John Langley: Breaking the bruising cycle of disputes over teachers’ pay

Striking teachers gather on Great North Rd in Western Springs. Photo / Michael Craig, File

OPINION

The current teacher pay negotiations have been carried out in the same way for decades and have produced nothing but frustration.

The best outcome ever achieved is nothing more than some kind of agreement on the latest set of compromises that sets the scene for the next exchange within a couple of years. No one is satisfied and nor should they be.

Here is what happens. When the contract discussion comes due the Ministry of Education makes an offer to the teacher unions that no one in those unions or profession in their right mind would accept. The teacher unions then huff and puff and cry foul as they rightly should.

Then, there may be another offer that does nothing more than shuffle the original offer around a bit.

Do they really think PPTA and NZEI are that stupid? Probably not. It is a sad and costly game.

Following this step, the unions strike. Once again a great deal of huffing and puffing. The Ministry makes a counteroffer, usually rejected. More talking. Then another offer. More huffing and puffing from both sides. Then, perhaps, arbitration.

Illustration / Rod Emmerson

Finally, somewhere down the track, the ministry and the unions will compromise and settle. This normally takes six months to a year.

This debacle happens every two or three years.

In the meantime, tens of thousands of students have been robbed of time in the classroom. Their whānau tear their hair out in frustration as they rightly think that the two groups who suffer most are them and their children. The parents are worried about their children’s ability to complete assessments.

So, not only is the relationship between the ministry and teachers eroded, but more importantly, so too is the relationship between the teachers and those they serve - the children, young people and their whānau.

Over some four decades, I have watched this happen as a participant from both sides of the process and the best that can be said is that it costs umpteen months of valuable time, huge amounts of emotional energy, and hundreds of millions of dollars, far more than any pay rise would have cost.

Not to mention that the whole model creates an atmosphere of distrust that permeates the relationships between key parts of the sector in all aspects of its operation and effectiveness.

Ask any teacher, for example, whether or not they trust the Ministry of Education. Odds on that they will not.

This is sad, given so many in the sector talk about “high trust” models. If anyone can find one of these please let me know.

So, how could this be done more intelligently? Here’s a thought, and one that is used across the employment sector and has been for many years.

John Langley.

Instead of lurching from compromise to compromise, why do we not draw a line under this and begin again by getting the various teacher roles properly sized, fairly remunerated in line with other occupations and professions across the country and what is actually needed to enhance and support teachers rather than providing a minimal amount in the current model?

Such things as resources, professional development, assistance with students who have special learning needs and release time come to mind.

There are a number of factors usually taken into account when accurately sizing a role. They include such things as the level of education required, professional requirements, experience, the complexity of the role, scope of the role, impact of decisions, interpersonal skills, and people management requirements to name some commonly used.

These factors are usually rated on a valid and reliable scale and scored. Then the role is compared with other similar roles across relevant sectors with suitable remuneration packages recommended.

This has never been done with teachers.

They are required to bruise it out every three or so years when the contract renewals come due.

Following such an agreement, those packages can be strengthened by the rate of inflation and simply involve having the role re-evaluated every three years.

There is an obvious glitch in this proposal.

The Ministry of Education would be terrified of recommendations that teachers ought to be paid what they are really worth. The teachers might equally be terrified that those recommendations would not do that.

Sometimes courage is required to break a cycle.

Our children, young people, and their whānau deserve nothing less.

- Dr John Langley is previously a school principal, CEO of Auckland College of Education and Dean of Education at the University of Auckland.