To the Education and Science Select Committee. I am making a submission to oppose the changes to the Education Amendment Bill No.2, in particular the sections establishing EDUCANZ and the teacher registration framework. Whenever responsibility is assigned, wrote Nietzsche, it is usually so that judgement and punishment may follow. Teachers currently have a body to represent their professional activities and registration - the aptly named Teachers Council. This body acts with integrity and with the support of the teachers. Teachers have representation on the Council. It is autonomous and not subject to the whims of whichever party currently controls parliament. It handles the discipline of the teaching profession and maintains professional standards. The proposed new body EDUCANZ has no elected representation from teachers and is composed according to the will of the Minister. It intends to expand its role into professional development (a cost currently borne by the government) and in general be open to guidance from the Minister. I see this as potentially weakening our professional status as people currently not qualified to teach may be given teaching roles. Furthermore, ongoing authority to teach may be denied to teachers if they dont meet new and uncertain criteria. This shifting sandsapproach further undermines our professionalism. Our current Code of Ethics is to be replaced with a Code of Conduct. Whereas what we have now respects the status of teachers, the more punitive approach of a Code of Conduct is belittling. This leads me on to my next point of dissatisfaction with the proposed bill. The idea that disciplinary matters may be held in public, and before misconduct has been established, goes against the ideas of natural justice and must not be allowed. I find this idea offensive. I also feel the true intent of this body was exposed when Mr Graham publicly paraded the idea of performance pay. Irrespective of the merits of such a scheme, for it to be introduced there needs to be appraisal systems and a body to enforce it. The proposed body facilitates this and allows the Minister to effectively dictate conditions. Our professional body should be out of the influence of politicians and teachers equally and maintain independence. Only then can everyone be satisfied with its integrity. Then there is the matter of cost. With extended and uncapped roles and increased auditing, the proposed body is going to cost a lot more. Suddenly teachers will be asked to pay more for their own professional development. The Minister has indicated comparisons with other professions - law and medicine for example. These professions are able to recover costs through their charges. We currently have a very efficient and relatively inexpensive Council. It is certainly not in teachers interests to be paying a lot more. In conclusion, despite the Ministers claims of consultation about this bill, it is clear from the actual consultations with thousands of teachers conducted by the PPTA that there is near universal condemnation of these proposed changes from secondary teachers. I urge you to take this into consideration. It is unlikely that any other professional group would think it acceptable for the government to take over their professional bodies. Thank you for considering my submission.I should like to speak to the Select Committee if possible.
Posted on: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:26:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015