Dialogue: Teachers' industrial battles archaic and demeaning

Secondary teachers strike for the day on Friday over a 10-month contract dispute. JOHN LANGLEY asks if there isn't a better way.

Every so often something really foolish happens. And keeps happening. There is no better example than the industrial structure that bedevils education.

It costs countless hours, huge amounts of money, wastes the time of teachers and public and almost never succeeds. It is destructive and embarrassing. It is bringing our profession into disrepute. It is time to recognise it for the debacle it is and move to something smarter.

Here are the players. In the red corner are the teacher unions. Poor sods. Every two years or so they have to claim we are on the verge of Armageddon, that teaching is not attracting applicants who can read and write, that we have chronic shortages, that teachers are grossly underpaid, that most of our best teachers leave after a couple of years and that those principals who say they can fully staff their schools are nothing but a bunch of right-wingers ...

What the goal for these endless negotiations might be in, say, a decade is unclear. Every two years they go in to bat for a range of salary and condition improvements based around one premise: we want more.

In the blue corner is the Ministry of Education. Even poorer sods. Every two years, they have to take the position that all is well in the state of Denmark - that New Zealand has enough teachers, they are paid enough, we are able to attract the best applicants, we have no trouble retaining our best teachers and that all the principals who say they can't find suitable applicants are liars.

In the middle of the ring is the Minister of Education, trying desperately to avoid an uppercut from his officials or an even more punishing left hook from an enraged New Zealand Educational Institute or Post Primary Teachers Association. He is the poorest sod of all. It's no wonder we see pictures of him frantically riding a bike or playing netball with a wild look in his eye. No matter what happens, he can never get it right.

The audience for this overpriced, tedious spectacle are the public, most of whom have children and young people in education, have had them there, or will in future.

Am I the only one who thinks this demeaning and foolish?

The system of contract negotiations seems to be based on the premise that teachers have to go cap in hand to their employer to try to inch their way towards some utopian set of conditions. What those conditions are is not clear. So we see claims for a percentage increase in salary and some extra release time here, the need for more teachers and professional development there, and so it goes.

Many of these are refused and counter-claims advanced. After the initial skirmish both sides square off for the fight, which can last weeks or months. Most often it leads to protracted arguments, more undermining of teaching's reputation and disruption to young people. As a result, teaching is dominated by industrial rather than professional matters.

Part of the problem is the way we approached the reforms of Tomorrow's Schools. If we wanted to reform an education system we should have started with the question, "How do children learn?" We know something about that. Then we should have asked, "How do teachers cause children to learn?" We know something about that.

We could then ask, "What kind of people do we need to be teachers and what kind of training, support and resources do they need to do their job?"

Instead, we did it the wrong way round. We reformed the administration and somehow hoped that by doing so we would improve the learning of children. There is no evidence that we have.

The confrontational industrial system is an inevitable consequence of the reforms that put the agencies of state, boards of trustees and teachers at loggerheads. Instead of supporting this on-going internecine struggle, why don't we approach it from the other end? Why don't we ask ourselves what kind of elements are needed in a package that would attract the right people into teaching and keep them there able to do their jobs with enthusiasm, effectiveness and satisfaction?

In my view there are five elements.

The first has to do with job satisfaction. Most of us who enter teaching do not do so for the money. Usually we want to work with people and perhaps assist in enhancing lives. Sounds very moralistic, but in my experience it is true. So, the job of teaching must offer teachers the opportunities to do what they enter the profession for, namely to enhance the learning of children and young people. To teach.

However, at present the system is bogged down with accountabilities and compliances that have more to do with satisfying external system demands. Why not try to identify what a professional environment for teachers would look like, what teachers need to do to cause learning and what they might need to achieve that in a way that is challenging and satisfying.

A second element would have to do with variety and opportunities for the future. Most teachers do not end up as principals or in other senior positions. They fulfil their careers as classroom teachers. It is an enormous ask to expect someone to undertake such a demanding job, with such high expectations, without a break for up to 35 years. I don't know how any one does it.

What is needed are exchanges and sabbaticals at regular intervals that would allow teachers some variety and a break from the intensity of the classroom. Why not tag a small percentage of a salary increase for the purposes of a sabbatical every five or six years? Why not also allow teachers to swap schools for a year to enable them to remain fresh?

A third element would involve professional development. At present this can be hit and miss and may depend on where you teach rather than any needs or interests you might have as a teacher. Most teachers I know want to improve, to extend their knowledge and skills in key areas. We need to be clearer about how this happens.

Recognition is important in any job. Perhaps a fourth element would involve multiple pathways by which teachers can be recognised. At present promotion usually means moving out of the classroom and into administration. Why not attempt to develop other ways to keep good teachers doing what they do best, and keep them interested while they are doing so?

Finally, a package for teachers must address salary and conditions. This should not be based on the vagaries of supply and retention, but on the worth of the job. It takes between three and five years to gain the academic and professional qualifications to be a teacher. That is followed by two years' provisional registration before full admission into the profession.

Once a fair and reasonable package is determined, I am not suggesting that it could all be attained at once. We are a small country with limited resources. But if we could agree on a goal, we could also agree that every two or three years we could take steps towards achieving it.

Once a person is a teacher, the responsibility is immense. If the job is done well it enhances lives. If not, children and young people suffer, probably for the rest of their lives. Surely it is time to get beyond the "we want more" and "you've got enough" jousting that goes on every two years and determine a salary and allowance structure that reflects the effort required to become a teacher and the significance of the job once you are there.

We are constantly told by politicians and others how important the future is and the large part that teachers need to play in this. As far as I can see, no one is really serious about that. It is time they were. Our futures depend on it.

* Dr John Langley is the principal of the Auckland College of Education.