Prince Alfred College teachers fighting AWAs

This article is repeated without change from the Eastern Courier (21/11/07) an Adelaide suburban newspaper.

It is a warning to teachers in the public education system that un-Australian Workplace Agreements are infiltrating education, and that what private school teachers face now will be what we face in the future if the Howard regime is re-elected on the 24th of this month.

The article follows:

Workplace Disagreement

By Aaron Coultate

Teachers at one of Adelaide's most elite private schools are at loggerheads with management in a dispute over WorkChoices, which is likely to act as a test case for other independent schools.

Teachers at Prince Alfred College, Hackney, have overwhelmingly rejected a new pay deal in which union members were asked, for the first time, to sign Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs). Staff voted 80-20 against the changes which, they said, would ban the Independent Education Union from meeting with members on school grounds, or discussing with them workplace issues.

They have previously accepted the school's offer on pay and conditions.

"The workplace is now in deep dispute over form rather than function," union secretary Glen Seidel (right) said.

"...There is a lot of resentment there."

Mr Seidel said the outcome could be a landmark ruling for SA independent schools, most of which were set to begin AWA negotiations in coming weeks.

"It will probably set the precedent for the rest of the state's non-Catholic private schools. PAC is the vanguard, everyone else is looking at them."

He said it was unlikely teachers would strike. "The most that may happen is some teachers boycott a Saturday morning game of school cricket.

"These are not your usual militant union members."

The teachers have gone back to management with a proposed "memorandum of understanding", which would bypass WorkChoices while maintaining the agreed working and pay conditions.

Mr Seidel said the need for the teachers to take this action made a "mockery" of the laws.

It is unclear whether the school will accept the teachers' position.

Contacted on Friday, PAC Headmaster Kevin Tutt refused to comment.

The issue could take a different tack if the ALP is elected on November 24, with leader Kevin Rudd promising to overhual industrial relations laws.

..............................................................................................

The situation at PAC (a Uniting Church elite college) mirrors that at Sydney Church of England Co-Ed Grammar School (SCESGS) which is also using the WorkChoices legislation to deny teachers basic industrial rights by refusing to negotiate with the IEU.

Staff at SCECGS have been offered a new enterprise agreement that varies the template agreement negotiated between the IEU and the Association of Independent Schools, to the disadvantage of staff.

"SCECGS senior personnel told staff that 'theoretically' the school could dismiss all the teachers if they voted 'no' to the agreement and hold a second vote of the new staff in order to get the agreement passed," said IEU General Secretary Dick Shearman.

"The School Principal and Board have ignored a petition by over 100 staff members...The school has flatly refused to negotiate...(and) is using WorkChoices to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation," he said.

Let them sell cake!!

Is this what it will come to - a lamington stall - to make up the funding shortfall for public education if the Howard government is re-elected after November 24?



See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf5J-XB3BVA

More teachers and laptops needed - the education revolution must tackle the capitalist press!

One of the contributing factors to the growing psychological complexity of teaching in Australia is the continual denigration of, and hostility towards, teachers in the mass media.

These is particularly true of the print media, and of the Murdoch press above all others.

The Murdoch flagship, The Australian, is the worst of the lot.

Consider its editorial response to Rudd’s promise to provide each student in Years 9-12 with their own computer. The editorial was headed “MORE TEACHERS NEEDED, NOT MORE LAPTOPS – The education revolution must tackle union power” (16/11/07).

Let’s deal with its treatment of Rudd’s policy first.

The editorial states “Labor’s plan ignores the fact that OECD figures show that all Australian students already have access to computers at school.”

As any teacher or student would know, “having access” to a school computer doesn’t mean much when there is continual competition to book a class into a computer lab. It doesn’t mean much when computers are old and slow.

And “access” doesn’t equal equity across school systems: elite Scotch College in Adelaide requires each student to have a laptop, private Westminster School does well to have 500-plus computers for its 1100 students, but highly regarded Glenunga International High, a state school, has only 250 for 1250 students. Rudd’s promise of high-speed broadband and a computer for each Year 9-12 student will solve the problem of competition for access and ensure equity across school systems. In state schools in particular, it will free funds to target other resource requirements.

The editorial also states: “We question also whether parents may not ultimately be more persuaded by Mr Howard’s pledge to fix the core curriculum and get the basics right than Mr Rudd’s promise to promote computer use as a time when a pressing issue is to get children to switch the computer off and take some real exercise.”

To advance a populist argument that kids need to get off computers and get some exercise denies the OECD finding that “School students who are established computer users tend to perform better in key school subjects…” (OECD, “Are students ready for a technology-rich world’, 2006). I doubt that ACHPER, as the peak body promoting healthy exercise, would target the use of computers in classrooms in its advocacy for increased levels of fitness.

And really, this sentence should read “We hope that parents will be more persuaded…” because the intention clearly is to mould public opinion into support for the Howard Government.

But note the insidious teacher-bashing behind the claim that the core curriculum needs “fixing” and that the basics of education are “wrong”. This is where the sub-title about tackling “union power” comes into its own.

The editorial states: “A big obstacle (to lifting the quality of teaching staff) is the socialist collective bent of the teacher unions, which remain hostile to any system that links teacher pay to performance outcomes or even different skills sets.”

And it is the lack of performance pay that is keeping the young away from teaching: “…university students considering a career are reluctant to choose teaching because it has a rigid pay system, based on tenure rather than performance.”

However, as careers counselors know, the lack of a performance pay system is not what is keeping students from becoming teachers. Poor pay compared to comparable professions certainly is. The stress of teaching (workload, class size, behaviour management) certainly is. The lack of respect for teachers compounded by continually negative media reportage certainly is. Or at least, this is what senior students have repeatedly told me for many years. None have cited the lack of a performance pay system. Nor has one been adopted in Finland where “the profession of teacher is now the most popular among upper-secondary students, even more popular than careers in IT, medicine or business” (Phi Delta Kappan Oct 2007 p. 109). Finns are very protective of the high status of teachers and provide small classes and decent conditions. They don’t stand for their teachers being continually disrespected in the media.

The editorial closes with a call to “Anyone who is going to fix Australia’s education problem (to) be brave enough to stand up to the teachers’ unions…”

Regardless of which party wins office after November 24, we will need to remain strong and united, defending the very high standards of education in Australia (confirmed in the OECD’s 2006: Education at a Glance), and challenging the continuing denigration of our profession by media hacks tied to the Business Council of Australia and its cronies.

Military intimidation backfires in Chicago

By George N. Schmidt (CHICAGO)

More than a dozen active duty United States Marines and Army formed a perimeter around the meeting room of the Chicago Board of Education prior to the Board's November 14, 2007, meeting, apparently prepared to raise objections to a Board Report which would restrict military recruiters' access to Chicago's high schools.

The soldiers and Marines, who have been confirmed by military officials as members of the armed forces on active duty, were present at the beginning of the meeting, standing along the walls of the meeting room and posted at the two public entrances to the room.

The military people remained standing during the early parts of the Board's meeting, but departed soon after a female Iraq War veteran, Patricia McCann, began speaking describing her experiences with recruiting fraud while she was a high school student and her subsequent treatment while in the Army, both in Iraq, during her term of service, and subsequently. Those of us who arrived at the Board before the official beginning of the meeting noticed that more than a dozen uniformed Marines and soldiers were standing along the walls inside the Board chambers. One of them was wearing desert combat fatigues and combat boots. Another dozen or so Marines (most in uniform) were sitting in the Board chambers near Alderman James Balcer (D-11th Ward, Bridgeport, etc), who sat a few rows behind the Press section.

Seven individuals (including Balcer) were signed up to speak on military recruiting, and five of those identified themselves in the public participation agenda as members of the military (three National Guard and two Marine Corps). There were enough empty seats in the Board chambers for all of the standing Marines (and one Army person) to have seated themselves, so it was clear that they had either chosen to stand deployed around the perimeter of the room (with one at each of the entrances) or had been ordered to do so (remember: these are active duty military people: they are under orders and subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- which is very different from the way the law works for you, me, and Arne Duncan).

By 10:30 a.m. on November 14, there were more than 50 people seated in the "holding room" on the 19th floor watching the Board meeting on closed circuit TV, even though many of them were part of groups signed up to speak (the largest I saw was from UNO Charter Schools). Typically, the Chicago Board of Education holds its meetings in a room which is too small for all those who wish to attend, so the remaining people are placed in what has been called the "holding room" on the 19th floor of the same building at 125 S. Clark St. in Chicago. The Board meets in a special meeting room on the 5th floor.

The Board's monthly meetings generally consist of three parts. First, the Board honors various individuals and groups. Second, the Board listens to "Public Participation" from people who wish to bring their concerns democratically before the Board. Each person wishing to participate in public participation signs in between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. on the day of the meeting. Their names are then printed in a "Public Participation" list before the Board convenes at approximately 10:30. After public participation ends, the Board convenes its regular meeting, which usually hears executive reports before going into executive session. The Board comes out of executive session to vote on its agenda items (or, in the case of the most controversial one on the November 14 agenda, table them) by dinner time, then adjourns for the month.

Since the Chicago Board of Education was reorganized in 1995 under the complete control of Mayor Richard M. Daley, the Board has abolished all committees and ended all public meetings except the monthly meeting. For more than eight years, the Board has approved every item on its public agenda--more than 5,000 pieces of business--without discussion or debate. The members of the Board and the school system's CEO (currently Arne Duncan) are both appointed by the mayor. Although the opening of the public participation portion of the meeting was again delayed by various honoraria and the usual VIP speaking (Alderman Balcer was placed in front of all the other signed in speakers, as is traditional with the Board when elected officials show up), it had begun by 11:00 (when Board President Rufus Williams called on Ald. Balcer). Balcer didn't mention any Board Report on recruitment policy in his remarks. He was merely repeating what he has already made clear to the public on hundreds of occasions -- that he feels that his service in the Marine Corps during the Vietnam War changed his life for the better, and that he is glad he was recruited.

The regular public participation then began. During that time, I generally try to photograph all of the people speaking and rarely leave the space where photographers are confined. The fourth or fifth person to speak (Number 5 on the Public Participation Agenda, which is often adjusted during the meeting) was Patricia McCann, who was identified at being with "Iraq Veterans Against War, Coalition Against Militarization of Schools."

McCann spoke about how she was recruited while still a student in high school, how she served in Iraq, and her experiences as a woman in the Army and since. A report on McCann's comments aired on Chicago's WBBM "newsradio" station (the local CBS radio station) the day of her comments and covered fairly her public remarks and the comments she made to reporters (from at least five media outlets, including Channel 2 and the Tribune) in back of the Board chambers after she spoke. During both her remarks and press comments she was accompanied by two people from the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC).

But by the time McCann had finished speaking, all of the uniformed military people in the room had left the Board chambers and (apparently) Board headquarters. And when they were called to speak, they weren't there. Only a young man named David Askew, wearing a suit and introducing himself as an attorney, spoke in favor of military recruiting in the schools (in addition to Balcer). None of the five men identified as Marines and soldiers spoke or was present by the time they were reached on the agenda. During the time this was taking place, I was photographing the speakers (generally) as I usually do, so I didn't even see the uniformed military people leaving. However, I did see Patrick Rocks, the Board's attorney, and he did not leave his place during that time. Two hours later, he reported that the recruiting policy would not be voted on that day.

A spokesman for the military told me later that the uniformed military people had left when they were informed that the agenda item was not going to be voted on that day. When I asked him how they could know that the item had been tabled, he said he didn't know. (Rocks had placed the item on the agenda, and the item was still on the agenda when I picked up the full agenda on the Sixth Floor early that morning).

After trying to learn why the military people had left so abruptly, I was finally called by Lt. Col. Brian Redmon, Commander of the Recruiting Batallion, Illinois National Guard. My question, left earlier with the Guardâ's press office, was why the military people had signed up to speak and then left. "Alderman Balcer had spoken and the issue [we were concerned about] was tabled," Redmon told Substance. "I got word that it was tabled." The question of who told the military people that the issue had been tabled was not answered.

I'm still reporting what happened and why, and am only sad that I didn't turn from Patricia McCann to see the Marines and soldiers leaving the Board chambers during her powerful remarks (accurately reflected in John Cody's report). The uniformed people were clearly not available to be interviewed by the press by the time McCann completed her mini-press conference behind the Board chambers at about 11:30 a.m. and were nowhere to be found. At that point, there were still dozens of people up in the "holding room" on the 19th floor, while more than two dozen seats in the main chambers were empty, including all of those that had been occupied by military personnel.

One of the things I'm trying to report is why uniformed active duty military personnel had shown up at a meeting of the Chicago Board of Education in force on November 14, 2007, and why they redeployed out of the Board chambers prior to 11:30 that morning.

All of these questions are still relevant to any complete report (in context) of these matters.

Men and women on active duty in the military are not free agents. They go where ordered, they leave when ordered, and they do as ordered. I've gotten some answers from spokesmen for the recruiting people in Illinois, and have received other information from others. I'd be glad to hear from anyone who knows the answer to my three main questions now.

Usually, as friends know, I downplay the importance of the "Why" question in the big five for news reports. "If you've got the who, what, when and where you can leave the why to a priest or psychiatrist..." But in the case of this story, the "Why" is the biggest questions. (That's a deliberate plural). Why did CPS withdraw a Board Report it had placed on its public agenda and which remained on that agenda the morning of the November 14, 2007, meeting. Why were more than a dozen active duty Marines and soldiers ordered to attend the November 14, 2007 meeting of the Chicago Board of Education and stand around the perimeter of the meeting room (when seats were available) rather than seating themselves as everyone else does? Why did all of the uniformed military personnel at the November 14, 2007 meeting of the Chicago Board of Education retreat from the meeting during the remarks of a young woman who said that she had been recruited out of high school into the Army and had served in Iraq during the Iraq War?

I just spent two days reporting what should have been a simple story. Out of context, the story would have been that CPS withdrew a new policy on recruiter access to Chicago high schools and will consider the policy again at its December 19 meeting. But context is everything, and the bland report on Iraq War veteran Patty McCann's comments on WBBM (the Trib and Sun-Times ignored the story completely) only touches what was in play in and around the Board Wednesday.

George N. Schmidt Substance Nov. 17, 2007

Bishop announces soup kitchens for elite private colleges

(Scotch College, Adelaide, above - one of the beneficiaries of Education Minister Bishop's soup kitchen initiative. The college exists to train young entrants to the ruling class, not the workforce, hence this proud proclamation on its website: "While a number of Australian schools have abandoned the Three R's for general studies aimed at "occupational competency", Scotch College has added two more R's: Responsibility and Relevance." Puke!!!)

The Federal Coalition Education Minister Julie Bishop today announced funding for the establishment of soup kitchens at the entrances to some of Australia’s wealthiest private schools.

The move comes days after the Prime Minister, John Howard, announced tax rebates for school fees.

In announcing the soup kitchens, which had their origins in the Great Depression of the 1930s, Ms Bishop said that “welfare for the rich” was a core value of the Coalition Government.

“Maintaining the privileges of the wealthy is an essential component of developing aspiration in the poor,” she said.

“We showed, with the Prime Minister’s tax rebate scheme for school fees that we are determined to help elite private schools survive.”

Ms Bishop said she was disappointed that many in the community were unaware that a number of elite privates were struggling to retain enrolments.

“We have been pumping money into them in an effort to compensate for the lack of students,” she revealed.

Annesley College, with the biggest enrolment decline during the years of the Howard Government, a drop of 38 per cent, has seen its Federal funding increase by 61 per cent in constant dollar terms. In nominal dollar terms (i.e. without adjusting the 1996 figures for inflation) the increase in funding was exactly 100 per cent!

Scotch College, with the second-largest enrolment decline of 14 per cent has had its Federal funding increased by 146 per cent (see below), whilst Prince Alfred College, which lost 8 per cent of its students over the eleven year period, had its funding from the public purse increased by 237 per cent!

“Obviously, the wealthy need our compassion and support,” said the Minister.

“Soup kitchens at the entrances of Scotch, St Peters, Annesley and other elite privates will also be available to parents as they drop their children off at school.”

“No-one driving a child to college in a Beemer or a Merc should be doing so on an empty stomach,” she said.

Fundraiser: Unley High Refugee Support Group

The Unley High School Refugee Support Group is showing

"Elizabeth the Golden Age"

with Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush and Clive Owen

at Wallis Cinemas, Mitcham Shopping Centre, Belair Road, Torrens Park, on Monday December 3rd at 6.00pm.

Cost $15 per head and lucky door prizes.

If you'd like to buy a ticket (or even sell some- we hope to fill the cinema which seats 200) please call Peter on 0409 804 192 and I can get tickets to you.

Hope you can come.