Year Seven on the move

Vice President Lara Golding is concerned.

The Department’s official Code of Ethics states: “Conflicts of interest can involve: hostility as well as friendship within a relationship.” Verified evidence of a pre-existing hostile relationship is cause for a formal complaint to be resolved prior to any underperformance process. Indicators of victimisation include lack of verified evidence and overreach i.e. matters for improvement that go beyond the verified matters of concern.

Natural justice

Members and support persons are advised to familiarise themselves with DfE Performance and Development Fact Sheet Seven – ‘Principals of Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness.’ This is an excellent synopsis of the meaning of its title and highlights two important components: ‘The hearing rule’ and ‘The bias rule.’

The hearing rule insists that a person whose interests may be adversely affected is given the opportunity to be heard. Allegations may be put in writing and the employee can respond orally or in writing.

The bias rule requires the decision maker be disinterested and/or unbiased. The application of the bias rule is most easily established when the accuser is also the decision-maker or participates in the investigation or gives advice. n

IN SUMMARY

• All employees should have access to regular and negotiated performance and development meetings.

• Issues should be identified at these meetings in a timely manner and members given opportunity to indicate the types of support, including professional development and observation, that will assist improvement.

• Where underperformance remains unresolved, supportive efforts should be made by all parties to engage and meet time bound measures addressing verified areas of concern.

• Concerns such as victimisation should be raised by members as soon as possible (ideally before formalisation of any underperformance process) citing the relevant sections of the Code of Ethics.

If it were up to me, I would reduce class size, employ more SSOs and give teachers time to collaborate.

South Australia is now the only state where Year 7 is taught in primary school. This has been a long -running debate, particularly since Queensland and WA moved it into the secondary sector. The new State Government intends to move Year 7 into high school in the next few years, a Liberal policy since 2013.

It is unclear whether this the right move, and among AEU members there are diverse opinions. The AEU has previously sought member views on this issue and we are doing so again. I have received emails from many of you already. While some argue for the change to occur quickly, others warn of dire consequences.

Two years ago, our Curriculum and Professional Development Committee developed a position paper on this issue. Its key messages were:

• Year 7 and 8 teachers should have the same industrial entitlements to non-contact time

• physical spaces for Year 7 should be appropriate for their maturity

• transition programs should be supported.

The paper called on the department to develop and fund an appropriate model to support Year 7 students, their teachers and the educational communities that nurture them, within a middle schooling setting.

What we know is moving Year 7 students will be incredibly expensive. I have not seen any compelling evidence that our students will benefit socially or academically from the change.

From my experience as a Year 8 teacher, some of my students would have been ready for high school in Year 7 while others struggled with a middle school timetable in Year 8. If it were up to me, I would spend the money on reducing class size, employing more SSOs and giving teachers time to collaborate and improve their practice.

As a Science teacher I do however see advantages for students to be able to access specialist equipment. I also understand the difficulties of teaching the Year 7–8 curriculum between two sites. I am prepared to accept that the move will happen and am excited about the possibilities that it may bring (as long as our entitlements are protected and no school closes as a result, of course!)

This is an opportunity to re-imagine middle schooling in South Australia. If you were in charge of the change, what would you want it to look like? If you could build brand new middle school classrooms, what would they look like and how would they function? How would you arrange the curriculum and what pedagogy would you employ? What countries have excellent models and how can we adapt them to our state?

During enterprise bargaining negotiations we have raised concerns arising from the proposed shift, including employment security, class size, noninstruction time and professional development. We will continue to pursue these.

Our union acts not only to improve our working conditions, but also as a strong professional voice. While we will be working hard to ensure that entitlements such as principal classification, ongoing employment and job descriptions are maintained, we will also be making our professional expertise heard on this key development.

We have established a Year 7 at High School Working Group to consult with members on the change. We want to hear your concerns: what industrial protections will we need? What are your professional views on curriculum, timetabling, pedagogy and social justice?