PAR
s r e t Mat
Vol. 1 No. 1
In this edition
•
•
•
•
Joint Working Party Final Report Issued
Other Key Proposals
Issues Remaining for Collective Bargaining
Middle Leadership Structure Proposal - Easy Calculator
March 2012
The newsletter for Catholic PAR members
Joint Working Party Final Report A Joint Working Party (JWP) of employer and employee representatives met regularly last year to review and make recommendations on contemporary PAR arrangements for Queensland Catholic schools. The JWP’s Final Report - and Key Changes summary document prepared by our union - are both available online. Visit www.qieu.asn.au/campaignupdates/catholic-positions-ofadded-responsibility-2011 for the full story. The JWP Final Report outlines a detailed proposal for an alternative Middle Leadership model, which attempts to address the many deficiencies within the current PAR structure and operational provisions.
Recognition and elevation of PARs Fundamentally, the alternative proposal represents a shift in the philosophy of the existing PAR model. Twenty years ago, PAR positions were envisaged as “task-orientated” roles. Now there is an increasing understanding that there needs to be a greater emphasis on “leadership”. The alternative Middle Leadership model proposal attempts to come to terms with that shifting paradigm and appropriately recognises and elevates the importance of PARs to school success.
Final report of JWP – What’s new? After the Interim Report on JWP progress was published in June, extensive consultation was undertaken by both employee representatives and employer representatives with their respective constituencies. Our union conducted 14 PAR area meeting consultations across the state – and responses from this process informed the Joint Working Party’s subsequent deliberations, resulting in significant modifications.
“Better PAR arrangements are desperately needed, so we can retain quality teachers in these school leadership roles. More time to do the job is vital – and will make all the difference between simply ‘managing the work’ and feeling satisfied with a greater focus on ‘developing and innovating’ to get the very best from our students. Appropriate remuneration that recognises our contribution as ‘leaders’ is also an important part of valuing the work of PARs.” - Daryl Bathe, Ryan Catholic College The key differences between the Interim Report and the JWP Final Report include:
a) Increased annual allowance value of a new unit A new ‘unit’ measure of $2,205 annual allowance plus one hour of weekly release time is proposed, to replace the PAR point. The new annual allowance of $2,205 is derived by dividing the current ET6 allowance by three ($6,614 divided by three = $2,204.67). This new annual allowance value better minds relativities with ET6 allowance.
b) Additional annual flexible hours may be converted back to additional new units, by mutual agreement Ten per cent of the total resource available to schools would be quarantined (prior to conversion to units), in order to provide extra release time at projected pressure points in the school year or regularly each week. The School Consultative Committee (SCC) would make recommendation to the Principal on both the allocation and the timing of its use. (But up to half of this flexible resource may be converted to units, by mutual agreement).
c) Amended criteria for the designation of Middle Leader positions There is revised criteria for the various levels of responsibility, complexity and/or autonomy required in the roles of Curriculum Leader, Pastoral Leader and Program Leader. It is now also expressly provided that the criteria tables are read in conjunction with a new provision, ensuring that the SCC also give consideration to a range of factors in
ters PAR Matters PAR Matters PAR Matters PAR Matters PAR Matters PAR Matters PAR M Key Changes Proposed in the Joint Working Party Final Report designating a tier classification and additional flexible hours, including: the number of teachers and other staff to be led or coordinated; the number and/or range of subjects involved; the number of students involved and their particular needs; amount of curriculum development required; other associated responsibilities; the structure of the school or area; the number of year levels involved; responsibility for outside school activities each of which is of more than four days’ duration. Responsibilities, attributes and typical duties for each new type of Middle Leadership role proposed have also been included.
Professional development
d) Timing of implementation at 1 January 2015 (when student enrolments in secondary will increase significantly through the inclusion of Year 7)
Information and education
Majority member feedback in the extensive PAR area briefings was supportive of this option. There are a number of other key changes in the proposed structure, including:
Five tier format The existing four-point PAR structure would be replaced by a five-tier structure of weekly time release and annual allowance: ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■
Tier 1.1: Tier 1.2: Tier 2: Tier 3: Tier 4: Tier 5:
$4,409 + 2 hours release $6,614 + 3 hours release $8,818 + 4 hours release $13,228 + 6 hours release $16,000 + 8.5 hours release $16,000 + 11.94 hours release
2 units 3 units 4 units 6 units 8 units 10 units
Complexity loading A ‘complexity loading’ of one additional unit ($2,205 plus one hour of weekly release time) may be recommended by the SCC.
Tenure Tenure of 3 years + 3 years + 3 years has been recommended, maintaining connection to the existing trienniums, whilst delivering tenure broadly comparable with arrangements for Principals and Senior Administrators.
School Consultative Committee
Professional development on leading and managing people and departments is necessary.
Appraisal process Exemplar appraisal processes will be included in a ‘practical user guide’ to any new PAR model.
A practical user-guide and a series of jointly presented information sessions are recommended.
Transitional arrangements Current PAR holders as at 1 January 2014, who are not successful in their application to become Middle Leaders under any new structure, should be covered by transitional considerations appropriate to their commitment and experience. The JWP Report recommends that: teachers who have been at ET4 for at least four years are eligible to apply for ET6 at any time; PARs who are at least ET4 can apply for ET6 in the normal intakes during 2014; PARs who have not reached ET4, but have been a PAR position for at least three years, will be accelerated one step in the classification level.
P-12 schools (and other non standard compositions) The JWP Report states the appropriate calculation of minimum unit resource allocation available for such Diocesan schools, along with a suitable formula for appropriate discounting of Primary Senior Leadership positions where this occurs. In the Religious Institute schools, arrangements more closely mirror PAR secondary school provisions and thus no changes have been sought or recommended other than a statement of guarantee that at least a level of resource provision commensurate with Education Queensland be maintained.
The role of the SCC has been significantly clarified and elevated.
Appointment process
PAR holders
The fair-minded principles of appointment should be used wherever appointments are made for one year or more.
Generally, teachers should not hold more than one Middle Leadership role, due to workload.
Payment for Middle Leadership role less than four weeks This would occur where the principal makes an appointment in writing.
Trial Several trials of schools of different sizes (and special character) should be conducted ahead of widespread introduction of changes.
Time to Make a Difference The PAR schedule in Queensland Catholic schools is about twenty years old, during which time a variety of ‘band aids’ have been applied to the structure. But it is now time to implement significant changes.
guided our representations in that forum. Employee Reference groups also met to give consideration to emerging positions at particular points in these negotiations.
Working at the chalkface of the lived reality of schools, members know best. So as part of the JWP process last year, IEUA-QNT engaged PAR members in wide consultation to identify both the problems and strengths of the current PAR structure and arrangements – and importantly, what might be done about them.
Extensive area meetings of PAR members were also held around the state, to rigorously critique the JWP Interim Report so that further enhancements to an emerging model could then be represented in the process.
An Employee Discussion Paper was developed and distributed early in Term 1 2011, detailing PAR members’ concerns and insights. This document was tabled at the JWP meeting on 14 March 2011 and has
Page 2
Any proposed changes to the existing PAR structure will be negotiated this year as part of collective bargaining negotiations. Strong membership is an essential part of ensuring our voices are heard and making a real difference for PARs. Our union will be working hard to ensure the best possible outcome for Catholic PARs during these negotiations.
PAR Matters PAR Matters PAR Matters PAR Matters PAR Matters PAR Matters PAR Matter
Collective Bargaining Update Having been involved in the Joint Working Party process for most of 2011, Employee Reps proposed acceptance of the Final Report Recommendations at the Single Bargaining Unit (SBU) meetings held on 6 and 7 March 2012. It was also noted that there were three important matters referred to in the JWP Final Report that were either ‘unable to be resolved’ or ‘outside the terms of reference’, that should now be negotiated through the SBU.
The revised versions of these tables apply an additional 5 new units (or $26,585) to the total resourcing levels applicable to secondary schools with student enrolment size of 550 or less. We await the Employer Reps’ response at the SBU. “Small schools require some special ‘positive discrimination’ to increase the current minimum levels of resource allocation. Secondary schools of 550 students or fewer are not adequately resourced now, putting pressure on Senior Administration, teachers and ultimately the quality of education it is possible to deliver under the current constraints.
1. Family-friendly flexibility The JWP Final Report Recommendation 9 (page 44) proposes that the draft ‘Family-friendly flexibility’ clause “…be endorsed, provided that the identified issues surrounding definitions and operational matters can be satisfactorily resolved.”
Just because student numbers in a school may be lower than another, it doesn’t follow that the workload is any less – it just means there are less people to delegate it to.”
Employer concerns were incorporated into a revised version of the clause tabled at the SBU. This new provision would enable Middle Leaders with significant caring responsibilities or transitioning to retirement to convert up to half their annual financial allowance into additional release time, in order to perform more of the requirements of the role during the school day. We await the Employer Reps’ response at the SBU.
- Michael Darcy, St Thomas More College Employee Representative, SBU
3. Primary Middle Leadership The JWP Final Report (page 38) details the different structures of Primary Curriculum Leadership adopted by various employing authorities.
“This is an important equity issue, given the demographics of our profession. It remains the case in many families that most of the caring responsibilities still fall to women – and when your kids don’t need you, your parents do! Quality education relies on our knowledgeable, experienced and dedicated PARs. Where a teacher has reached a PAR position, it would be short-sighted to have that person ‘exclude themselves’ from continuing that professional contribution to the school community, simply because of an emerging family responsibility that can be otherwise accommodated by a provision such as this. Family-friendly flexibility for PARs is long overdue!”
Diocesan Primary Curriculum Leader
Employee Representatives propose a more formalised Curriculum Leader position (including considerations of time release, financial allowance and tenure) which address current shortfalls in Middle Leadership resource expenditure compared to Education Queensland primary schools. (It is acknowledged that the Rockhampton diocese has instituted an exemplary Primary Curriculum Leader structure for many years, which is commendable).
- Kylie Mathers, Marymount College PAR Joint Working Party, Employee Representative
2. Additional new units for small to medium sized schools The JWP Final Report (page 47) states that “…small to medium-sized schools might need an allocation of up to 5 units to make the structure work.” PAR members have highlighted the challenges of the small school context and have advocated the need for a higher minimum level of middle leadership resourcing to enable curriculum, pastoral and program areas to be adequately covered for all student cohort sizes. Employee Reps have proposed revised versions of JWP Final Report Table 1a (Diocesan Middle Leadership Cost Structure) and Table 1b (Religious Institute Middle Leadership Cost Structure) to address this member concern.
Diocesan Primary Special Needs Leader
Employee Representatives also seek the negotiation of a formal Primary school position of Special Needs Leader, noting the financial allowance payable to Queensland state school HOSEs (Head of Special Education). While BCE employs STIEs (Support Teacher Inclusive Education) that attracts significant time release, there is currently no financial allowance paid in recognition of the additional qualifications often sought and particular responsibilities of that type of role. We await the Employer Reps’ response at the SBU. “The current PAR structure was negotiated over twenty years ago, when Primary education was still considered the ‘poor cousin’ to Secondary schooling. Times have changed - and it’s now well documented that cementing the educational building blocks in the younger years pays big dividends to student success in Secondary and beyond. We now have a golden opportunity for our PAR structure to finally catch up with the resourcing needs of Primary schools.” - Erin Fuller Marian Catholic School Employee Representative, SBU
Page 3
Page 4
IEUA-QNT PO BOX 418, FORTITUDE VALLEY QLD 4006 PH: (07) 3839 7020 FX: (07) 3839 7021
PAR 1 Allowance = PAR 2 Allowance = PAR 3 Allowance = PAR 4 Allowance =
ISSN: 2200-3738
Email: enquiries@qieu.asn.au Website: www.qieu.asn.au
ABN: 74 662 601 045
PAR 1 Release = 48 mins (0.8 hr) PAR 2 Release = 1 hr 36 mins (1.6 hrs) PAR 3 Release = 2 hrs 24 mins (2.4 hrs) PAR 4 Release = 3 hrs 12 mins (3.2 hrs)
2012 Pay Points
2012 Release Points
2012 Weekly Release Time
$3,652 $6,402 $9,152 $11,902
PAR 1 Release = 48 mins (0.8 hr) PAR 2 Release = 1 hr 36 mins (1.6 hrs) PAR 3 Release = 2 hrs 24 mins (2.4 hrs) PAR 4 Release = 3 hrs 12 mins (3.2 hrs)
PAR 1 Allowance = PAR 2 Allowance = PAR 3 Allowance = PAR 4 Allowance =
Proposed Middle Leader role
Proposed Tier
Sub-Tier 4 Tier 5
Proposed Annual Allowance
Proposed Proposed New Units Additional Flexible Hours
_____
$16,000 + 9 hrs 14 mins (10.23 hrs) = 9 units $16,000 + 11 hrs 56 mins (11.94 hrs) = 10 units
Proposed Weekly Release Time
Estimated flexible hours available (including Year 7, as at January 2015):
Proposed _____ Additional _____ Flexible Hours_____
Middle Leadership structure under negotiation: TOTALTier 1.1 $4,409 + 2 hrs = 2 units Tier 1.2 $6,614 + 3 hrs = 3 units Middle Leadership structure under negotiation: Tier 2 $8,818 + 4 hrs = 4 units ET 6 Allowance = $6,614 (PAR 1 & PAR 2 paid this Tier 1.1 Sub-Tier 2 $11,023 + 5 hrs = 5$4,409 units + 2 hrs = 2 units higher amount, if ET 6 status as well) Tier 1.2 $6,614 + 3 hrs = 3 units Tier 3 $13,228 + 6 hrs = 6$8,818 units + 4 hrs = 4 units Tier 2 Sub-Tier 3 $15,433 + 7 2hrs = 7$11,023 units + 5 hrs = 5 units Sub-Tier Tier 4 $16,000 8 units+ 6 hrs = 6 units Tier 3+ 8.5 hrs =$13,228 Sub-Tier + 7 hrshrs) = 7 units Sub-Tier 4 $16,000 + 9 3hrs 14 $15,433 mins (10.23 = 9 units Tier 4+ 11 hrs 56$16,000 + 8.5 hrshrs) =8= units Tier 5 $16,000 mins (11.94 10 units
TOTAL
2012 Annual Allowance
TOTAL ET 6 Allowance = $6,614 (PAR 1 & PAR 2 paid this higher amount, if ET 6 status as well)
Existing PAR structure:
2012 PAR role
Current PAR points available: _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed New units available for student enrolment size: Tier Annual Weekly New Units Flexible hours available for student enrolment size: Allowance Release Estimated new units available (including Year 7, as at January 2015): Time
Estimated flexible hours available (including Year 7, as at January 2015): Practical application to real life school examples
2012 School name: 2012_______________________________ 2012 Proposed Release Annual Weekly Middle School type: ________________________________ Points Allowance Release Leader role Employer: _________________________________ Time
$3,652 $6,402 $9,152 $11,902
2012 Pay Points
PAR Matters was prepared by Elise Cuthbertson and Ros McLennan Editor: Mr Terry Burke, Branch Secretary
Existing PAR structure:
TOTAL
2012 PAR role
Current PAR points available: _____
Estimated new units available (including Year 7, as at January 2015): Easy Calculator –Middle Leadership Structure Proposal
Flexible hours available for student enrolment size:
School type: ________________________________
Employer: _________________________________
New units available for student enrolment size:
School name: _______________________________
Practical application to realapplication life school examples Practical to real life school examples
Easy Calculator - MiddleStructure Leadership Structure Proposal Easy Calculator –Middle Leadership Proposal
PAR Matters PAR Matters PAR Matters PAR Matters PAR Matters PAR Matters PAR Matter