Edu December 2013 by Independent Education Union (SA)

EdU

Independent Education Union South Australia Working with members in non-government schools

Vol 28 Issue 4 Dec 2013

Contents

Secretorial: Quality Education What we do: Who we are 4

Frankly Speaking: So what did happen to them? 6 Early burnout puts heat on teacher education 7

Principals and Deputies: Where do you stand when it comes to the Union? 8 Gonski: Fair Funding for Catholic and Independent Schools 9

The Big Picture: Guilty until proven innocent 10 ANZELA 2014 National Conference 12 Absolutely Super: Down under at the top again 13 CITC: Trainers join IEU 14 AITSL: Leadership standards 15 Can stress trigger heart attacks? 16 IEU Reps Conference 2014 17 New powers for the Fair Work Commission to deal with bullying complaints 17 COPE: Council of Pacific Education 2014 18 COPE: Women’s network conference 19

Equity Committee Dinner: Developing unions and union training in Vietnam 20 Federal Update: National Disability Insurance Scheme 21

Federal Update: National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy 21

ISSN 1448–3637 Published by Independent Education Union South Australia EdU is published four times a year and has a circulation of approximately 4000. Enquiries regarding circulation should be directed to the Communications Officer on (08) 8410 0122. Editorial comment is the responsibility of Glen Seidel, Secretary. Advertising Disclaimer Advertising is carried in EdU in order to minimise costs to members. Members are advised that advertising that appears in EdU does not in any way reflect any endorsement or otherwise of the advertised products and/or services by the Independent Education Union (SA). Intending advertisers should phone (08) 8410 0122. IEU(SA) Executive Members President, Jenny Gilchrist (Prince Alfred College) Secretary, Glen Seidel Vice President, Noel Karcher (Christian Brothers College) Vice President, Marlene Maney (Cardijn College) Treasurer, Val Reinke (Nazareth College) Christopher Burrows (Cardijn College) John Coop (Rostrevor College) Michael Francis (Mercedes College) David Freeman (Walford Anglican School for Girls) Anthony Haskell (Saint Ignatius’ College) Sheryl Hoffmann (Concordia College) Fil Isles (Our Lady of the Sacred Heart College)

Member information 22 2014 Member update form 23

Proudly Printed at Printak Home of 100% Solar Powered Printing Machines

Independent Education Union South Australia Printak proudly Introduces...

213–215 Currie Street Adelaide SA 5000 Phone (08) 8410 0122 Fax (08) 8410 0282 Country callers 1800 634 815 enquiries@ieusa.org.au www.ieusa.org.au

EdU Dec 2013 IEU(SA)

Secretorial Quality Education

What We Do: Who We Are From the 3rd to the 4th of October members of all IEU State Branches gathered in Canberra for the IEUA National Conference.

Louise Firrell Assistant Secretary

Bright and early on a crisp Canberra morning everyone gathered on the lawns at the foot of the National Carillon to ‘ring in’ World Teachers’ Day and to launch the IEU’s campaign for ‘Quality Education – What we do: Who we are’ which forms part of the Union’s involvement with teacher unions internationally in the Year of Global Action to ensure quality education for all.

The IEUA used this occasion to launch its Quality Teaching Framework Policy. Central to developing and sustaining quality teaching is the access to quality career pathways which acknowledge and support the complex nature of the work undertaken by the teaching profession. Essential factors in supporting quality career pathways are

This was a symbolic celebration as well as a launch to celebrate the dedicated work of teachers which too often goes ‘unsung’. It was a coordinated celebration with cathedral bells being rung at the same time in Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney. The Swan Bells in Perth also played their part in keeping the message moving across the Indian Ocean joining other co-ordinated celebrations around the world. We had some international Union colleagues with us at the celebration, Govind Singh, General Secretary of COPE (Council of Pacific Education) and Mike Lyons, President and Jude Glover, Education Officer from NASUWT, the largest teacher union in the UK.

• attracting quality applicants • retaining experienced teachers • quality training and professional development • evolving and relevant standards frameworks • professional remuneration, including recognising accomplished teachers • supporting leadership Updates on the campaign are available at www.educationforall.com.au

The theme of the campaign highlights the crucial role that teachers and those who support teaching, play in the delivery of quality education. The campaign will be conducted over 2014 and will involve a co-ordinated approach to promoting best practice within our schools, publicly profiling the work of our members, and nationally campaigning for appropriate resources to continue the delivery of quality education in Australia. At the same time we will be assisting unions in other regions with their campaigns.

EdU Dec 2013 IEU(SA)

Pictured clockwise from top left. Dick Shearman, IEUA Federal President; Ross Fox, Executive Director of the NCEC; Geoff Newcombe, AIS NSW Executive Director. Chris Watt, IEUA Federal Secretary. Christopher Pyne, Minister for Education. (from left) Chris Watt, Mike Lyons, NASUWT President and Dick Shearman. Christine Cooper, IEUA Federal Assistant Secretary; Govind Singh, COPE Secretary General.

EdU Dec 2013 IEU(SA)

Frankly Speaking So what did happen to them? Quite often when disputes occur between an employer and employee(s) there is an initial flurry of activity. If the employees are Union members a part of that may include, with the affected member’s permission, the IEU advising the wider membership of what has occurred to seek broader support. It is important to note in many cases ‘advertising’ a dispute is NOT a consideration because it may involve third parties such as parents or students or if the taking of such action may jeopardise an investigation. However that said there are genuine occasions when informing the membership is necessary. Circumstances dictate how wide the information is circulated. The IEU may advise local branch members only or in more extreme cases advise members within a sector or indeed the whole membership. On occasion the mere exposure of the dispute (or the threat of it) brings about an immediate resolution. However should the parties fail to resolve the matter and it proceeds to the Fair Work Commission or Federal Circuit Court, these bodies will attempt to resolve the matter in mediation / conciliation hearings to avoid unnecessary or costly trials. And so it is that most matters are resolved here and do not proceed to trial. In such cases where a resolution is agreed it usually comes at a cost. The details of such resolutions are often contained within Deeds of Settlement (or the like) which invariably contain confidentiality agreements. They can also include other features such as terms for monetary payments and non disparaging remarks requirements.

Frank Bernardi Industrial Officer However in the most recent example where the dispute was advertised to members within the catholic sector – the redundancy of three Grounds and Maintenance Staff at St Ignatius College – the settlement agreement included the release of an agreed statement which reads as follows –

St Ignatius College and the IEU agree as follows. Three Independent Education Union members were employed by St Ignatius doing grounds and maintenance work. St Ignatius terminated two IEU member’s (“the IEU members”) employment with St Ignatius in January 2013 when it outsourced the work they had previously done. The two IEU members were offered the opportunity to apply for a role created as part of the restructure. It was also suggested that the IEU members seek employment opportunities with the outsourced labour provider. St Ignatius acknowledges that the IEU members indicated that they were open to significant changes to avoid the redundancies. St Ignatius did not agree to implement these proposed changes. The parties acknowledge that St Ignatius may have been able to do more to explore options that could have avoided the IEU members’ redundancies as a consequence of the outsourcing.

When the IEU represents members in such processes it is also bound by the undertakings contained within a Deed of Settlement.

St Ignatius is grateful for the good service that the IEU members provided during their time at the school.

Because of this it means on those occasions when we have alerted members to disputes in order to garner their support we often are unable to relay the affects that support had in reaching a just outcome for their colleagues.

All other details associated with the outcome in this case are the subject of a confidentiality requirement.

EdU Dec 2013 IEU(SA)

Early Burnout Puts Heat on Teacher Education Teachers are at risk of burnout, even during their early career, according to a large-scale study looking at what motivates teachers and why their initial enthusiasm may be unable to be sustained. In the FIT-Choice project, Monash University researchers are continuing to track the experiences of 1651 future teachers from their entry into teacher education in 2002/3, until up to seven years teaching so far. They are assessing which expectancies, values and goals are relevant for future teachers, what happens to their motivation after they enter the profession, how they cope, and the greatest risks for teachers’ effectiveness and wellbeing. Co-lead researcher Associate Professor Helen Watt from the Faculty of Education said teaching has long been recognised as a challenging and rewarding occupation, but an increasingly stressful and demanding one. “Concerningly, burnt-out and worn-out teachers comprise 27 per cent of our beginning teacher sample,” Associate Professor Watt said. “The reasons the majority of beginning teachers gave for becoming teachers were related to their perceived skills set, the intrinsic enjoyment they derived from teaching, the desire to make a social contribution and to work with youth. “We have found these initial motivations impacted on professional engagement and their teaching style up to seven years later.”

Associate Professor Watt said unfortunately these positive motivations often could not be sustained once the teachers started in working in the classroom.

“We found the inability to maintain these motivations was mainly due to perceived lack of schools’ support, and even structural hindrances, such as heavy administrative and compliance demands which take their time and energy away from working with young people in classrooms, which is why many of them became teachers in the first place,” Associate Professor Watt When teachers had a high level of professional support, they were more effective and their sense of wellbeing improved. Co-lead researcher Associate Professor Paul Richardson from the Faculty of Education said the research findings had implications for future teacher recruitment, preparation and induction. “The research will provide valuable information on how we can assist teachers to achieve their goals and how best to equip them with strategies to cope with the demands of teaching,” Associate Professor Richardson said.

Re-published with permission from Monash University website October 7 2013 http://monash.edu.au/news/show/early-burnout-puts-heat-on-teacher-education EdU Dec 2013 IEU(SA)

Principals and Deputies

Where do you stand when it comes to the Union?

Can a Principal or Deputy Principal be a member of our school’s branch of the Union? Confusion sometimes occurs around who is allowed to be a member of your worksite’s IEU branch. This question usually crops up when it is noticed a principal or deputy principal’s name is listed as a member of the IEU or when a branch meeting is to occur and a member of the school’s management team wishes to attend because they are an IEU member. The simplest way to answer this is by first identifying the fact all employees of the school can be members of the IEU.

The important distinction is employees belong to different branches of the IEU depending on their role. Hence, teachers and school assistants can belong to the local school branch of the IEU. Their conditions of employment are usually covered by an Enterprise Agreement specific to them. If not their conditions of employment will be set by one of the Modern Awards. Principals and deputy principals do not belong to this branch. They can, however, belong to the Principal & Deputy Principal branch of the IEU. Their conditions of employment are usually covered by a systemic agreement specific to them or individual contracts of employment. The legal instrument applicable to the person’s employment conditions is the simplest way to determine if they are a part of your branch or not. Thus, a school branch meeting will usually mean only teachers and school assistants can attend. The most common reasons branch meetings of this type occur relates to EA negotiations or discussion of site specific issues and how best to deal with them. Clearly a principal or deputy principal does not have a legitimate right to attend these caucus meetings.

However a ‘grey’ area is created when a member of the teacher / ESO (school assistants) branch is also a member of the ‘leadership team’; for example a head of faculty or year level or an APRIM (Catholic Sector). In these instances where a conflict of interest occurs the member should acknowledge the fact and excuse themselves. If a branch meeting was called related to EA negotiations then a head of faculty or APRIM whose conditions of employment are to be set

by the EA is entitled to attend such a meeting. However a branch meeting about a local issue such as the restructure of a department or performance reviews where the member acts in their ‘leadership’ capacity creates a conflict of interest and they should not attend. One occurrence that can cause confusion for a principal or deputy principal members is when the IEU attends a meeting in support of a teacher / ESO (school assistant) and sits ‘opposite’ them. The IEU can offer no support to the principal in this scenario because the principal or deputy is acting as the employer and undertaking their managerial role. Should they need support it is to be provided by their employer. This may lead to the question, what use is membership of the Union to principals and deputy principals? It is in the same way the IEU supports teachers and ESOs (school assistants): as employees. Principals and deputy principals, if members automatically receive professional indemnity insurance and • can seek assistance with or representation for EA negotiations • can seek assistance with or representation for professional matters or • as individuals have access to legal and industrial advice and • assistance with or representation in Health and Safety matters (eg Workcover) and industrial matters (eg Investigations and performance issues) They also have access to the same collective benefits teachers and school assistants enjoy such as access to private health cover through Teachers Health, Union Shopper and Member’s Equity Bank. Many principals and deputy principals were Union members during their teaching days. There is no reason to abandon membership when promoted because you are still an employee and require the same protections and representations as when a teacher. The same philosophical or pragmatic reasons that underpin your membership as a teacher still apply. EdU Dec 2013 IEU(SA)

Gonski The long-awaited Gonski Report was released on 20 February 2012. Positively, the recommendations contained within the Report had attempted to provide a supportive framework for the funding of schools. Importantly for IEU members, the Report recognised the diverse needs of publicly funded Catholic and Independent schools. When the Report was released, it had recommended a student resource standard, full funding for students with disabilities irrespective of sector and acknowledged the need for an appropriate transition phase. Further, the report recommended full government funding for non-government schools that are special schools, majority indigenous or the only school in remote/isolated areas. In the subsequent 18 months following the Report’s release, there have been a multitude of bilateral negotiations between the Australian government and the States, Territories, National Catholic School and National Independent School employer associations. In April 2013, the Australian government finally tabled its funding response “Better Schools” to the recommendations and began the process of encouraging employer authorities in the States and Territories to ‘sign up’. And so we entered a period of uncertainty as the various groups argued and negotiated. The Australian government response was a pale imitation of the Gonski Report recommendations, not in the least due to the relatively low commitment of additional resource dollars compared to those recommended by the Gonski Report. Unfortunately, the realities are that it is far from a generous funding deal for Catholic and Independent schools. Some schools will receive moderate increases in funding in the short term. However, many of our schools will receive the same dollar amount currently allocated; with a commitment to approximately 3% per annum increase across the next six years. At the same time, the new legislation would also impose a long list (54 items) of compliance requirements on schools with significant additional workload on staff and schools. These requirements will increase teacher, support and administrative staff workloads in every role from curriculum changes through to teaching, testing, collecting and analysing data, reporting management and school leadership.

Fair Fun d

ing for Catholic and Indepen dent Sc hools As an example, an individual teacher will be expected to: • Develop individual learning plans for students; • Develop parent learning programs and community campaigns; • Conduct a reading blitz in lower classes; • Provide a comprehensive mentoring program for graduates; and • Undertake yearly performance review meetings with the principal. New compliance requirements are also imposed at a whole school level. These additional workload demands on staff will be unsustainable in the absence of meaningful real increases in resource levels in schools. Funding and budgetary capacity will be critical in the next couple of years as these requirements impact at the local level. How will the new Federal Coalition Government respond? While the newly elected Coalition Federal Government has not yet amended the Education Act to bring about any changes, the Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne has indicated that they would maintain the new funding model developed by Labour while removing any unnecessary “red tape” and reporting bureaucracy. How this translates into practice and the impact of this is yet to be explained. IEU Response Our Union has already signalled that staff will not bear these additional workload issues without the provision of additional resources. We will not acquiesce to the additional demands imposed by the requirements of the ‘Better Schools’ policy or another replacement policy. EdU Dec 2013 IEU(SA)

The Big Picture Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Vesna Jadresic Organiser

Most teachers and ESO’s will have to deal with student and/or parent complaints at least once in their careers but it is not something anyone really expects will happen to them. When it happens they are shocked to find themselves summoned to the principal’s office to answer to allegations of misconduct. In the current climate, such allegations are taken very seriously (as they should be), and with the new Protective Practices Guidelines and re-worked policies on dealing with Allegations of Misconduct, currently implemented processes (or lack thereof) can leave you feeling that the presumption of innocence has been flung out the window. Staff can feel that what they are being put through is disproportionately ‘heavy handed’ for what they may well feel is a ‘storm in a teacup’. Unfortunately, the current situation has come about as a result of the worst behaviours perpetrated by ‘trusted’ leaders in our religious and spiritual organisations and communities. Broken Rites Australia has been pushing for 20 years for a Royal Commission into the investigation of child abuse. This finally happened in 2013. In 2003, there was the Protection Review (The Layton Report) and subsequently in 2010 the Catholic Church implemented their “Towards Healing’ programme. Victims have been trying to speak out for years but until now have not had official forums in which to be heard. It’s about time. However, this translated into the current (but not necessarily perceived to be fair) practices by schools investigating the ‘common garden variety’ student/parent complaint about a staff member. This in no way is intended to diminish the importance or potential seriousness of some complaints. However, out in the field, we have attended too many investigations of complaints that should have been dealt with swiftly and expeditiously in a more informal setting rather than launching straight into a ‘Formal Investigation of Allegations of Misconduct’. Many schools are taking a blanket ‘just in case’ approach that has left staff feeling confused, unsupported, shell-shocked and ‘marked’. It’s an epidemic of epic proportions in which many innocent will suffer along with the few guilty parties for whom it was fitting. This has certainly contributed to our growing list of members who have been traumatised by being subjected to an inappropriate process or a poorly conducted one. So much so, that many are so badly wounded by the events that they are forced to access Workcover in a last resort attempt to regain their physical and mental health.

Given that this is on the increase across the sectors, what can be done to protect yourself against spurious or malicious allegations and/ or a flawed process? Firstly make sure you are a member of the IEU, ensure that you are familiar with Protective Practices and Guidelines and any other relevant policies that your school has and make sure that you know your rights. The following is a guide to help you understand what to expect if you find yourself on the receiving end of one of ‘those’ letters from your Principal. • First, call the IEU. Schools should not start investigations into misconduct unless they have sufficient evidence. Many of these investigations get shut down quickly if there is not sufficient evidence or if they have not provided you with the evidence they have. • You have a right to see or be provided with the evidence and time (a minimum of 24 hours) to consider and prepare your response. Very often, you will be asked to attend a meeting without being provided any details. Your IEU organiser will request those details (in writing) ahead of any meeting. If the details are not provided (which happens), the meeting will be a quick one in which the details are requested and another meeting to deal with them is scheduled. • Principals should inform the person making the allegations or any witnesses to the alleged misconduct that their identity may be disclosed. However often, the informant wishes to remain anonymous. If there are no personal statements offered, and allegations are simply ‘word of mouth’ generally this would be insufficient or unacceptable as evidence. Once another meeting has been rescheduled, you may provide a written or verbal response.

EdU Dec 2013 IEU(SA)

• Sometimes you will simply be called into the Principal’s office and be ‘ambushed’ (a common term used by members) by allegations. DO NOT be pressured into launching into a defence on the spot. Ask if the meeting is formal or informal? Ask for the details then excuse yourself saying you wish to take advice on the matter, then call the IEU office. You have a right to have a witness, support person, or preferably an IEU Organiser with you during the process. In fact you should be reminded of that entitlement in the original letter. • Once the principal or delegate has conducted an investigation, you will be called to a meeting to be informed of the outcome. This outcome may or may not be proportionate to the conduct. There is a process of review or appeal you can take with the help of the IEU. It can be difficult for a principal to walk the fine line between supporting their staff and not upsetting a fee-paying parent so sometimes a principal may be a ‘fence sitter’ with regard to deciding on an expedient outcome. This may well be at the expense of what the staff member might feel is a just one. God forbid, in these trying economic times for schools, there should be one less ‘bum on a seat’.

While you have a right to a fair and impartial investigation process, an employer does not have to prove anything ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. This is an investigation, not a trial. They only need to come to a belief or conclusion on the balance of probabilities. That is why it is important to involve the IEU from the beginning to ensure a fair process and that all the right questions are asked.

Much stress can be avoided by simply being armed with the knowledge of your rights, responsibilities and entitlements.

EdU Dec 2013 IEU(SA)

2014 National Conference 1 - 3 October Crowne Plaza Hotel Adelaide, South Australia

Walking the tightrope – getting the balance right: Issues and challenges in education law Numerous areas of tension exist in education and in law. Should students’ rights or those of teachers be given priority? Should parents be allowed to remove their children from the formal education system? Is limiting access to new technologies necessary to control cyber-bullying, or should technology be incorporated into the classroom? Has the legal regulation of discrimination gone too far or not far enough? Where is the balance between freedom of expression and preventing racist speech to be found? With its focus on “walking the tightrope” this conference provides an opportunity for teachers, students, parents and others involved in the education system to explore these and many other challenging educational and legal issues.

Papers which address the conference theme are invited

Papers could consider a wide variety of legal and educational issues, including: modern technology and related educational and legal issues, teachers’ rights, children’s and young persons’ rights, family law and schools, home schooling, multiculturalism, indigenous education, disability discrimination, equality and diversity, bullying, industrial relations, procedural fairness in educational institutions, legislative frameworks for education, Work Health & Safety in the context of educational institutions. If you are interested in submitting a paper contact Tony Houey, Deputy Principal and Chair of the SA ANZELA Chapter thouey@pembroke.sa.edu.au We encourage members to participate in this conference as it is being organised by the SA Chapter of ANZELA on ‘home territory’ this year. The IEU offers professional development grants to members for activities such as these which are intended to support events such as these. Contact Louise Firrell louisef@ieusa.org.au for further information.

You can’t say that! You’re nicked! If only this provision was not more honoured in the breach than the observance South Australia Education Act 1972

104—Offence of insulting a teacher

Any person who behaves in an offensive or insulting manner to a teacher who is acting in the course of his duties as such shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding five hundred dollars.

Expiation fee: Division 9 fee. EdU Dec 2013 IEU(SA)

Absolutely Super Down Under at the Top Again The Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index for the last financial year has been published with pleasing results for the Australian superannuation/ pension system as reported by the ACFS (Australian Centre for Financial Studies) which is a not-for-profit consortium of Monash University, RMIT University and the Financial Services Institute of Australia. All up twenty countries with “mature” or at least “developed” pension systems were included in the survey such as the UK, USA, Denmark, France, Netherlands and from Asia, China, South Korea, Japan, India, Indonesia and Singapore. An index value was ascribed to each country and a grade was provided from “A” described as, “A first class and robust retirement income system that delivers good benefits, is sustainable and has a high level of integrity” to “E” which was considered, “A poor system that may be in the early stages of development or a non-existent system”. The criteria used for the rating included: adequacy (40%); sustainability (35%); integrity (25%). Adequacy is fundamental to any retirement system as the basic purpose of it is to provide adequate income in retirement. Elements such as government encouragement via tax incentives for member voluntary contributions and minimum access age are considered in this section of the index. In addition, long-term investment returns and a requirement to take part of the benefit as an income stream are integral to the adequacy of the final savings amount. Australia’s score in terms of adequacy was a strong 75.6%. In terms of long-term sustainability elements such as the labour force participation of older workers, the government pension age, the contribution rates and the level of government debt were contributing factors. Obviously high levels of government debt can become a threat to any governmentbacked retirement system (consider the USA and in particular the city of Chicago). Again Australia scored well at 73.0% with the comment, “A system that has a sound structure, with many good features, but has some areas for improvement.. .. “

Bernard O’Connor NGS Super The integrity element considered the role of governance and regulation and the protection or risk mitigation provided to participants through “good value” and relevant legislation. Community confidence in the ability of the private system to provide retirement income is fundamental. The Australian system came first on this heading with a score of 88.1% indicating the prudential regulation of the private sector providers of superannuation is the best in the world. The final result was that Australia finished in the top three nations with an overall index value of 77.8% (B+) behind Denmark at 80.2% (A) and the Netherlands at 78.3% (B+). A very pleasing result for a compulsory system which has been in place for less than twenty five years with scores well above developed systems such as that of the USA (58.2%), the UK (65.4%), Germany (58.5%) and Japan (44.4%) and the index average (60.0%). Although there is still room for improvement, we can thank the boy from Bankstown and his team for this national achievement! Let’s hope future governments respect the system by supporting it with prudent legislation and tax structures to encourage our national savings.

Important information: The information in this article is general information only and does not take into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. Before making a financial decision, please assess the appropriateness of the information to your individual circumstances, read the Product Disclosure Statement for any product you may be thinking of acquiring and consider seeking professional advice.

EdU Dec 2013 IEU(SA)

CITC Trainers join IEU In June this year the IEU was contacted by the Trainers at the Construction Industry Training Centre (CITC) because their employer had presented them with a draft Enterprise Agreement. They felt it contained a number of terms that were of more benefit to the employer than to the employees. The employees wanted to know whether we covered them and whether we could help. The short answer was, yes we could on both counts! Firstly, a bit of background from their web site: We (CITC) provide high quality Nationally Recognised Training for many industries including: Construction, Mining, Entertainment, Automotive, Manufacturing, Maritime, Transport, Wine and the Defence Forces throughout South Australia and beyond.

The CITC employs 15 full-time staff and have over 20 trainers available who specialise in areas as diverse as Dogging, Rigging, Scaffolding, Crane Operation, Confined Space, Occupational Health and Safety, Plant Operation, Work Safely at Heights and many more. CITC is governed by a board predominantly consisting of Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union past and present employees. As employees at the CITC the trainers were CFMEU members but decided that their best interests were not being met when it came to negotiating an Enterprise Agreement with the employer, essentially the CFMEU. At their request the IEU met with them and declared that constitutionally, the IEU is able to cover them. They decided to join the IEU. Negotiations with the CITC management were positive and concluded within a relatively short time period. The new agreement will include a 4 percent per annum pay rise over the next four years, improved conditions and clarified terms. The IEUSA Representatives Paul and Charlie were invaluable in initiating IEU involvement, recruiting members and communicating the needs of the Branch. Pictured below from left: Andrew Hynes, John Reintjens, Mark Robinson, Duncan Waugh, Paul Heuer, Charlie Camilleri and Lance Everett

EdU Dec 2013 IEU(SA)

AITSL

Leadership Standards

The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) has published the Australian Professional Standard for Principals. The full document can be found at www.aitsl.edu.au. For those who are new to leadership, AITSL is the Australian Government funded body designed to: provide national leadership for the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments in promoting excellence in the profession of teaching and school leadership. Standards and frameworks can be a great guide for aspiring and emerging leaders, providing clarity on the skills and knowledge that are typically demonstrated by successful leaders and they are a useful ‘check-in point’ for experienced leaders. The AITSL Standard sets out, ‘what principals are expected to know, understand and do to achieve in their work’. What a Standard cannot do is to help you make the right decision at the right time, or show you how to build a relationship with a difficult person or when it is right to act on your immediate instinct and when it is good to hold back and reflect. As Glen Pearsall is fond of saying, you do not learn how to play cricket by reading the ‘Rules of Cricket’. With that in mind it is helpful to summarise briefly the Standard. There are three leadership requirements: I. Vision and values 2. Knowledge and understanding 3. Personal qualities and social and interpersonal skills That these requirements are central to leadership is certainly backed up by the lived experience of leaders who have written for the Teacher Learning Network journal. Principals are then required to demonstrate the following practices: I. Lead teaching and learning 2. Develop self and others 3. Lead improvement, innovation and change 4. Lead the management of the school 5. Engage and work with the community

Principals are encouraged to follow a Model of Professional Practice based on • Plan and Act • Review • Respond Each of the five professional practices is explored in more detail using this three step model. There is a long-standing ideological debate about standards and their validity. Some people argue that standards are a limiting, narrow and controlling approach to teaching and leadership. Certainly in many industries Quality Control measures are based on a set of Australian or International Standards - precisely to control the consistency of the final outcome or product. Whether this is what we are seeking to achieve in education is what is up for debate. It can be a problem if standards are used as a recipe for how to lead and an individual’s performance is assessed against this Standard. This can deny individual character and expression, and the nature of the relationships at work in the school community. The other common criticism of standards is that people who create standards have a tendency to overcomplicate the subject, and use managerialist speak and it seems to me that they share an absolute passion for complex overlaid charts, tables and intersecting Venn diagrams. The AITSL Standard has ‘elements that are interdependent and integrated, no hierarchy is implied’, all demonstrated in a neatly packaged multi-layered chart. Despite the criticisms that some might level at the creation of national standards for teaching and leadership, they now exist and we are able to debate the relative merits of these standards, their composition and content. Someone has had the courage to say ‘this is what we expect’. That advances the debate about leadership in education. The AITSL website is a rich source of information and if you haven’t yet visited the site, spend some time at www.aitsl.edu.au.

And it is emphasised that this is all to be done in the context of the school, sector and community in which the principal is working.

Reprinted with permission from Teacher Learning Network Journal Winter 2013 Vol. 20 No.2 EdU Dec 2013 IEU(SA)

Can stress trigger heart attacks? Traditionally high blood pressure and high cholesterol have been the main indicators of the risk of heart attack. A recent study of 7268 British public servants over an 18 year timeframe has shown that ongoing stress could be as significant a risk factor. The European Heart Journal June 26 2013, carries a report by Dr Hermann Nabi et al entitled in part “Increased risk of coronary heart disease among individuals reporting adverse impact of stress on their health …” The length, design and size of the study has produced statistically significant correlations even after taking into account other risk factors. In effect it demonstrates that if you think stress is affecting your health then it probably is and one of the significant effects is coronary heart disease. The findings suggest ongoing stress could be as potent a risk factor for heart attacks as high blood pressure or high cholesterol. The unique aspect of this study was that people weren’t asked if they were “stressed”, but if they thought that stress was affecting their health. The study also was forward looking in that the heart disease and mortality rates of people were tracked for years after declaring the perceived effects of stress on their health. This was not backward looking by interviewing heart attack patients and asking about stress. For those interested in the discussion of the design of the study and the analysis of the data, the best source is the study report itself. http://www.medpagetoday.com/upload/2013/6/27/Eur%20 Heart%20J-2013-Nabi-eurheartj_eht216%281%291.pdf Stress affects different people differently. In this study the definition of stress used was “when a person feels that environmental demands tax or exceed his or her adaptive capacity, resulting in psychological and biological changes that may place him or her at risk for disease” Those who reported that they felt that stress was affecting their health either “extremely” or “a lot” had double the risk of a heart attack than those who felt that stress was not impacting their health. This is a different effect to a sudden acute shock triggering a heart episode. The researchers adjusted for other risk factors such as alcohol intake, smoking and social support and still found a 49% increased risk of heart attack for those suffering from chronic stress. Lead author Dr Nabi says: “The first step is to identify the stressors or sources of stress, for example job pressures, relationship problems or financial difficulties, and then look for solutions. There are several ways

to cope with stress, including relaxation techniques, physical activity, and even medications, particularly for severe cases.” There are also negative ways to deal with stress such as depression, alcohol, smoking and other drugs and lack of exercise. These responses are known to increase the risk of heart attack. These factors and stress itself can cause increases in heart rate, blood pressure and the propensity for clot formation. One mightn’t be able to do much about risk factors such as family history or age but the message from this study is that as chronic stress is correlated with heart disease, it isn’t an unreasonable hypothesis that to decrease stress levels may induce a lower risk of heart disease. However that is the realm of a future research project. EdU Dec 2013 IEU(SA)

Attention All IEU Representatives Save the Date IEU Reps Conference 2014

Celebrate 30 Years of Organising and Representation Monday 3rd March The Education Development Centre 4 Milner St, Hindmarsh

Keynote speaker Dick Shearman IEUA Federal President

New Powers for the Fair Work Commission to Deal with Bullying Complaints One of the new amendments to the Fair Work Act which will take effect from 1 January 2014 gives the Fair Work Commission the power to deal with complaints about bullying in the workplace. The definition of “bullied at work” contains an exemption for “reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner”. After receiving a complaint, the Commission will need to be satisfied that the bullying has occurred and that there is a risk that it will continue. The Commission will be permitted to make any order it considers appropriate (other than an order requiring the payment of money) to prevent the bullying continuing. Noncompliance with such orders would be a civil contravention and be enforceable in the usual way. This is a new and untested area of the Commission’s jurisdiction and all stakeholders will be watching with interest to see how this will work in practice.

EdU Dec 2013 IEU(SA)

COPE

Council of Pacific Education 2014

A delegation of IEU organisers from SA, NSW, Queensland and Victoria attended the Triennial COPE conference to present papers and to participate in workshops panel discussions. Over 70 union leaders from 11 countries took part in training sessions on international labour standards, mechanisms to report rights violations and collective bargaining provisions. A delegation from Education International (EI) addressed issues around labour standards and the clamp down on Union rights in Fiji since the 2006 coup. The conference was addressed by the International Labour Organisation Regional Director David Lamotte and Felix Anthony, Head of the Fiji Trade Union Centre Despite international trade union campaigns and strong recommendations from the ILO, the Government of Commodore Bainimarama sticks to an agenda impoverishing workers and disempowering unions. In the teaching sector and public service in general, decrees have been adopted to weaken the union movement. The consultation avenues which existed previously have

Louise Firrell Assistant Secretary been suspended, grievance mechanisms no longer exist for teachers and meetings of more than four individuals require cumbersome prior authorisation. Despite public commitments to education, teacher conditions have worsened. Education authorities imposed, without consultation, that the compulsory retirement age be advanced to 55, that careers be turned into renewable three-year contracts and that pension benefits be reduced from 15 per cent to 8 per cent of the public servantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; retirement fund. The situation is such that many teachers consider exile to other Pacific Islands to maintain subsistence. Despite the fact that unions are crippled, teachers have maintained their union membership and together, the EI affiliates represent over 80 per cent of the teaching profession. During several group work sessions participants also actively exchanged views about their respective national situation, challenges and successes. They then gathered by country to develop National Action Plans and specific campaigns. Pictured top from left: Kevin Bunker, NZPPTA member of COPE since its inception, Krishna Datt, former Secretary General of COPE, Judith Nowotarski, President of COPE and Laures Park, Assistant Secretary Maori Education. Bottom left: Tefatu Pananpa and Olepa Peniamina from Tuvalu. Bottom right: Jenni Kome and Tessie Harahoro from PNG;

EdU Dec 2013 IEU(SA)

Women’s Network Conference The Women’s Network was held prior to the ILO sessions and General Meeting. Over 40 representatives from 11 countries in the Pacific spent two days developing and refining their unions’ plans to grow the women’s networks and promote equality in education and unions in the region. Tili Afamasaga, from the Samoa National Teachers’ Association and Chair of COPE, set the tone by reminding younger colleagues that the COPE Women’s Network had been instrumental in promoting equal rights in the Pacific for the last 25 years. Other regions copied the model of EI’s Women’s Network which is now successful throughout the world since the launch of the Arab Women’s Network in 2012.

now have Equality Officers whom female teachers can contact to express their needs and challenges. Legislation is gradually guaranteeing improved equality in society. Communication, organising and union governance were key training areas delivered to the participants. Fay Volatabu, Chair of the Fiji Women’s Council, talked about the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and encouraged teacher unions to challenge Governments about their commitment to this important instrument to promote equality.

Despite their overrepresentation in the teaching profession, women continue to experience challenges in reaching decision-making positions due to traditions, culture and inhibitions. Progress is slow but steady. Most Pacific Islands’ unions

The conference launched Krishna Datt’s book A History of the Council of Pacific Education 1980 - 2010. Krishna Datt a career educator, trade unionist and political leader was Secretary General of COPE throughout the 1990s, founding General Secretary of the Fiji Labour Party and former President of Fiji Teachers Union.

EdU Dec 2013 IEU(SA)

Equity Committee Dinner

Developing Unions and Union Training in Vietnam For the last two years the Equity Committee has organised a Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Dinner. This year in response to feed-back from some of our members we decided to hold an Equity Dinner and extend the invitation to any members, family and friends. The guest speaker was former IEUSA organiser Deb Nicholls. Deb has been working with APHEDA in Vietnam for the last three years running union training programs in support of workers in a range of industries, but particularly garment manufacturing. Deb provided a comprehensive overview of her work and the conditions for workers in the industry in Vietnam.

Pictured above: Deb Nicholls presenting.

Right: standing: Tim Oosterbaan. Seated: Janine Hansen, Astride Eberhards Bernadette Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Rielley.

Below: standing Louise Firrell, Paul Hicks, Glen Seidel. Seated: Julie Haar, Sonya Flynn, Deb Nicholls.

EdU Dec 2013 IEU(SA)

Federal Update National Disability Insurance Scheme The IEU has welcomed the introduction of NDIS. Under the NDIS people who have significant and permanent disability will have access to an assessment process that, if deemed eligible, develops an individual support plan with funding allocated for reasonable and necessary supports. The NDIS assessment will take into consideration a personâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s aspirations for participation and work in their community, support requirements and the needs of their parents/carers. The NDIS will also provide early intervention and support services to improve the opportunities of people with disability, their families and carers.

The interaction between the NDIS and the education system remains a complex policy challenge. Education authorities and schools will need clarity as to NDIS eligibility process and procedures and services which will or will not be funded. There is still much uncertainty to the funding regimes for special needs students. IEU Response The IEU has developed a national policy on Quality Special Needs Education and is currently working on guidelines to assist members in schools and will be lobbying the new Federal Government.

National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) There is need for a further critical reassessment into the aims and execution of the national testing regime within Australia. In 2010, the IEU commissioned research conducted by the University of Technology, Sydney, in relation to NAPLAN testing and the MySchool website. The project involved a survey of the opinions of teachers and principals from Independent and Catholic schools on NAPLAN and the use of data. The survey was repeated in 2013 using identical questions and became the basis of the submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations inquiry on the NAPLAN. In the survey, teachers and principals were asked about the impact of the publication of NAPLAN data on MySchool and whether this placed additional pressure on teachers, students or the school. This was an area of considerable agreement. Despite the claimed importance of NAPLAN as a diagnostic tool, only around half of all teachers found it useful. NAPLAN consumes considerable test preparation time in primary and secondary schools. The survey identified considerable variation in the amount of time preparing for the tests. This means that comparison between schools may not be valid.

The overwhelming conclusion is that every aspect of teaching and learning has felt the impact of the publication of NAPLAN data. If the purpose of NAPLAN is about diagnosis and remediation, then we need to change the way Australia uses the testing scheme results. The previous federal government had included more testing in the National Education Reform Agreement that it has asked school employing authorities to sign up to. Specifically, in addition to the literacy and numeracy testing, there were intentions to introduce Science testing, which would only add to the raft of issues and concerns currently being experienced in schools. How will the new Federal Coalition Government respond? The Federal Minister for Education has indicated that he did not support the over prescription of data in education and the resultant level of bureaucracy. He has taken action to remove the data collection role from ACARA. However it is doubtful whether this would result in the demise of MySchool website. The Minister has not supported the inclusion of science testing into the NAPLAN testing regime, but has indicated some value in broadening the test to include all years.

It also implies a change in the workloads of teachers as they divert attention away from the syllabus to test preparation. EdU Dec 2013 IEU(SA)

Member Information The IEUSA office will be closed from December 20th to January 3rd. Due to office closure subscription deductions will occur on the 8th of January. Following payments will be deducted on the first Wednesday of the month as per usual. Please update your details with us by the 31st January 2014 to ensure we have current contact and school details and that you are paying at the correct fee category. You can do this by phone: 8410 0122 or fill out the form on page 23 and return by fax, email or mail or log on to the member area of the website www.ieusa.org.au

(If you haven’t logged on to the new website yet your password is in the format ‘membernumber.surname’ if you have any difficulty or are unsure of your member number please phone or email us for assistance)

All members currently on Category O will automatically be moved to the new category P unless we are advised otherwise by 31st January via the update form. Generally a Step 10/PT 5 full time teacher will be Category P.

We wish you a safe and happy festive season! DIRECT DEBIT REQUEST SERVICE AGREEMENT User ID: 077399 updated: 24/10/11 Independent Education Union South Australia, 213–215 Currie Street, Adelaide SA

You have entered or are about to enter into an arrangement under which you make payments to us. You want to make those payments by use of the Direct Debit System. This agreement sets out the terms on which we accept and act under a Direct Debit Request (“your Direct Debit Request”) you give us to debit amounts from your account under the Direct Debit System. It is additional to the arrangement under which you make payments to us. Please ensure you keep a copy of this agreement as it sets out certain rights you have against us and certain obligations you have to us due to giving us your Direct Debit request. Our Agreement: 1. We agree to be bound by this agreement when we receive your Direct Debit Request complete with the particulars we need to draw an amount under it. 2. We agree only to draw money out of your account in accordance with the terms of your Direct Debit Request. What we can do: 3. On giving you at least 14 days notice, we may: (a) change our procedures in this agreement; (b) change the terms of our Direct Debit Request; or (c) cancel your Direct Debit Request. You may ask us to: 4. (a) alter the terms of your Direct Debit Request; (b) defer a payment to be made under your Direct Debit Request; or (c) stop a drawing under your Direct Debit Request. Or you may cancel your Direct Debit Request by forwarding a request in writing clearly stating your membership number, name, address, contact telephone number and the action you wish IEU(SA) to take on your behalf. 5. You may dispute any amount we draw under your Direct Debit Request by contacting the IEU(SA) office and discussing your concern with the appropriate officer. Should your dispute not be resolved in this manner, you are requested to forward a signed statement to the Secretary by post or fax (Fax: 8410 0282) outlining your dispute along with what action has already been taken. How we will handle a dispute: 6. We deal with any dispute under clause 5 of this agreement as follows: (a) check that we have your IEU(SA) subscription details recorded correctly; (b) correct any inaccuracy and notify you accordingly by telephone or post; (c) if our records are

correct, contact you by telephone or in writing within 14 days outlining the prescribed fees; (d) if you are not satisfied with the action taken, we will advise you of further action available under the IEU(SA) Constitution. General information: 7. We draw on your account under your Direct Debit Request on or after the first Wednesday of the month. 8. If your financial institution rejects any of our attempt/s to draw an amount in accordance with your Direct Debit Request, we will make contact with you by telephone or in writing to ascertain: (a) if the bank details provided to us are correct; (b) if you wish to change your method of payment or (c) if there is any other reason why your financial institution has rejected our attempt to draw the required amount. 9. We will not disclose to any person any information you give us on your Direct Debit Request, which is not generally available, unless (a) you dispute any amount we draw under your Direct Debit Request and we need to disclose any information relating to your Direct Debit Request or to any amount we draw under it to the financial institution at which your account is held or the financial institution which sponsors our use of the Direct Debit System or both of them; (b) you consent to that disclosure, or (c) we are required to disclose that information by law. 10. Not all accounts held with a financial institution are available to be drawn on under the Direct Debit System. 11. Before you complete your Direct Debit Request, it is best to check account details against a recent statement from your financial institution to ensure the details on your Direct Debit Request are completed correctly. Your responsibility: 12. It is your responsibility to ensure there are sufficient clear funds available in your account by the due date on which we draw any amount under your Direct Debit Request, to enable us to obtain payment in accordance with your Direct Debit Request. 13. We request you to direct all requests to stop or cancel your Direct Debit Request and all enquiries relating to any dispute under Clause 4 of this agreement to us initially.

EdU Dec 2013 IEU(SA)

2014 Member Update Form

IEU(SA) Fee Schedule - 1 February 2014

All members are expected to update on a yearly basis and when details change.

Please tick appropriate category

Gross annual salary for 2014 (before tax & salary sacrifice)