/colb6par026rm___par_issues_paper by Dave Tehan

Joint PAR Working Party Queensland Catholic Schools EMPLOYEE ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION IN ANY REVISED STRUCTURE AND PROCESS Colb6PAR026rm

Friday, 11 March 2011

The Joint Working Party is tasked with reviewing, and making recommendations about, PAR arrangements for Queensland Catholic Schools, with a preliminary report due mid-year. Our Union has endeavoured to obtain a clearer picture of what works well, what doesn’t and some possible solutions from members’ perspectives, through two comprehensive surveys conducted in July 2010 and March 2011. This document describes each aspect of the current arrangements and member feedback provided, to inform our consideration of any alternative PAR structure and processes.

LENGTH OF APPOINTMENT PERIOD

What’s currently in place? PARs are initially appointed for 3 years. Appointment for a further 3 years may then be made, subject to satisfactory performance. After 6 years as a PAR, the employer may choose to advertise the position to others. (Should an existing PAR resign, the vacancy will be filled for the balance of the 3-year appointment). Summary advice from PARs: PARs have told us that the current appointment period is too short to meet or complete departmental objectives. Where PAR holders are not renewed after 6 years, no reason need be given. The current situation compares with state school HODs, who have continuing tenure subject to satisfactory performance appraisal. Further details: What aspects of the length of appointment provision work well now (if any)? The majority of PAR respondents have indicated preparedness to accept a standard appointment period, followed by a performance review / appraisal and thence a subsequent standard appointment period. Representative comments included “The review process makes PARs accountable for their work” and it was considered an “Opportunity to show management skills and complete short term objectives”. What aspects of the length of appointment provision don’t work well now (if any)? Essentially respondents confirmed the current standard appointment period of three years is too short, citing the current arrangement “Does not allow time to meet longer term goals within the department” and “length of appointment may not allow medium to long term planning to be effectively implemented”.

PARs also perceived an inherent unfairness in the facility for the employer to choose not to renew them in the position after the 6 year cycle, especially when compared with their peer state school HODs continuing tenure. The issue of potentially discarding experienced, skilled PARs was also a concern. What changes would resolve the problem(s) with this provision for length of appointment? PAR holders reported a strong preference for the standard appointment periods to be longer (5 years was suggested, to provide consistency with Senior Administrators’ appointment periods). It was proposed that an informal appraisal occur after 12 months for new PARs, in addition to the usual formal performance review / appraisal at the end of the standard appointment period. This would be followed by the extended standard appointment period, thence the formal performance review / appraisal process once again, as an ongoing cycle. In the words of one PAR, five-year appointments “would allow for substantial goal setting and departmental plans to be realised.” PARs also recommended that removal from their position should only occur where their performance is unsatisfactory, reasons are provided and they have an opportunity to respond / improve. This change would ensure the same natural justice and procedural fairness principles were extended to PARs that currently apply to other staff as a matter of course.

ALLOCATION OF PAR POSITIONS WITHIN A SCHOOL

What’s currently in place? The collective agreement prescribes a minimum number of PAR points to be allocated in each school, depending on student enrolment numbers. (By 2013, the same total resource level in equivalent dollars of a similar sized state school will be available for allocation in a Catholic school). School Consultative Committees in Secondary schools make recommendations about the distribution of PAR points, mindful of total PAR points available for their school. Points are spread between ‘Academic co-ordinators’, ‘Pastoral co-ordinators’ and ‘other’ PAR positions established by the school in response to emerging needs. The minimum release time and allowance points to be allocated to ‘Academic co-ordinators’ are determined by the number of hours a subject is taught and number of teachers in the subject area. Up to 20 percent of available points are allocated to the ‘Pastoral co-ordinators’. The SCC then makes recommends about how all remaining PAR points should be distributed. In P-10 and P-12 schools, possible PAR models (and points distribution) are suggested by the SCC after consultation with teachers. The final decision about PAR structure and point allocation is made by the Principal. Summary advice from PARs: PARs have told us that existing points are spread too thinly across the school, with too many lower level PAR positions also leading to problems with cohesion, communication and decision-making. PARs have recommended the existing four levels do not allow enough flexibility for very large departments. It is asserted that small student numbers do not reduce the workload requirements for the management and leadership of a subject area and also caution against a teacher holding more than one PAR position due to the inherent workload pressures. While teacher input is vital, the SCC structure has its critics in its current form. Members report that the process of determining the PAR structure is difficult to ensure is open and transparent, with not all PAR positions being widely known to staff. Members report that PAR appointments appear to be made on an 2

ad hoc basis, with very limited release time and allowance, to deal with work generated by some new initiative, requirement or regulation. Further details: What aspects of this provision for allocation of PARs work well now (if any)? Survey respondents spoke positively about the fact that PAR minimum point allocations are increasing under the collective agreement; existing requirement for principals to consult with SCCs and consider various options for PAR structures and point allocations; school’s flexibility to allocate time release and financial allowance to PAR holders; and the existing parity in the status of Pastoral and Curriculum PARs. This last point was summed up as follows: “I like the fact that the Pastoral coordinators are given the same PAR provisions as Academic HODs. It shows our role is valued as much as the large departments like Maths, English, Science and Humanities.” However, the situation where some teachers held both a Curriculum and Pastoral PAR position was noted with concern. The importance of separating these responsibilities to best enable each role to focus on their particular area of responsibility, without creating excessive workloads for any one PAR, was seen as most appropriate and desirable. What aspects of this provision for allocation of PARs don’t work well now (if any)? The large number of PAR holders in Queensland Catholic schools, relative to the different state school structure, was viewed as problematic by many survey respondents, as follows: “Existing points are spread too thinly across the school. Too many lower-level PAR positions lead to problems with cohesion, communication and decision-making.” However, there was also a minority view that the current situation of a larger number of PARs was a good thing. The current limitations of the four point PAR maximum was identified, with a representative comment being that the “Existing four levels do not allow enough flexibility for very large departments”. Another PAR stated “We are allocated 5 PAR, which I’m led to believe is more than what any other HOD in systemic Catholic schools and other RI schools receive.” One respondent also commented on the current limitation on Pastoral PARs receiving a maximum of 20 percent of the total points available, in these terms “The limitation on Pastoral receiving 20 percent is outrageous, particularly in religious schools.” Small schools and small departments were commonly cited as requiring some special consideration. Survey respondents voiced concern that smaller schools were not adequately resourced in terms of PAR points available, given the same amount of time and effort was needed to run a department of 2 or 8 teachers and the same amount of time was also required to organise a swimming carnival regardless of the number of students. “Just because student numbers are lower doesn’t mean the work load is any less.” Small departments were also held to require additional support. In the words of two survey respondents “Having small departments means that the needs of individual specialist subjects are met; however being a small department doesn’t mean less work, just less people to delegate it to” and “Having departments built around specialist subject areas allows for the ‘experts’ to lead curriculum in their respective areas; there is concern that larger faculties simply mean this responsibility is devolved to people who do not have a PAR allowance but are the specialists – redistributing workload without the remuneration or time.” PARs reported experiences of the levels of transparency and effectiveness of SCCs in participating in the process of allocation of PAR points varied enormously. Representative comments included “The 3

committees rubber stamp what the principal wanted anyway” and “It is not widely known who gets points for what and how much time they are given” and “The principal is able to ignore all SCC recommendations, leaving SCC wondering why they made any effort.” A published list of all school PAR positions, point allocation, time release and allowance has been suggested as an open way of demystifying the structure, process and responsibilities. What changes would resolve the problem(s) with this provision for allocation of PARs? The strengthening of some key PAR roles within the school has been advocated. One survey respondent noted “There is no middle management in Catholic schools. There are plenty of coordinators, but nobody making decisions in a truly empowered way.” It was commonly suggested that a standardised criteria for the allocation of points to particular key PAR roles, and comparability of time release and financial allowances for similar positions in different schools, would provide some demonstrable equity across our sector. There was also a call for the more equitable allocation of PAR points that considered more than just the number of students, teachers and subject hours taught. It was noted that different subjects have different workloads, work pressures and demands, such as the number of senior subjects requiring QSA compliance, work program development, reporting etcetera. Flexibility in additional time release was also sought at particular pressure points in the school year and when a subject area had a Work Program due or when under demands from QSA to improve quality and the like. However, there was also an underlying frustration in the responses of many PARs about the seemingly ad hoc creation of a variety of positions that absorbed some of the school’s PAR points, without making a direct contribution to either Pastoral or Curriculum responsibilities. For example “PAR is now doing the job of Admin - Publicity, Careers, and Events. Admin keep creating new positions eating allocated points and moving their workload into these new positions.” Artificial inequalities were identified were steep increases in minimum PAR point allocations occurred at various student enrolment ranges. For example, when moving from the 701 – 750 to 751 – 800 student enrolment levels. (A formula determining a sliding scale of minimum PAR points available to schools based on student enrolments was suggested). More points for smaller schools and smaller departments were also prioritized. Consideration of how point allocations may fairly occur for schools with rapidly growing student enrolments, subjects extending to Years 5, 6 and 7 students, and annual fluctuation in subject numbers all warranted attention. Finally, greater staff input into the allocation of PAR points was desired. An anecdote about the positive workings of one school’s SCC may be a best practice model to hold up to all, “There is discussion generated at a staff meeting as to the specific needs of the college. Staff have an opportunity to write privately their ideas as well and these are discussed at the PAR Committee Meetings, which have appropriate staff elected.”

PAR ALLOWANCE

What’s currently in place? The current PAR structure comprises Levels 1 to 4 of allowance points and minimum release time. The PAR allowance per annum at each level is as follows: Level 1 Level 2

$3,431 (or $3,652 on 1 July) $6,011 (or $6,402 on 1 July)

Level 3 Level 4

$8,591 (or $9,152 on 1 July) $11,171 (or $11,902 on 1 July)

A quick comparison of the different sector structures is that Catholic schools typically have many PARs, each individually on small time release and financial allowance (or a little to a lot); while state schools have fewer formal PARs, each individually on larger time release and financial allowance (or a lot to a little). Summary advice from PARs: PARs have told us that their remuneration is not comparable to state school HODs, even though they perform a comparable role. However, even leaving aside state sector comparisons, the current level of allowances paid in Catholic schools are not adequate for the leadership, responsibilities and duties required of PARs. Further details: What aspects of this PAR allowance provision don’t work well now (if any)? PARs continue to call for more time and money to do the job. Almost universally, survey respondents identified that more release time is desperately needed. “New initiatives such as National Curriculum, NAPLAN and QCAR have dramatically increased work demands in terms of program writing, staff training, supervision and administration. In addition, the increased demands of tracking, as a result of the QCE implementation, have not been considered in remuneration.” PARs again noted that remuneration in Queensland Catholic schools is less than state school HODs and simply not enough for the leadership, responsibility and workload expectations inherent in the role. Unfavourable comparisons in current financial allowances received and work pressure were also drawn with ET6 colleagues. “Smaller PAR provisions (2 or less) at risk when teachers can receive similar pay levels for being an ET6 teacher” and “A 2 point PAR coordinator works for roughly the same remuneration as an ET6 teacher. This has destroyed the incentive for anyone other than less experienced teachers to take on a PAR role.” What changes would resolve the problem(s) with this provision for PAR allowances? Survey respondents sought the extension of the PAR point structure to include new levels 5 and 6. More PAR points for HODs was identified, to better address the current differences between Catholic and state sector pay rates. Whilst most respondents desired the introduction of standardised financial allowances for similar PAR roles across Queensland Catholic schools that bore closer resemblance to state sector payment levels, there was also a significant claim for more time to do the job – or at the very least increased flexibility for individual PARs to decide what combination of money and time worked best for their own circumstances.

Survey respondents noted the difference in recent wage increases for state sector and Catholic school HODs, where Education Queensland HODs received a 2.5 percent increase in total salary and Catholic school HODs received an increase of 2.5 percent in allowance only. The narrowing of the pay relativity between ET6 and PAR has been widely observed and commented on. PAR holders see themselves as having a different set of skills and longer working hours than ET6 colleagues; notwithstanding comparable financial allowance with 1 and 2 point PARs. Members have called for the payment of the PAR and ET6 allowances, where eligible for both.

PAR RELEASE TIME

What’s currently in place? In Secondary schools, the current PAR structure comprises Levels 1 to 4 of allowance points and minimum release time. The PAR minimum time release at each level is as follows: Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

minimum of 48 minutes release from face to face teaching minimum of 96 minutes release from face to face teaching (or 1 hour 36 minutes) minimum of 144 minutes release from face to face teaching (or 2 hours 24 minutes) minimum of 192 minutes release from face to face teaching (or 3 hours 12 minutes)

Further PAR points (up to the available point total) may be allocated by the Principal, on recommendation of the SCC. In Primary schools, the collective agreement details the minimum weekly release from face to face teaching that supports responsibilities for the coordination and development of curriculum for schools of various student enrolment sizes. Summary advice from PARs: PARs have told us that the current minimum time release provision is inadequate for the leadership, responsibilities and tasks required of their role. Workload increases have burgeoned in relation to: changing educational requirements (i.e. QCAT, QSA, QCS); introduction and implementation of NAPLAN and the National Curriculum; compliance with various government department regulations; burden of administrative tasks; teaching responsibilities; collegial leadership (such as mentoring); student behaviour management; and ensuring adherence to a range of legal requirements. Timetabled release time is often taken up with meetings (with other staff, parents and outside organisations), ongoing projects and substitutions. Planning, preparation, marking and recording is often completed out of school hours. PARs typically work long hours in order to fulfil their role to the expected high standard, with the result that many experienced teachers are ‘burning out’ and leaving the profession. Further details: What aspects of this release time provision works well now (if any)? The only respondents who indicated satisfaction with the quantum of release time provided were those who had successfully negotiated an enhanced provision.

What aspects of this release time provision don’t work well now (if any)? Respondents widely reported that “There is more and more required of us in a PAR role and yet the time given to complete the tasks does not increase.” Disturbingly, ‘administration’ tasks seemed to take priority over ‘leadership’ responsibilities, due to the inadequate time available to undertake the existing role. PARs commonly stated that there is “Not enough time release to do anything but day-to-day management – cannot actually develop new programs or innovative learning strategies.” “Time to mentor beginning teachers is an issue as well. Urgent administrative tasks, internal supervisions and development of new curriculum have to take priority, meaning beginning teachers get very little in the way of classroom visits and feedback to help them improve performance.” PARs were also concerned at the potential impact their workload had on their ability to develop and deliver quality lessons for their own classes, stating that the PAR role absorbed all timetabled spares and many hours after school, typically leaving very little time available for effective preparation for classroom teaching. Additional time release was identified as an urgent need by those in the Vocational Education area. “There is never enough time – lots of time taken up by just interviewing students and finding alternative pathways.” A further frustration was the limited timetabled PAR release time is too often then taken away with supervisions and other school activities (such as sports carnivals, student free days, ceremonies) but never re-credited. What changes would resolve the problem(s) with this release time provision? As one PAR aptly said, what is urgently needed is “Either an increase in release time or a decrease in expected work.” PARs sought comparable release from face-to-face teaching with their state school HOD counterparts (up to half the timetabled hours). As one member put it “I would prefer to have more time. Time is too short to achieve what I want to achieve…working until late at night most nights and on weekends. The time is more important than the pay, in terms of lifestyle, less stress etc.” The increased ability for PARs to opt for higher levels of time allowance, within their point allocation, was also seen as highly desirable. As this respondent advised “More work done at school means less stress as an individual and less long term illness and less people leaving the profession.” An immediate improvement could be achieved through the greater protection of timetabled PAR release time, or a system of banking any lost time so that it could be provided to the PAR at a later date. There was also request for school officer time to be provided to PARs to assist with administration duties, both on a regular basis and at increased levels at peak pressure points throughout the school year.

APPLICATION PROCESS

What’s currently in place? The fundamental principles underpinning a transparent PAR appointment process, along with key selection criteria, are contained in the collective agreement. There is also facility for unsuccessful PAR applicants to request employer feedback on the written application and interview performance. Summary advice from PARs: PARs have told us that the reality is very little feedback is provided to unsuccessful applicants for these positions. Further details: What aspects of this application process provision works well now (if any)? Members commented that the effectiveness of the current provisions in delivering procedural fairness is too reliant on the individual principal’s discretion. What aspects of this application process provision don’t work well now (if any)? Most survey respondents indicated that feedback to unsuccessful PAR applicant employees has been minimal. What changes would resolve the problem(s) with this application process provision? A new requirement for principals to provide feedback to all unsuccessful employee applicants for PAR positions (rather than just ‘at the employee request’) was also proposed. The inclusion of an experienced person from outside the school on the PAR selection panel was also suggested as a way of better ensuring fairness in appointments.

APPOINTMENT OF ACTING POSITIONS

What’s currently in place? The fundamental principles underpinning a transparent PAR appointment process in the collective agreement do not apply in the appointment of Acting Positions. Where a PAR holder leaves the position, the interim vacancy is filled for the balance of the three-year period. Summary advice from PARs: PARs have told us that the appointment process for acting PAR positions lack transparency and is often devalued when a staff member is placed in the role for experience. The complexities involved when appointing an Acting VET coordinator are often not adequately addressed. Further details: What aspects of this provision for acting positions don’t work well now (if any)? Many survey respondents spoke of the ad hoc nature of filling acting PAR positions in schools. In the words of one member “Someone just gets tapped on the shoulder and they act in a role. It is not even advertised internally with expressions of interest advertised in all cases.” 8

What changes would resolve the problem(s) with this provision for acting positions? It has been widely recommended that the existing requirements for a transparent PAR application process should be extended to filling all PAR vacancies. Otherwise, the incumbent ‘acting’ employee has a significant advantage when the PAR position is ultimately advertised and filled. As one PAR commented “The acting role often becomes permanent without any review or the position being readvertised at the end of the acting period. Seems to be done in a hurry.”

REVIEW / APPRAISAL PROCESS

What’s currently in place? The collective agreement elaborates the list of principles to be applied to the Review / Appraisal Process for PAR holders: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.

Shared responsibility Negotiation Consultation Self review of performance based on role description and duty statements Validation Documentation Confidentiality Natural justice Resourcing

Summary advice from PARs: PARs have told us that the Review / Appraisal Process is not adequately explained, erodes members’ rights to natural justice; lacks rigour and is poorly implemented. Members report it has become a ‘rubber stamp’ process. However, unsubstantiated claims can be made against a PAR holder, which are difficult to defend without knowing the context of the issue. Further details: What aspects of this review / appraisal provision works well now (if any)? Some survey respondents viewed the current review / appraisal process as a positive experience that effectively affirmed and validated their PAR contributions to the school. What aspects of this review / appraisal provision don’t work well now (if any)? Many other PARs stated that the process was not clear, involved “Minimal feedback, with little support to further develop practices” and objected to the inclusion of unidentified staff claims critiquing their work performance. What changes would resolve the problem(s) with this provision for review / appraisal? Members’ experiences of the PAR review / appraisal process varied enormously. Some survey respondents indicated that review / appraisals didn’t happen at all, while others reported significant paperwork needed to be completed in preparation for the meeting with the principal. However, members agreed that the review / appraisal process was unknown, “should be written down” and consistently applied across Queensland Catholic schools to ensure basic standards achieved.

ROLE OF PARs

The stated objectives of the PAR structure in Catholic schools is to: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.

Assure quality learning for students; Provide a satisfactory career path for teachers; Incorporate a Christian leadership model that is committed to the principle of collegiality and subsidiarity; Value responsibility for people and for processes; Support school staff pastorally; Maintain quality management and accountability; Contribute positively to the particular ethos of the school; Are determined in a fair manner; and Receive just remuneration.

What’s currently in place? PARs should have been provided with a role description, referring to some or all of the following areas: a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Contribution to the Mission / Ethos of the school Learning and teaching Information, communication and technology Accountability, including student outcomes Accountability to school community Professional development Management of staff and resources

Summary advice from PARs: PARs have told us that there is a need for clearly defined roles, clarification of position requirements and standardisation of role descriptions across Catholic schools. It is recommended that the Joint Working Party take a fresh look at PAR role descriptions. Members report that more responsibilities and tasks are simply added without any consultation, consideration regarding tasks that may be done by others or not at all, or mindful of the time taken to do the job. There is also an increasing need for Academic Co-ordinators to deliver professional development for staff, in relation to their subject area, new curriculum and technology. Further details: What other leadership areas, responsibilities or duties should an updated PAR role include? Survey respondents confirmed advice that the PAR role desperately needs clarification. The development of position statements relevant to each subject area and typical pastoral role was commonly proposed. PARs expressed some frustration that a lack of time to do the job meant that more emphasis was placed on ‘managing’, rather than ‘developing and innovating’ to improve departmental outcomes. Even so, a difficulty was identified in that there seemed to be “The notion of PARs as ‘managers’ but no training provided – it is expected you will just absorb this.” Primarily, it was seen that “Much of what a PAR does relies on a high level of knowledge of a subject area. Thus anything to do with subject and syllabus implementation can’t really be passed on.”

PARs also saw their enhanced future role as better providing ‘leadership’ within departments, and reallocating the various administrative tasks that may be done by others. A summary of advice regarding any updated PAR role description included:             

Curriculum development Curriculum implementation Lead initiatives Drive the reporting processes Pastoral care of staff to avoid burnout Inclusion in the staff selection process Communication with parents, including face-to-face meetings Liaison with outside professional, vocational and educational organisations Manage the specialist classroom environment and equipment Ensure compliance with workplace health and safety requirements within the department Implement school policies Facilitate E learning (digital learning) in the subject area Software management.

What current PAR responsibilities or duties could be done by someone else, some other way or not at all? There were large numbers of requests for school officer time to be provided to PARs to assist with administration duties, both on a regular basis and at increased levels at peak pressure points throughout the school year. Administration tasks that could readily be passed on to skilled and professional school officers included:         

Collation of student nominations for sports and swimming carnivals Paperwork Filing General record keeping Collecting student assignments Organising and scheduling bookings Uploading resources onto online storage facilities Word processing documents and creating data bases Photocopying

Other tasks that may be shared with, or allocated to, teacher colleagues included:    

Detention supervision duty Delivery of staff professional development, that articulates to QCT standards for CPD purposes Mentoring new graduate teachers, within regular timetabled release for this express purpose Supervising prac students.

The “National Professional Standards for Teachers” were released recently. If you’ve seen this new document, please comment on how the new ‘Lead Teacher’ descriptors could fit with a contemporary PAR role? It was revealing the most PARs commented that they had not had time to read this document. The few who did typically noted that “There are many aspects of the Lead Teacher descriptors which approximate Pastoral / HOD / Experienced Teacher activities.” There was however a definite sense of being overwhelmed by the ever-increasing expectations on the profession, and under resourced and ill equipped to meet the demands, in many survey responses. For example, “How can you do all this? Teachers are not superhuman creatures that don’t have a family life! 11

More release time, better levels of pay to reflect the job teaching has become – mentors, absentee parents, motivators, facilitators, psychologists, counsellors, mediators, coaches etc”. But the last word must go to the survey respondent who asked “What is a PAR? What is an ET6? What is a Deputy? How do they fit together? Synergy of teams creates powerful outcomes.” Food for thought indeed.