australian education union issues paper:
Recruitment and Selection
of Teaching Staff
march 2011
1. Preamble
The way in which teachers are recruited
and appointed to schools has an
enormous impact on the quality and
delivery of public education in South
Australia. It is a key factor in promoting
equality of outcomes for all students
irrespective of the schools they attend. It
must support equitable and fair treatment
of teaching staff across the whole public
education system and take account of
their career choices and opportunities.
It must serve the needs of diverse school
communities and their students, as well
as protecting the rights and interests of all
educators working in schools.
How we can best achieve these objectives
has been the subject of discussion over
many years. Those discussions continue to
inform our policy decisions.
Currently, the AEU and DECS are reviewing
the recruitment and selection of teaching
staff as recommended by the Industrial
Relations Commission of South Australia
(IRCSA). In its Decision 2, the IRCSA noted
that “continued inappropriate engagement
of contract teachers is an unfair outcome
for those employees particularly when
contrasted with the breadth and size of
DECS, its funding stability, and the Chief
Executive’s power to appoint officers of
the teaching service and the resulting
access to redeployment”.
The AEU and DECS agree on the need to
reduce the number of contract teachers
and teachers in PAT positions. There will
be other areas of disagreement, including
different perspectives on some matters
between AEU members themselves.
The IRCSA requires any changes to the
current scheme to be agreed between the
parties (the AEU and DECS).
The AEU has identified some major issues
that arise within the scope of this review
and requests members to consider the
questions that are identified below.
On February 28, AEU Branch Executive resolved that
“following the release of the Issues Paper, consultation
with members commences and includes strategies such as:
•
•
•
•
discussion with Consultative Committees
discussions at area meetings
discussions during school visits by AEU organisers
ongoing discussion by Branch Executive
•
forums in a range of locations to encourage broad
member input
•
a survey of members encompassing key issues and
suggestions based on member feedback
•
formal presentations of member feedback and other
relevant data to Branch Council with recommendations
based on these.”
Members may choose to respond to whatever issues
they regard as important. Feedback is invited as soon as
possible, but in any case, by the end of Term 1.
Email: [email protected]
Fax: 8373 1254
Any decision to determine an AEU position
will be made by Branch Council.
2
3. Permanency and Contract
2. Ten Year Tenure or
Unlimited Tenure
If 10 year tenure is removed:
• How do we attract and retain teachers in all schools across the public
education system?
• How can the placement rights of cur-
rent PATs, and transfer opportunities
of country teachers and those in hard
to staff schools be maintained?
• How do we ensure that teachers get
the opportunity to work across a
variety of schools in their career?
The IRCSA in its Decision 2 recommended that the AEU and DECS
review current employment processes so that the use of contract
teachers is confined to legitimate operational needs and to provide
an avenue for conversion of a greater number of contract teachers
in recognition that many are really long-term employees who are
seeking permanency. The IRCSA proposed that the review could
determine the criteria and process for converting contract teachers
to permanency.
• Should the AEU adopt this recommendation?
• If yes, how many years of service should an employee serve
before being converted to permanent employment?
• What other criteria could be used to determine whether a
temporary employee is converted to permanency?
• What measures should be put in place to ensure fairness and
equity?
• Will the projected level of resignation
and retirement be sufficient to ensure
movement in the system?
The IRCSA in its Decision 2 recommended that as part of the review
the AEU and DECS consider increasing the loadings for contract
teachers after a certain number of successive yearly contracts.
• What are the educational benefits in
• Should the AEU adopt this recommendation?
teachers working in the same school
for extended periods of time, and
possibly their whole careers?
The IRCSA in its Decision 2 recommended that as part of the review
the AEU and DECS examine whether the maximum duration of a
temporary contract be increased from one year.
If 10 year tenure remains:
• In which schools, if any, should it be
• Should the AEU adopt this recommendation?
• If yes, what length of time would be reasonable? Two years?
Longer?
retained?
• In which circumstances would this be acceptable?
behind teachers who are ending their
ten year tenure are advertised as
permanent positions, not temporary
contracts?
Currently the Principal, in partnership with the PAC, must determine,
based on an agreed definition, whether a position is ongoing or
temporary.
• How do we ensure that vacancies
• How do we ensure that teachers
• Should this process continue?
• Could it be improved?
• Do schools adhere to the policy?
• Is there another way to ensure a
Should the Recruitment and Selection Policy include clear and
enforceable definitions of ongoing (permanent), fixed task
(contract) and casual positions?
• How can the stress of moving schools
Should temporary contract teachers on appointment be provided
with the reason for the position being temporary (e.g. the teacher
is replacing a person on maternity leave)?
at the end of their ten year tenure
are placed and that PATs are found
ongoing positions?
transfer and placement of teachers
whose ten year tenure has ended?
be managed better to protect staff
wellbeing?
• Does the fact that approximately 25%
of teachers “win back” their positions
need to be addressed?
Currently permanent and contract positions must be a minimum of
0.4 FTE.
• What is the minimum fraction of time that a teacher should be
employed?
• Should the 0.4 barrier be reduced to enable these people to be
employed in an ongoing (permanent) manner?
Should permanent teachers have priority placement or should all
positions be filled by open selection?
3
How can the industrial rights of permanent teachers to a placement
in an “A” vacancy (ongoing) be protected?
4. Equity for hard-to-staff
country locations
5. Equity for hard-to-staff
metropolitan schools
The teacher transfer process is an important
industrial right for country teachers. The ability to
transfer to the metropolitan area is seen as critical
in the attraction and retention of staff in regional
and remote areas.
Should teachers who work in hard-to-staff
metropolitan schools be given a priority transfer?
Data shows that 18.5% of teachers remain in
country locations for 10 or more years, 12.6%
remain for between 5 to 10 years and 68.8% are in
a country school for less than 5 years.
• How can an employee’s current industrial
entitlements to placement in the metropolitan
area be protected?
• After how many years’ service should a teacher
be able to access a priority or hard-to-staff
metropolitan transfer?
• Should there be progressive transfer rights with
entitlement increasing with the amount of time
spent and level of complexity in a hard-to-staff
metropolitan location?
• Should a new transfer process incorporate a
points system to differentially recognise service
in different schools?
• Should country teachers be given a
guaranteed transfer to the metropolitan area
or should they have a priority transfer which is
limited by the number and type of vacancies?
• After how many years’ service should a country
teacher be able to access a priority or country
transfer?
• Should there be progressive transfer rights
with entitlement increasing with factors such
as complexity, remoteness or the amount of
time spent in country locations?
• Should a new transfer process incorporate
a points system to differentially recognise
service in different areas?
• Should transfers between country to country
areas be made easier?
If the ability to transfer to the metropolitan area
was reduced or even removed, what additional
incentives would be required to attract and retain
teachers and leaders in country locations?
Should country teachers be able to access
temporary transfers to the metropolitan area for
compassionate and/or medical grounds?
• If yes, what type of criteria should be used to
determine such transfers?
• Should there be a qualifying period before this
is accessed?
4
6. Local selection and
central placement
• Should there be a centralised recruitment
process? Whose responsibility – and
workload – should recruitment be?
• Should we have a centralised transfer and
placement process, a totally devolved
local process or a mix of central and
devolved?
• If central placement is further limited,
what additional protections should be put
around the workload of principals, PAC
members and panellists?
• How will the employer be held
accountable for ensuring that a school
has a full complement of staff at the
beginning of the year or term?
• Should applicants be provided with
7. Teachers’ industrial rights
feedback on their applications?
• Should there be a grievance process for
applicants dissatisfied with the placement
selection process?
• How can the transfer process be made
more transparent so that applicants are
aware of the processes used to place
teachers?
• Should the name of the successful
applicant be known to other candidates
to assist them in determining if they
would lodge an appeal?
• Should there be greater monitoring of the
process by the AEU and DECS to ensure
that processes are fair and equitable?
• What actions should be taken when
processes are breached and/or vacancies
are withheld from the process?
• How can the integrity of a fully local
selection based process be ensured?
How do we guard against nepotism and
patronage?
• Should teachers with matching subject
areas or teaching levels be able to initiate
their own transfers across districts or
country regions?
• If a more devolved system increases costs
to teachers seeking placement or transfer,
who should bear these costs?
5
In addition to questions that arise out of the previous sections:
• Should the 45 km rule that limits the distance that teachers
can be transferred be maintained or altered? Is a system that
limits travel time to work feasible?
• How can the rights of all members (e.g. part-time, carers, and
injured workers) be maintained or enhanced under a transfer
process?
• Under what circumstances should a teacher retain right of
return to the same school? Should there be a time limit
associated with right of return?
• Should there be further limitations on right of return
provisions so that more permanent vacancies are created?
• If the transfer process is further devolved, can the employer
ensure that it has a diverse work force that is representative
of the community? For example, could DECS meet its
Aboriginal employment targets?
• Should there be increased opportunities for permanent parttime work?
• Should there be a required placement/displacement process
to enable teachers to be placed in another school if numbers
of students decrease or curriculum requirements change?
• If there is no required placement/displacement process should
there be a negotiated redundancy agreement?
• If there is no required placement/displacement process should
schools be financially compensated by DECS to maintain
employment of “excess” staff?
Authorised by Jack Major, Branch Secretary, AEU | SA Branch, 163 Greenhill Road Parkside SA 5063