who has the wrong skills set) is money wasted.

Sir Vivor – why do you say my comments are partisan? Surely they are common sense. They are intended to cure an ill. The ill being the one way flight from public schools. The fact that one side of politics holds similar views is a fact of life. If the Greens held this view, I would still be called partisan, but by others no doubt and not you.

FrankGol – you mentioned that Ms Bishop was not growing the funding pie and thereby assuming that some teachers may be paid less. Surely funding is a matter for negotiations. It may come out of existing allocations or it may result from greater allocations.The fact is the states slammed the door on the topic in broad terms so they never had the opportunity to test just how tight Julie Bishop held those purse strings

Simon, you say, at the end of your article:

"Last week, at COAG, we saw the Rudd tail brilliantly wagging the eight-limbed state and territory dog. Without a second thought, the states and territories rejected outright a pay-for-performance scheme. Shame."

"It seems that the states and territories don’t want to do right by school students, if that means giving the Prime Minister a policy win several months out from an election. The spirit of former Senator Graham Richardson, is alive and well: do whatever it takes to (help Kevin Rudd) win. And pay any price."

"Even if that price is the relentless dumbing down of those charged with educating of our young."

I see all that as a partisan statement which detracts from the remainder of your argument. The way you mention of major players in an upcoming federal election makes it difficult for your comments to be taken as bipartisan or otherwise even-handed.

You may be interested in the article posted today by Phil Roberts, a NSW teacher and researcher. For example, he states that:

"... lack of casual staff [at isolated schools], combined with the tyranny of distance, means [isolated teachers] miss out on opportunities others take for granted. And consequently their pupils miss out. The prospect of a six-hour return trip either side of a full day with the prospect of dodging kangaroos and emus simply isn’t enticing.

"Schemes to attract experienced teachers through improved pay have been tried around Australia but ultimately have proved unsuccessful. What is needed is a move beyond the mentality that increased pay will solve all problems."

Phil Roberts' article highlights yet another dimension involved in obtaining quality teaching and quality results from teachers and schools in Australia, and doing so in an equitable fashion.

"Workchoices" by another name; it's got nothing to do with concern about students. Rather than have a positive imput into education it is likely to have negative effects. Teaching to a large degree is a collaborative profession, performance appraisal will discourage good solid teachers from sharing their good practical ideas to their colleagues.
Students who are struggling academically due to specific learning disablities will be enouraged to leave classrooms as they could easily undermine official attitudes towards teachers abilities. There are some schools where for whatever reason the student cohort have not been able to develop their abilities to the same degree as schools in other areas.
Good teachers will want to gravitate towards schools which offer the best prospects for their advancement. Further accentuating disparities between school ommunities.

Simon Templar makes some interesting claims. One that he'd just finished a radio interview on education funding (while cutting and pasting propoganda straight from a Liberal website).

Now he claims to be a teacher.

I think your claims ST are as fanciful as your name.

I've come across a couple of articles in recent times, published on 'Online', that just don't make the cut. This is one of them. It just gets a bit pathetic when you have any old Tom, Dick, or Ariel, claiming to have qualifications (relevant to the topic or not), and therefore their ignorant rhetoric supposedly has some credit.

I've said it before ... lift your game Online. Surely Online can follow usual professional etiquette that determines professionals write on their area of expertise, and not opine on topics that they are not qualified to speak on.

Sir Vivor and Liz

If you are going to 'play the man', get your facts right. I didn't write the article Sir Vivor, Johnathon Ariel did, and Liz I am not a teacher and have never claimed to be. It might be a touch of arrogance on your part to assume that if one works in education then one must be a teacher.
Focus on the issue.

I would claim, young Simon, that you intended to lead posters to believe you are a teacher with your comments 'I have worked in education for nearly 20 years'.

Now that I have called your bluff, you attempt to clarify your non-professional status in education.

Pointing out that the NSW premier “has a deputy who was a school teacher” and then adding “God help us” sounds like contempt for teachers themselves rather than the system, as does saying students “remain saddled with the current crop of teachers” with its implication that those teachers are useless.

Andrew Leigh will confirm the general decline in teacher pay at his website. The information on conditions in Victoria is readily found from the AEU and in EBAs.

When the IPA started talking about “outputs” rather than “inputs” in education, it led to a drop in inputs and the introduction of OBE to Victoria.

My argument is not that all teachers should be paid the same. They aren’t anyway. My argument is that performance pay will result in more favouritism and bullying in schools, which is my experience from several principals with the increase in power already granted to the local level.

Teachers in Victoria have been promised greater rewards for the best of them remaining in the classroom since the 1978 green paper. Every such promise has been a lie. If you can establish a system that rewards the best teachers more and ensures that they are spread among all schools, not concentrated in the eastern suburbs, I would support it. But it must be more broadly based than simply on test results and must not be open to abuse by principals. It also needs to provide proper salaried positions, not one-off bonuses. The idea is to have an elite of teachers who will speak up for education and their profession, not a collection of self-seeking intimidated toadies who follow fads and whims from the principals.

“Output” cannot easily be defined in teaching because there are many factors in education that cannot be reduced to numbers or data, and the individual teacher does not control all the variables. Even those who say the individual teacher is the major determinant of student success recognise other factors. I finished my time as a teacher in a dysfunctional school, where individual effort could make little difference against its overall modus operandi.

Liz, I have generally low expectations of teachers and you have lived up to all of them.

It is the pot calling the kettle black for a teacher to accuse anyone (based on no knowledge at all in this case) of being unprofessional!

Let's stop beating around the bush: The source of our national educational crisis is a massive failure of teachers to teach. Any educational reform program that does not include reductions in pay or wholesale firings for our failing teachers and school administrators as well as raises and bonuses for those who succeed will not work.

This is the simple (and unmentionable) fact: We produce functional illiterates and student dropouts because we employ large numbers of functional illiterates and irresponsible bureaucrats in our schools; adults who have no business overseeing our children's education.

Our public school systems are mini-versions of the socialist states that collapsed from the sheer weight of their economic backwardness in 1989 and 1990. Why do we think the same crackpot Marxist economics can work to educate our children? If teachers are not expected to work hard, if their incentives do not reward them for educating our children and punish them for failing at their jobs, how can we expect anything better than the mess we have

Simon Templar, how can teachers teach children who are malnourished, pumped up on junk food, put to bed at midnight or later, dropped at school by surly parents who have inculcated disrespect of learning and encourage their scion to violently bully the weak. I have seen teachers manage classrooms of children like this on a daily basis with every one getting home safely and quite frankly the classroom often offers the only island of safety in the child’s life.

Unfortunately Simon Templar / Graeden Horsell none of the metrics used to measure merit based pay would reward these teachers any better.

A school friend said she was sick of providing nourishing breakfasts, clean clothes and scrounging text books for children from disadvantaged homes so she preferred to teach in Brighton where the parents all earned more than teachers and generally respected what the teachers were doing and the advantages education brings.

The 18 year olds we rear are primarily influenced by their family status, their self belief, the aspirations of their peers and thirdly the quality of their education.

It’s a lot easier to teach a child who has been told from age of 5 that they will go to university than it is to engage a child who wants to drive dump trucks for the shire.

Simon Templar says, "It is the pot calling the kettle black for a teacher to accuse anyone (based on no knowledge at all in this case) of being unprofessional!". But Simon is doing precisely that - making grand claims about teachers when he has no knowledge at all.

So what's Simon's claim? "The source of our national educational crisis is a massive failure of teachers to teach." If there is any 'national educational crisis ' (and what's the evidence there is one?) it's not about children failing to learn; it's about a massive failure of governments to fund schools adequately and equitably.

But what 'crisis' is Simon actually identifying? Unless he's been completely brainwashed by Kevin Donnelly, he would be aware that the overwhelming majority of students stay at school and complete Year 12 and about half of those go on to further education. Despite Donnelly's manfactured 'crisis', now parroted by Templar, all but a tiny minority of students learn to read and write perfectly well.

Teacher bashing is music to the ears of conservative politicians. It comes in cycles. It's often the prelude to cuts in education funding for State schools and transfers of taxpayers' money to the private schools. The doomsayers soften up the public to accept cuts on the spurious grounds that money is being wasted - so it's better to give funds to wealthy schools which do a fine job. And so some panicky parents follow the funds.

Last posting Simon was all for implementing the one thing he could remember from his Psychology class: "that reward tends to increase the prevalence of a behaviour". In this posting he's now perversely advocating reductions in pay and wholesale firings. Then in his next paragraph, he asks: "If teachers are not expected to work hard, if their incentives do not reward them for educating our children and punish them for failing at their jobs, how can we expect anything better than the mess we have".

Methinks Simon is a scatterbrain. It has to be said: even the best of education systems produce failures.

There are many variables in relation to how a student will perform in the classroom, the ability of an individual teacher is not always a factor. Examples of students who find clasroom learning difficult might have a mental health disorder, have learnng difficulties, live within a dysfunctional family, have a cohort of friends disinterested in learning, have had a bereavement in the family, poverty can have an impact, or where students are trying to cope with parents who have separated. Illegitimate drug use by parents or carers is also a factor in how well a student will perform. While each of these eamples may cover a small percentage of students when combined they add to a significant and changing number of struggling students within a school.

Even "Workchoices" can have a significant impact on students in the future as workers/parents can be forced into working hours that are not conducive to family life; creating attachment issues which could be reflected in the classroom as non-compliant behaviour.

Teachers have no control over these matters, and some of the above factors come together more in particular geographic areas than in others.

Teachers are an easier target to blame than to tackle macro determinants within communities.

My apologies to both Jonathan Ariel and Simon Templar for confusing their names in my previous post. The post should have been clearly addressed to Jonathan.

Simon Templar,

If you think the “source of our national educational crisis is a massive failure of teachers to teach” and “reductions in pay or wholesale firings for our failing teachers and school administrators as well as raises and bonuses for those who succeed” will end it, you do not know much about teachers, their intrinsic motivation or the collegiate professional judgment that underpins the successful schools that I experienced in 33 years of teaching, 28 of them in leadership positions.

No school I have taught in provides any evidence that “school systems are mini-versions of the socialist states that collapsed from the sheer weight of their economic backwardness”.

Teachers do not need to be punished to do a good job. They need support, and the system needs the restitution of the pay and conditions stolen over the past generation to attract more able people to teaching.

I never had to review an incompetent teacher. (There really aren’t that many of them.) I therefore approached every review that I conducted with the aim of ensuring that the teacher being reviewed had the evidence necessary to meet the criteria and thus gain a much-deserved salary increment. Some of those being reviewed were confident. More of them were nervous at having to be put through such a process.

Of course, even a painless review has a cost. The time to for both the reviewer and the teacher being reviewed has to come from somewhere. It is either an imposition on the time of both the teacher and the reviewer or a subtraction from the time spent on preparation, correction and the like for students. Those who advocate review mania seem to think the time is created, like the universe, out of nothing. There is also the cost of photocopying the reams of paper required. (Remember the promised paperless office.)

To impose a performance pay system on the education system would be very costly and achieve little. It is just another fad from the same sort of people who brought us the massively inefficient self-managing school and the all-powerful principal as chief bully.

I think that no matter what is done, what needs to happen first is that there needs to be supervision, integrity and accountability in Education at all levels.

The system has been set up to cover up and as a result there are some who are not exercising their duties with integrity and impartiality and they are in positions of significant power and they can inflict great harm.

These bureaucrats could ruin a teacher’s life just because they can. These types of people have tried to ruin children’s lives http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/

There are too many secrets and too many issues that are not dealt with and resolved.

Thank you Simon Templar for your honesty on your 'contempt' for teachers'.

I make no apology for realising that you have been alluding to being a 'professional' within the field, and are still doing so (although now not as a teacher), with the intention of misrepresenting your opinion as informed, when the content of your posts clearly demonstrate the opposite. Teachers' on this forum picked that up in a millisecond.

I advise Jonathan Ariel, because obviously he doesn't know, nor do you ST, that good professional protocol prescribe that professional titles should only be attached to public pronouncements when making statements within your area of expertise. Most professionals take this protocol seriously. What if a teacher decided to write 'articles' on the medical profession, speech pathology, physiotherapy, finance?

It makes me wonder what sort of individual would have such a vendetta against teachers', when they have supposedly been in the workforce for 20+ years? Most reasonable adults, including teachers', can look back at their school days with honesty and admit they were not always angels in the classroom and less than respectful towards their teachers on occasions. The memory of teachers from my own school experience are (bar one or two) of highly professional individuals.

It makes me wonder why a professional from another field would go to the trouble of writing an article about a profession that they clearly are clueless on? Do they not know that the article is up there for all to see, and that article is demonstrative of their professional ethics, let alone their academic credibility?

I suspect that individuals who would hold such a vendetta or write articles on a public forum such as this are revealing themselves to be Liberal party hacks.

It is indicative of the culture of disrespect and arrogance that has somehow entrenched itself within the Liberal party over the last several years. Was it not John Howard that referred to scientists as 'beaureaucrats'?

It is this sort of unfortunate mentality that has alienated one-time-Liberal-voters, such as myself.

Liz, it would seem like many, you prefer to play the person and not the issue when you assail those, like Simon and myself who hold positions different to yours.

You say that ‘good professional protocol prescribe that professional titles should only be attached to public pronouncements when making statements within your area of expertise’. Really? So a carpenter who happens to be a taxpayer should be denied the right to comment on say, the teaching profession, because she is not a teacher? Or because she didn't attend university and by implication is not cut from the right cloth? Give me a break. How biased would all articles be if only those who worked in the field under scrutiny wrote about it? What next? Let only politicians comment on politics? How about only members of the Bar commenting on the legal profession?

Permit me to set you straight: (1) I have no vendetta against teachers. I have a vendetta against flagrant abuse of tax payers money in every place it occurs, by ALL political parties; (2) you say I am a Liberal hack. First of all, I am not a member of any political party nor do I work for a party. Second, if my position is emblematic of ‘Liberal hacks’, then the mass exodus out of the public system would (to you I assume) indicate that millions of Australian parents are Liberal hacks; and (3) you mention a ‘culture of disrespect and arrogance’. I assume you mean those who question the status quo should button up and show ‘respect’ to the elites in society. Sorry, but last I looked this wasn't Mr Putin's Russia.

Jonathan,

I have advised what professional protocol is since you are obviously unaware. I didn't make it up. In future, should you choose to write publicly in a field outside your area of expertise, exclude your unrelated qualifications in the byline. Most academics follow protocol by the way.

'...So a carpenter ... should be denied the right to comment on ... the teaching profession?'

There's a difference between a comment and an article. Just imagine if a carpenter had a false assumption that their qualifications gave authority to their article, and placed their qualifications in the byline in an attempt to add weight. It would be stupid Jonathan wouldn't it?

This is what makes your article 'biased'. It smacks of 'elitist' assumptions of your qualifications as being THE 'right cloth' qualifications to do nothing more than deride teachers, as well as make 'flagrant' statements of what this profession should or should not be paid.

You do have a vendetta. Otherwise, you would not be speaking with such 'current crop' abuse. The graduates of the last few years, that I have been exposed to, are up there with other 'real world' graduates. They attended the same sandstone universities. They sat in the same science, sports science, town planning, English, economics etc. lectures as graduates from other programs. They graduated with the same first degrees. They had to compete with other professional graduates to gain entry into university in the first place. There is nothing inferior about their qualifications or their sense of professionalism. Don't be so elitist. They've had to spend up to five years at university to get their two undergraduate degrees.

'...the mass exodus out of the public system would (to you I assume) indicate that millions of Australian parents are Liberal hacks'

Many public school teachers send their children to private schools, including myself. It gives good insight into resources and Federal funding.

'mention a ‘culture of disrespect and arrogance’.

Must have been the 'current crop' and 'socialist' comments, and the inappropriate use of qualifications in the byline ... elitist attitude of considering yourself an enlightened social commentator.

Our children/students deserve better than this.

how about better class sizes
more class rooms

not demountables but real rooms.

better conditions and a stricker discipline rule.

Not will this only give better discipline but will also educate

off course at the cost off the parent.

Time for parents to get on board and if their children cannot act well pay for the program.

www.tapp.org.au

Anyone can comment here, or submit articles, for that matter. The authority of the comments rests in the eye of the beholder. It may be that a carpenter can speak authoritatively on spiritual matters.

Carpenters are unlikely to have tertiary qualifications in theology, which would likely eliminate them as expert witnesses before a court or tribunal, dealing with religious matters, in our enlightened times.

I'm happy enough for Johnathan Ariel to write his opinion concerning criterion-based pay for teachers, but bias and assumptions need to be more clearly stated and accepted.

Johnathan says:
"Sir Vivor – why do you say my comments are partisan? Surely they are common sense. They are intended to cure an ill. The ill being the one way flight from public schools. The fact that one side of politics holds similar views is a fact of life. If the Greens held this view, I would still be called partisan, but by others no doubt and not you."

See the first and penultimate paragraphs of the article:

"While Federal Education Minister Julie Bishop didn’t greet her state and territory counterparts with the proverbial, “Send in the clowns”, she may as well have, given their rank hypocrisy in rejecting her plans to skew teachers’ pay towards performance and away from length of service."

and

"It seems that the states and territories don’t want to do right by school students, if that means giving the Prime Minister a policy win several months out from an election. The spirit of former Senator Graham Richardson, is alive and well: do whatever it takes to (help Kevin Rudd) win. And pay any price."

So,
Johnathans views might be argued as "common sense", vouched for by carpenters and all others across the political spectrum, but if they are, then what need is there for plainly non-bipartisan references to Julie Bishop, Kevin Rudd and Graham Richardson?

It is the partisan references, not the particular players, which sully the impartiality of the argument.

Can common sense not stand on its own?

"Commonsense" is purely that, it would be accepted by any impartial observer. In relation to political issues "common sense" doesn't exist. A conservative political view begins from a different premise than does a more radical one.

While Jonathan may not be a teacher he has a right to any opinion he wishes. However, it is an affront if he claims that what he is arguing is "commonsense". From my point of view what Jonathan argues is shallow, as it takes a uni-dimensional approach to a multi-dimensional issue.
As already suggested there are psychological as well as socialogical matters that need to be taken into account.

"I make no apology for realising that you have been alluding to being a 'professional' within the field, and are still doing so (although now not as a teacher), with the intention of misrepresenting your opinion as informed, when the content of your posts clearly demonstrate the opposite. Teachers' on this forum picked that up in a millisecond."

Liz, your arrogance and self-aggrandisement are overwhelming. You have no idea what my professional background is. It is offensive and indecent of you to suggest that I have misrepresented myself in any way. In the field in which I worked in education I was not alluding, I was a professional. Many of the teachers I worked with were not. On a wide range of educational matters I would suggest I am much better informed than many of the bitter and twisted teachers who seem to flock to these fora. (I am for instance, appalled at the shallow and trivial reasoning you give as a public school teacher for sending your children to private schools.)

I did not express contempt for teachers, for instance, but did indicate I have low expectations. On the issue of education there are a multitude of stakeholders who have every right to comment and opine on educational matters. I wouldn't, for instance speak as an 'expert' on pedagogy, although I might comment. On broader matters educational I will have an opinion, whether it tickles your fancy or not. I have to say your general demeanor indicates a serious lack of professionalism on your part, and the tone of your censure of Johnathon Ariel merely reinforces my low expectations.

Can I suggest your posts revert to vigorous debate of the issues rather than trading in ill-informed attacks on the postees.

Simon Templar, you say to Liz, "your arrogance and self-aggrandisement are overwhelming". And other people with whom you disagree are, in your words, "the bitter and twisted teachers who seem to flock to these fora".

Then with breathtaking hypocrisy you conclude, "Can I suggest your posts revert to vigorous debate of the issues rather than trading in ill-informed attacks on the postees."

As for your current claim that you did not "express contempt for teachers", don't you ever read your own posts? Was it not you who said, "The source of our national educational crisis is a massive failure of teachers to teach." Did you not describe teachers as engaging in "constant whining and excuses" and "bitter and twisted"?

Sounds like contempt to me Simon. How would you describe your attitude to teachers if you deny having contempt?

I'm a parent of three children. The eldest has just entered Uni, the youngest started High school. So would like to make a comment.

All three went to both private and public schools. My experience re teachers has been that it mattered not a jot whether it was in public or private schools. It is an astonishing myth that your child will automatically get a 'better' education in a private school.

All teachers have always been professional. Some teachers I found fantastic, but other parents grumbled about them and vice versa.

What does make the biggest difference is the principal of the school. An excellent principal seems to result in a school with excellent teachers, who want to stay and teach at that school. Whether private or public. Now why is that? So as a parent, I would suggest to start with principals' performances first. I think we'll see an immediate improvement in educational standards.

Teacher bashing does seem to be a sport here in Australia. I suppose if we can't blame our failings on our parents, there's always a teacher! And parents of course have an excuse why their little darling isn't a little Einstein,he would be if only he had better teacher

What I cant understand is why it is okay for teachers to critisize parents and their actions but when parents critizise teachers they are branded teacher bashers and seen in such a negative light. It is as if teachers think that all parents/adults complain solely out of malice and because they have nothing better to do and that all teachers are perfect?

Surely people are in their right to express concerns about some teachers. Of course not all teachers are the same, if teachers do not want to get a bad name because of those that do wrong they should not protect the bad teachers and they should agree and accept that within them there are some teachers who are failing in their duty of care and are not doing their job. These bad teachers do alot of damge and should not be allowed to hide within the good, they should be identified, re-educated and/or removed.

Getting rid of the bad is the best way to protect the reputation of the teachers.

Yvonne,

Your point about principals is well made. One extraordinary aspect of those who bash teachers and think the solution is to give principals more power is that they forget that principals themselves come from the ranks of teachers.

On the whole, principals are just not that good. I have seen good people passed over for promotion, while bullies, yes-men, yes-women and jargon-spinners are given principal class positions. For a more comprehensive account of my experiences than can be provided in 350 words, go to www.platowa.com and look at the thread “Farewell”.

Unfortunately, the Victorian principals’ club has persuaded the government that the five-person principal selection panel should have two members of the club on it to keep appointments in-house. The club will do all it can to keep teachers committed to their profession out of principalships.

It would be better to have two teachers on each panel, along with the two parents, so that those with more knowledge of the school had more say. But there are no guarantees with any system. Principals who are AEU members are no more supportive of their classroom colleagues than non-AEU principals.

Billie,

When I said that there were just over 40,000 teachers in Victorian government schools, I meant effective full-time teachers. When part-timers are taken into account, the number of individuals will be a little higher, but still nowhere near the 100,000 that you stated.

Chris C, I was going to give the figure of 100,000 a rest, it was meant to indicate the size of the workforce and indicate the sheer problems (diseconomies) of scale when you are trying to administer a system fairly but . . . . . . .

The figure of 100,000 was used by AEU and VIT officials in 2005 when the they were explaining the mechanics of the online recruitment system to provisionally registered casual relief teachers. I think they meant there were 100,000 on the education department payroll

Jolanda,

Someone who criticises teachers is not necessarily a teacher-basher. Teachers are as deserving of fact-based criticism as anyone else. What makes the difference is whether or not there are any facts there. Teacher-bashers write things such as the following:
“State education departments have been sheltered workshops for lazy job-for-lifers for too long.” (oz at December 22, 2006 11:17 AM, on “Is education fair?”, Your Say, The Age)
‘The schools are simply a racket and a rort for teachers who use it as a fully salaried system of outdoor relief.’ (Peter Ryan, “Teachers fail to get the point”, The Age, 1/8/1992)
‘The perks and privileges of this cosseted profession were absolutely sacrosanct.” (“A lesson in anarchy”, Herald Sun (editorial), 19/11/1992)
‘Schools…appear to be run more for the benefit and convenience of their employees than for their users.’ (Claude Forell, “A reckoning unions had to have”, The Age, 25/11/1992)
‘A strong moral case for the present Government unilaterally renouncing all agreements entered into by the previous Government with its employees can be made on the grounds that they were not arms-length agreements.’ (Professor Ross Parish, “Let the Public Service pay towards cutting the ranks”, The Age, 11/12/1992)
‘Money for schools was channelled into creating more jobs and better conditions for teachers.’ (“School lessons in economic necessity” (editorial), The Age, 27/1/1993)
‘The powerful public sector unions were permitted by default to run…education…’ (“Jim Kennan scratches”, Herald Sun (editorial), 29/6/1993)
‘…during the 1980s, the union movement “captured” the operation of the public sector. This led to considerable over-staffing and restrictive work practices…’ (Des Moore, “Why government needs to be rolled back”, The Age, 5/7/1993)
I have many more examples. The malice spewed forth by some commentators on education is obvious. You only have to read the various contributions on education on On Line Opinion to be hit in the face by it.

Billie,

There are nowhere near 100,000 employees on the Victorian Department of Education payroll. There are c100,000 teachers – government, private school and relief – registered with VIT.

A few posters stated that Jonathan is allowed to post here. I have strong concerns about these types of articles.

I’d like to draw your attention to an article in today’s ‘Australian’ by Bryan Appleyard. It is timely and discusses the concepts I have mentioned on what was academic protocol until blogosphere came along. The link is:

http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,21600950%5E15388%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html

Appleyard expresses my concerns articulately, being that blogosphere allows anyone to write anything on any subject, justifying this often lack of appropriacy under the perception of freedom of speech. In the article, the author Andrew Keen describes blogosphere as‘the cult of the amateur … it’s all about digital narcissim, shameless self-promotion’.

Oliver Kamm (The Times) also hits the nail on the head with ‘blogs … do not add to the available stock of commentary: they are purely parasitic on the stories and opinions that traditional media provide’.

I believe blogs on teaching, amongst other subjects, attract what Appleyard describes as ‘aggressive males who use the internet to spew their vitriol’, and Jonathan Feedland of ‘The Guardian’ describes as ‘abusive, vitriolic [of] nature … appealing chiefly to a certain kind of aggressive, point-scoring male’.

Appleyard’s article also uses the example of a young college drop out by the name of Ryan Jordan, who ‘exploited the trust structure of the internet … to pretend he was somebody else, to steal the authority of academe’.

At this stage I’d just like to communicate to Simon Templar that I never gave a reason for why I send my children to a private school.

I've finished with this thread. But before I go, I'd like to finish praise the reasoned and intelligent responses to this article by the teachers who posted here. If you guys are indicative of the caliber of people attracted to teaching, then I’m proud to be part of the profession.

And to Yvonne and Ena. May every P&F Committee be administrated to by other good-willed parents such as yourselves, who pave the way to successful relationships between schools and parents.

This has been a most interesting thread. I think it a pity that not more parents/guardians have participated.

After more than 12 years communicating with teachers who taught my children, I can say, that, yes, there have at times been disagreements, but I've never come across a teacher who wanted any of my children to fail.

The content of curriculum, assessment methods and insistence of children progressing to the next year level regardless of achievement, not to mention school reports, I at times greatly puzzle over. As I understand it all teachers have to teach and work within these parameters. The contents and lessons I've found to be more or less the same in both private and public schools. So, it seems hardly fair that teachers at the coalface, so to speak, are made to bear the brunt of an allegedly failing education system.

My eldest just finished school doing the International Baccalaureate. We decided on this solely on the broad based curriculum content and method of assessment. I'm very pleased with the outcome. Same teachers, just maybe better quality material to work with.

Teachers, as any professional, should be paid whatever is fair and reasonable.

I cannot get my head around how paying individual teachers differently is going to improve the educational outcome for my children. Children are in the educational system for 12-13 years and encounter a different teacher each year, a different teacher for each subject. Or is there going to be an option for parents to be able to chose a higher paid and therefore supposedly better teacher for their child? Are parents going to get access to teachers' Performance Ratings? If not, than how is this scheme going to benefit my child? What absolute nonsense.

Well I have been involved in issues with Education for many years http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/ what I have found is that although only the minority of teachers were really bad at teaching the majority of teachers did not stand up for their students against the bullying and neglect by the system and not against the bullying in the playground. It is as if they were scared. To me that is failing in their duty of care.

So many times the teachers have seen my children being victimised, discriminated against and neglected by a system that targets those that speak out and although they have confided with me that what was being done was wrong, they said they couldn't do anything to help. They did not have the courage to stand up against the 'big guns' to stop what was happening to innocent children.

Although I appreciate that the reason that they said nothing was because they were gagged (I was told this directly) and because they believed that they would be targeted if they spoke out, they should have protected the children. That is how you gain respect. That is just my humble opinion.

"An expert is a person who avoids small error as he/she sweeps on to the grand fallacy." Benjamin Stolberg

And for those who use public education, care about its efficacy and achievment, and see it's central focus as the students and their families who use it: "We are made to persist. That's how we find out who we are." -Tobias Wolff, 'In Pharaoh's Army'

Brevior saltare cum deformibus mulieribus est vita

Sounds like contempt to me Simon Templar. Looks like contempt. Now your retreat into Latin confirms it.

Here's an aphorism - in English. He who has the least to say on a subject can be relied upon to say it most often.

Simon

I would find it hard to believe you could get any kind of woman to spend time with you.

Give up attempting to take a leaf out of Ryan Jordan's book. You're not as smart as him. You're not convincing anyone. Back to your books young man.

Jolanda, what you just said confirms that rewarding individual teachers who actually do the teaching is not going to improve anything that will benefit students. And that is what we are being sold that this scheme is supposed to do.

Over the years, because of a whole host of reasons, I've had children in eight different schools. Four private schools, four public schools. I've dealt with 11 different principals. I've come across inspiring teachers, OK teachers, but the kids thought he was fantastic, and a teacher who was not actually teaching my son, but nevertheless had a wonderful impact. My youngest daughter was bullied for quite an extended period until realised in year 5, which was extremely painful for her. Her teacher with my daughter dealt with it very, very well.

Without fail, I've found individual teaching teachers to be involved with their students. Principals, on the other hand, are by and large extremely mediocre and seem to be involved on a largely personal journey of achievement. Of all the schools, I've only found ONE principal to be really inspiring. My daughter has just started high school, so have not had an opportunity to get to know the new principal. I've heard him speak and he's making all the right noises. Though of course, talking the talk, doesn't always mean walking the walk.

I don't know if there are any principals participating on this thread, but as a parent, I'm much, much more interested in how and why principals are appointed, how long their tenure is and how their performance is evaluated and by whom.

I'm much, much more interested in how and by whom the curriculum content is developed.

As for Simon Templar, he has a funny attitude for someone who is supposedly professionally connected to education. Maybe a change of department could do. Try the Health department, we are used to people not actually working with patients sprout beautiful words for the public, but secretly thinking those of us who do work at the coal face are thick and must have rocks in the head.

Peformance pay is a red herring.

There is nothing wrong with performance pay, but it will do bugger all to fix the education system. The vast majority of teachers are extremely dedicated and work bloody hard. The troubles are:

1) Many teachers are woefully under-qualified

2) Too much time is spent upon insane bureacracy and benchmarking

These problems are the fault and responsibility of both Liberal and Labor governments. Faddishness and nannying in education - largely a Labor pasttime - has been a disaster.

But if you want the one destructive cause, it's the amount of money (not) going into higher education. Howard has turned a great tertiary system into a basket case which serves no one.

For Ariel, or anyone, to discuss Australian education woes and to not raise this obvious and critical point - well, it proves they're a Liberal hack.

Yvonne,
Thank you for your remarks, especially those regarding Principals and it certinly tallies with my experience. In this group there are gifted educators but on the whole, they are egotistic, opinionated and as you say more concerned with using their positions to further their own aspirations. In my mind, this situation applies more to the public system than private system.

What amazes me is the huge turnover of teaching staff that occurs in these public schools (comparative to the other public sector departments) and yet I'm yet to hear of a Principal being required to account for a high turnover of staff. They are accountable (in Victoria) to school boards. These boards are simply stacked by school principals with staff and those community members that they wish to have on the board. They run their schools like personal fiefdoms and any staff who disagree are immediatly hounded until they comply or leave.

In most cases, Principals started teaching when 18 and most have never worked in any other environment except the Education Department. It is this lack of diversity in work / life experience that I find worrying as it limits their ability to understand and engage their external community.

As someone who has worked in the public and private sector in human services, it used to amaze me that a number of people that held these positions had themselves very basic skills of written communication. I recall, one Principal showing me a letter that he intended sending to a minister; I was astounded, a whole paragraph without any discernable sentence structure and the grammer, that would have got a P for a 10 year old.

I don't know if you are aware but a recent survey of teaching staff (I'm not sure if Principals were tested)in Victoria found some pretty disturbing results in terms of basic literacy.

No wonder the Commonwealth is becoming alarmed but talk of performance salary and giving Principals more authority over staff is the equivalent of giving Nurse Dracula the plasma to save the patient.

I was going to leave this thread but Bushbasher has enticed me back in.

Bushbasher

Why do you say many or most teachers' are under-qualified. Are you talking about high schools, primary schools? I just wonder how many years must one spend at university before they are suitably qualified to teach? Everyone in my staff room are four year trained. Most have two degrees. A couple have their masters.

Netab

Could you please identify that survey. Lots of interesting allegations are made about teachers'. I'm sceptical about this one because I've yet to meet a teacher who has literacy problems.

You have to just look at the teachers' who have participated on this thread to wonder the validity of that type of allegation.

Liz,

Generally, I think education faculties are much more concerned with faddish, second rate sociology than anything to do with teaching.

Specifically, I know something of the situation with mathematics (but suspect that similar arguments could be applied to other disciplines). It is a well-know fact that many mathematics teachers are under-qualified: most mathematics teachers will admit it. And the reasons for this are not a mystery.

First of all, the high school mathematics curriculum pretty much everywhere in Australia is appalling: current teachers are victims of this as well as perpetrators. Secondly, the university mathematics curriculum in most universities is appalling. Thirdly, even when the university curriculum is not appalling, it is seldom directed towards the actual understanding and appreciation of mathematics that would help teachers teach. Fourthly, many many mathematics teachers have the thinnest of university mathematical training.

Note that I am not blaming teachers for this, and nothing I have written supports Ariel's cheap shot at teachers, and definitely not his partisan hackery. Teachers, like their students, are victims of a broken and broke system. Rudd is no hero, but he'll be a huge improvement over barbarians such as Howard and Bishop (and Nelson and Vanstone and Kemp).

Netab
If, as you claim, most Principals started teaching when they were 18 the teaching profession must be full of child prodigies. Let's see if your claim adds up. The average age of Year 12 students is 17. The length of most teacher training course is 4 years. You do the sums Netab.

So much for your numeracy. What about your literacy?

You are amazed "that a number of people that held these positions had themselves very basic skills of written communication." As you so revealingly expressed it: " I recall, one Principal showing me a letter that he intended sending to a minister; I was astounded, a whole paragraph without any discernable sentence structure and the grammer, that would have got a P for a 10 year old." Your own sentence contains three inapt punctuations, two basic spelling errors and wobbly syntax.

I suppose you might have a claim to have been taught badly.

Let's have the details of the recent survey of teaching staff in Victoria which had "disturbing results in terms of basic literacy". We've all met those eight-out-of-ten-dentist type surveys.

Bushbasher

I noted your tone was reasonable rather than aggressive. That's why I sought further comment from you.

I understand a significant number of maths teachers did not study maths at uni. I think there is such a shortage of maths teachers that schools are forced to accept any teacher who will put their hand up to teach the subject. I've never taught maths myself. But I would be prepared to teach maths in middle school. I did well in senior maths myself.

'Secondly, the university mathematics curriculum in most universities is appalling.'

Would that not affect the competency of other professions as well? They do sit in the same lectures after all. It's not like universities segregate education students away from other students and give them their own separate maths course.

It's interesting the comments you have made about university mathematics not instructive of teaching teachers to teach the subject. It could probably be said of all subject areas.

This is where I think people have unreasonable expectations of teachers. I think I was a fairly mediocre teacher in my first year. I began improving in my second year. By my third year I was away.

Just like any other profession. It takes time to learn how to teach competently. It's a bloody hard thing to do.

But I also think the 'system', that we all have inherit, as you so rightly acknowledge, is not supportive of teachers...teaching loads are exhausting. We're just not given enough spares to prepare. And I can't tell you how many spares have been wasted because of having to address discipline problems that are occuring in a classroom close by, or having to chase some kid that's jumped over the school yard fence and down the road.

And of course ... more resources would be helpful.

Liz,
The report was done by Ken Rowland (ACER) on the teaching of literacy and its delivery. From what I can gather it was to be released in December 2006 but I can't be sure. Below is a part of a commentary on the report.

"An argument is also put that the reason many teachers are unable to teach literacy is because of inadequate teacher training and professional development. The report recommends, before being registered to teach, that teachers are tested for literacy skills and their knowledge of the research about successful literacy teaching."

I have not seen the report but I first heard of it when I heard it on the radio about 4 months ago; an item that the Minister was concerned about the report, especially in regard to literacy skills. I googled it following your enquiry - I assume this is the same report. I can't find a ministerial statement to the effect of the one I heard on the radio.

But I would also make the point that most of statement was based on personal experience. As Child Protection Officer in a remote region of WA, I was required to work continually with headmasters at schools. At that time we carried out both child protection and juvenile justice duties. Over 9 years, I got to know at close hand administration of the schools I worked with and a fair sampling of headmasters.

The thing that many Magistrates, Police and Hospitals agreed on was that reports required by school executives; simply didn't meet the standards required for either the judiciary or other departments involved in juvenile justice or child protection. Much of that related to literary comprehension issues / skills and general standards of technical writing.

It may be that I hit a bad patch but it seemed to go for a long time.

Liz, we basically agree. Teachers are the easy whipping-boys of clueless eco-creeps such as Ariel. Anyone who knows anything about schools realises that the overwhelming majority of teachers are incredibly dedicated and work really bloody hard. I don't think, as a group, that teachers are well-qualified, and I don't think they are doing a going job. But I think government bureaucracy/policy (Liberal and Labor) and the starving of funds (Liberal and Liberal and Liberal and Liberal and Liberal) makes it impossible for them to do so.

You make the obvious but critical point that one only really learns to teach by teaching. This is why I think spending large amounts of time in education faculties is meaningless (and why education lecturers largely resort to shovelling pseudo-academic nonsense in an attempt to justify their positions). The time would be much better spent actually teaching, and learning one's disciplines.

Re your comment that you would be comfortable teaching middle school mathematics, I'm sorry but you shouldn't be. Doing well at upper level school mathematics doesn't tell you what mathematics is "about". Nonetheless, you'd probably be better than many of those who are in fact teaching middle school maths.

As for your question of who university mathematics serves if not the trainee teachers: no one. It is meaningless ritual adminstered by third rate priests for students who don't know enough to realise they're being fed half-baked religion.

Netab

Your first post proclaimed that a survey had found “some pretty disturbing results" in basic literacy. When challenged, you told us: “The report was done by Ken Rowland (ACER) on the teaching of literacy and its delivery.” You quoted an “[unsourced] commentary on the report” but admitted you hadn’t read it – just heard about it on the radio. Hardly the basis to inspire confidence in your alarmist claims about teachers and literacy.

Some actual facts might help. The report was commissioned by the Howard government and was chaired by Ken Rowe (not Rowland). The report, released in December 2005, is called ‘Teaching Reading: National Inquiry Into The Teaching Of Literacy’. (You can read it at: www.dest.gov.au/nitl/documents/report_recommendations.pdf)

The report was not universally accepted. A lively debate on its findings was held on the 7.30 Report on 8 December 2005 (www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1527194.htm)

Ken Rowe does work at the ACER and is one-and-the-same researcher who condemned the Howard government’s flagship literacy program, ‘Making Up Lost Time In Literacy’ (MULTIL). He and other literacy experts said the multi-million dollar project was an embarrassing waste of money. (The Australian April 05, 2007).

Debates on literacy are complex and it pays to study the facts before you go public - and do some reading if you're going to debate literacy!

You concede that most of your statement was based on your nine years as Child Protection Officer in a remote region of WA where you got to know "a fair sampling of headmasters", and found their reports sub-standard. While a better standard might have been desirable, your sample is hardly a proper basis to make broad-brush statements about the literacy levels of teachers and principals generally.

Now what about your claim about principals being "on the whole...egotistic, opinionated and...more concerned with using their positions to further their own aspirations"? Was this based on your remote WA experience? Or another radio program?

And these Victorian 'school boards' that Principals stack. Was that on another radio program too?

FrankGol,
The report exist whether you like it or not. My opinion based on experience stands and your slightly shrill reaction to critical comment indicates that where there is smoke, there is fire!

Bushbasher

We agree that:

• teachers’ are treated poorly
• Jonathan is clueless
• Teachers’ work hard
• Political parties undermine teachers’ in their ability to teach

But I profoundly disagree with your comments that teachers’ are not well qualified or doing a good job. In relation to qualifications, personally, I believe there is a good balance between professional knowledge and skills gained at uni, as well as what you refer to as sociology.

Sociology is so incredibly important to professions such as teaching. After all, we have great power over the lives of sometimes fragile young people. It’s so important to have an understanding of what has happened in their lives that have shaped them into who they are as young teenagers (and they’re not always the nicest of people); what factors may potentially undermine their ability to educate themselves; and what we can do as individuals to support them in their learning.

Without that sociology, a lot of these kids would be excluded, and that could set them up on a pathway of failure.

I do believe that by and large I am impressed by teachers’ as professionals: their professional ethics; knowledge; skills.

I do think there’s possibly credibility to your comments on teachers’ spending less time at uni and more time at the chalkface, learning how to teach. (I want to get back to this comment at a later stage).

But I also want further comment from you on how are professionals in other fields going in the workforce? Given teachers’ sit in the same lectures and complete the same subjects as other professionals (e.g. mathematicians, economists, engineers etc…) how are these other professionals performing in the workplace?

It stands to reason that if teachers’ are considered under qualified, then graduates of these other professions must be as well.

Netab

There’s a difference between teaching literacy and not being literate themselves. A big difference actually. The two are separate issues.

And Netab, you can speak for yourself, but you’re not the voice of ‘Magistrates, Police and Hospitals’. That comment makes you look like a Ryan Jordan.

Netab

You tell me "the report exists" whether I "like it or not". This is the report you couldn't name, didn't know who wrote, hadn't read and didn't know anything about? Now I supply you all the details and even told you where you could read it, you come back - not having read the report - to tell me I had a "slightly shrill reaction".

You remind me of the knight in the Monty Python film who wants to fight on even though all his limbs have been hacked off.

You're way out of your depth, Netab. If you're going to engage in a debate about literacy standards and quote a major research report to support your views, have the common sense to read the report.

My reaction, you say, indicates that "where there is smoke, there is fire!" Yes, but for heaven's sake, what's burning? The unseen, unread research report?

You say again that your limited experience (nine years in remote WA) stands. Whatever can you mean by that? It's clear that your experience is totally inadequate to allow you to judge the literacy standards of Australian principals and teachers.

Do some reading and thinking then come back with something useful to say.

Liz, I'm not sure we disagree enough to warrant much further discussion. I obviously don't have much respect for education faculties, and I could say why, but it's enough off the point to leave it here. I'll just say I'm not underplaying the point of "sociology", but i think what you are referring to is covered much more by empathy and common sense than academic theorising.

I don't know how other professionals are performing in the workplace, but I know that professionals who need mathematics in the workplace are not in any way well-served by their university/school mathematical training. I think the difference is likely that most professions simply accept that mathematical education is pretty useless, and take it upon themselves to teach/demand whatever is needed. By comparison, with the profession of teaching mathematics, there is a broadly accepted culture of mediocrity.

Oh FrankGol,
We have certainly touched a nerve. You tell me on one hand that this report is too obscure to source and on the other that it is discredited.

You exemplify, the defensive attitude of the educational establishment; we are professionals (therefore can't be questioned)but we have one of the most militant unions in the country. Your ridiculous and pompeous statement that I am 'out of depth' is an attitude that has inspired many of the above posts (you noticed them Frank?) that have obviously wounded you - don't like critical comment Frank? See Frank, this is not a conference and I'm not giving a paper. Where you get the idea that I'm here to waste my time answering the queries of a pedantic little man who has decided on the basis of his own limited experience, that the broader community perspective is ignorant; is beyond my comprehnsion. Take a rain check Frank!

I know that reality takes a while to seep in but I repeat; the research exists, my personal experience stands, my opinions stand. Now Frank, I will continue my interest in this forum and continue to annoy you. Thats life Frank; times change and its time to remind you that you are service deliverer; we the public decide what you will deliver.

Oh Netab

You're incomprehensible. Far from telling you that the report was "too obscure to source", I told you where to get it - and suggested you read it. Nor did I say the report was "discredited", merely that it was not universally supported. Why don't you read it and see what you make of it for yourself?

Now how is it that I exemplify "the defensive attitude of the educational establishment" when I'm not part of it?

Why do you think its time to remind me that I am a "service deliverer"? What service is that? I am not a teacher nor a principal nor an educational administrator nor an educational lecturer. Wrong again Netab.

Your promise to annoy me would really matter to me if you had some facts or some coherent argument that challenged my thinking.

Meanwhile, as a member of the public (just like you) I'll go to sleep thinking about your proposition that "we the public decide what you will deliver". Perhaps you've mistaken me for the milkman or the newspaper man?

Why don't you come back when you've read the report?

Frank, I have to take some responsibility for introducing the principal thing in this thread. A comment you quoted from Netab was actually a response he gave to one of my comments.

This thread is about teacher pay and linking it to the competence of teachers teaching our supposedly failing students. This we are to believe is going to 'improve' students' educational outcomes.

As a parent I have dealt with many teachers and quite a number of principals. All I can offer is my personal experience dealing with both teachers and principals, as did Netab. He in WA, I'm in South East Queensland.

I have yet to meet a teacher who is not interested in good educational outcomes for the students in their care.

I'm sorry to say I'm not that impressed with principals. Maybe all that is needed is some attention to eloquence, whether writing a report or communicating with a parent. Let's leave literate vs literacy aside for a minute. A coherent and relevant response that at least appears as if the principal cares about a student is a start.

Netab,

I accidentally came to this thread and noticed your exchanges with FrankGol.

Here's my only comment on this thread :

FrankGol is right, you're way out of your depth !!

Yvonne, I usually like to read what you post on OLO. Lots of good common sense.

Consider again what you write about teachers and principals: "I have yet to meet a teacher who is not interested in good educational outcomes for the students in their care." compared to: "I'm sorry to say I'm not that impressed with principals."

As for teachers, I have to say I have met only two teachers who couldn't care less about kids - out of scores I have known over a lifetime. So my experience teaches me that there are a few really poor teachers and many excellent ones. Most are - surprise, surprise - average.

As for principals, I have met perhaps five outstanding ones and two who were dolts - bully boys who should have been running meat markets rather than schools. Most of the principals I've met are averagely competent.

As a group education people are likely to be spread over a full spectrum of abilities, application and dedication, aren't they? Just like doctors, shop assistants or carpenters? Or politicians or OLO posters?

I suppose the problem with using personal experience in judging the teaching profession as a whole is that the general run-of-the mill parent is likely to meet only a handful of principals and a few more teachers in their time with school-aged children. So, beyond personal experience, most of us are captive to media representations which are often based on government media handouts associated with political agenda. Notice, for example, how often negative media reports appear around the time governments are about to announce education budget cuts. Or notice how poor "standards" are when the Feds want to take over the nation's schools and universities.

I agree totally with you Frank. My point was that for everyone with anecdotes of 'terrible' teachers somebody can come up with anecdotes of 'terrible' principals, doctors, lawyers, etc.

That's why as a tax-payer and parent, I'm very dismayed about the whole notion of competency based pay for teachers being sold to me as an improvement for my student children. I can think of good arguments why I think this could make it worse.

Competent based on what? Competent based on the opinion of the principal? Competent based on high marks from their students? Maybe on the number of students sent or not sent to the 'Responsible Thinking Centre'? Competent based on extracurricular activities the teacher performs? The number of workshops attended? All of the above?

If an argument can be made for competency based pay for teachers, I say, start at 'the top', start with educators who work as principals. More responsibilities, more pay, probably easier to assess.

There are many jobs where productivity can be measured by the number of widgets sold, manufactured or saved, but how is this done with education?

And then, can I as a parent, find out who the competent and non-competent teachers are? Or are all the competent teachers going to end up in particular schools and based on where I can afford to live my children may or may not be taught by the 'best' teachers?

I'd be far more interested if there was more debate about curriculum content and delivery, and assessment methods. For starters.

As far as pay goes, any professional deserves a fair and reasonable income. That goes for teachers, as well as nurses, doctors, etc.

I have 4 children and between them they have been to 11 schools, so my children and I have come across alot of Principals and Teachers.

I believe that the majority of teachers that my children have had have been good. There have been maybe 4 or 5 outstanding teachers, the rest did the best that they could in a difficult situation and for the most time, the time spent was alright to good. However, there are a number of teachers that my children have come by that have managed to make my children's time with them hell.

I believe that the majority of the Principals that I have had to deal with appeared tired as though they were struggling to cope. They didn’t seem to be able do anything about anything that happens to those in their school.

It seems that the Department gets to choose how to handle every situation, allegation and/or complaint. Of course protecting the reputation of the Department and Government is of paramount concern.

The Department is not required to care about the children, that is Legislated as the parents role. When, and if, a parents speaks out, they pay the price.