SSTUWA at WA Industrial Relations Commission

[General Public]

The SSTUWA was at the WAIRC last week on two issues.

1st September - Membership

4th September - Independent Public Schools

Google WAIRC to see Hearings list and scroll down to Last Weeks Hearings to view details.

[General Public]

Apologies I forgot the apostrophe! Should read WAIRC Last Week's Hearing List.

Also take a look at the video on the SSTUWA site where a former Victorian School Principal gives his views on Independent Public Schools.

[govt school teacher]

...one ex Principal's comments, as coached and prompted to support the clearly opposed position of the interviewer. Note also, how the minister's differing argument has been cut off, so you don't get a chance to hear it. Funny how the union has dragged up a principal; principals have always been the "enemy" to the SSTUWA (remembering that the SSTUWA exec is nothing but an instrument of Labor Party Central Council (not even Labor grass roots membership)), however no contribution is offered from any principal from any of the schools which have manifestly benefited from their empowerment and release from the shackles and suffocationg restrictions of Ed Depts through competent self management. A fair and balanced presentation of the arguments of both sides by our 'maaaates' at the SSTUWA ? HARDLY!!!!!

SSTUWA decry "no consultation", "no scrutiny of the details", "no in depth analysis of experience of this model when tried elsewhere"  , "hurried implementation"  -      reminds me of the exact criticism of the SSTUWA when it, without consultation even of its own members,  consistently approved and publicly supported OBE, the Curriculum Framework, Levels, new Courses of Study including the ramming through of the atrocious English courses AGAINST the expressed wishes of its own members and  it's lickspittle approval the first drafts of the pathetic EBA....etc. What hypocrisy!

THe SSTUWA for the last 12 years, have been the single biggest obstacle to Education and the conditions for teachers in this state and remain so to this day. Their bleating against the devolution of school management and curriculum from centralized  bureaucratic control to localized self management is nothing but the position of the hidden Labor back-room controllers.

Fight for your school, for your kids and your profession and tell the SSTUWA exec where to shove their two faces!

[realist]

Absolutely correct, Govt School Teacher!

You wonder how long some people are going to be led back up their own rear passage by the political pawns at the union! Well, to be accurate, I stopped wondering a long time ago!

[General Public]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the SSTUWA. The current Liberal Government has forged ahead with the proposed Independent Public Schools scenario without properly consulting teachers and parents.

Not a good look.

[parent and teacher]

Every effort was made to consult the whole school community at  our government school.

Admittedly, there was not a great amount of detail in the information on IPS circulated by the school and on DET's web site - to which we were referred by the school, but whatever information had been provided by the minister's office was widely and freely distributed. Questions were invited from staff, students and parents by the principal and answered all fully and as a matter of priority.

The results? About half of the teachers at the school (in a teaching staff of over 100 in number) did not express a view, or choose to give even a yes/no answer to the question of whether they supported the school submitting an expression of interest in participating in the IPS trial for next year. [The survey responses were confidential).  

For the teaching staff, I understand that of the half that did respond,  half supported it and half opposed it. Of those who voted, only some availed themselves of the opportunity to give their reasons, argument and/or comments.

Maybe they're sitting back, waiting for the Union to "knock this on the head" (No chance!) or most likely, they couldn't give a toss one way or the other. A very large majority of the significant number of parents who responded to the survey supported the proposal.

Not a good look for those who claim there's not enough consultation.

[Michael Findlay]

I wonder if the apathetic amongst our own ranks realise that they are as much a part of the problems we face with devolution as are the upwardly mobile cv writing yes men and yes women.

[yo, bro]

102 schools across WA opted to be part of the IPS trial, commencing  at the beginning of next year.

To do that they must provide evidence that they have consulted and have the broad support of the school community, parents, staff and school councils.

That must mean that they're all "upwardly mobile cv writing yes men and yes women", eh Michael?

[Michael Findlay]

Having difficulty with the real world yobro?

If even 50% of those principals went ahead with the  the confidential (ie no name on the surveys) and majority support of their staff, then I'll apologise for my cynicism and bow down to your superior judgement. Just because they were supposed to consult and receive broad support doesn't mean that they did, broyo.

[c'est moi]

There was an old man named Michael Finnegan  
He had whiskers on his chinnegan  
They fell out and then grew in again
Poor old Michael Finnegan!

(psst...The World Trade Centre clambake was just a fictional TV co-production between Pixar and Murdoch News Ltd!)

Are you kidding?

Local, state and federal votes are 'confidential'; votes are counted as valid only after checking off against names on the electoral roll. As for my school, they were checked off against registered email addresses (staff and parents/carers) and where more than one vote or comment  appeared to come from any one family, against ISP addresses. School Council and P&C votes were done at meetings or checked off against membership lists. There was a high level of scrutiny and the results were valid. But from your comments it would appear that at your school no-one even bothered to put up the ISP proposal for a vote, (maybe you already have one of those "dud" principals that you worry devolution will foster) or maybe you didn't notice that the consultation was taking place, which would  put you in your "apathetic" category.

News for you, my friend - inequity already exists in the current system!

Devolution allows those who want to, to climb out of the  merde that you'd like everyone to swim in all together as 'equals'. It's possibly a threat to you. You don't happen to work in a soon-to-be-irrelevant District Office do you? Maybe it's time to brush up your own CV and look to the next mineral boom for salvation.

[Michael Findlay]

Are you on drugs?

I'm intrigued - you go to so much trouble to be clever and witty yet you are modest enough not to seek the personal glory that your posts deserve.

I guess anonymity allows you to type what ever you like, a god king in your own lunch box.

[Michael Findlay]

Rather than just respond negatively to your silly post, I will try to make my earlier post clearer - I hope I'm not just banging my head against a brick wall.

While our principal did not include a place for a name on the survey we were given, I can only hope this 'standard?' forum was used in other schools. I find it hard to believe you would know that this process was conducted professionally, C'est toi.

I don't understand why you have included a reference to the 9/11 in your post, C'estie, I wasn't suggesting a conspiracy, just a limited interpretation of the phrase 'broad support'. In the Director General's intro to 'Unlock Your School's Future' it states clearly "Whether a single school or a cluster of schools expresses an interest, there is an expectation that, before doing so,principals have consulted with and gained the broad support of their staff and community."  

As for "Poor old Michael Finnegan", if he is anything like me, he works in a government school in the South West and simply believes that this cost cutting policy will have a negative impact on most schools and most students.

If you, as you represent yourself on this forum, are an example of the teachers who support this policy, then we in trouble. I look forward to your next withering put down.

[peter george]

The naivety that many people in our education system possess is beyond belief. It is a major reason we as a union cannot be as strong as we would wish.

The IPL joke is just that. I would firstly like its proponents to give one single positive to its implementation. One single positive to the advancement of education in this state.
Take two schools -Rossmoyne and Willetton . IPL has been presented as a fait accompli without the support of the staff. This is indicative of the railroading which will have to occur if this brilliant proposal - not - is to see the light of day.

Railroading will have to occur because teachers know there is no educational benefit to be had. They therefore will not support the ridiculous half baked reasons for this proposal. The only benefit is to save money for the Libs.Look at the UK;USA;Victoria.

Anyone that seeks this IPL crap is either brown nosing to Sharon etal or climbing the principalship ladder. This is a very dangerous course for teachers to go down and should be rejected as a matter of urgency.

Now instead of attacking a great unionist like Michael Findlay give me ten reasons why IPL should see the light of day.

Keep your coins .I want change

[Michael Findlay]

peter george (via Nabble) - No Reply wrote:

> The naivety that many people in our education system possess is beyond
> belief. It is a major reason we as a union cannot be as strong as we
> would wish.
>
> The IPL joke is just that. I would firstly like its proponents to give
> one single positive to its implementation. One single positive to the
> advancement of education in this state.
> Take two schools -Rossmoyne and Willetton . IPL has been presented as
> a fait accompli without the support of the staff. This is indicative
> of the railroading which will have to occur if this brilliant proposal
> - not - is to see the light of day.
>
> Railroading will have to occur because teachers know there is no
> educational benefit to be had. They therefore will not support the
> ridiculous half baked reasons for this proposal. The only benefit is
> to save money for the Libs.Look at the UK;USA;Victoria.
>
> Anyone that seeks this IPL crap is either brown nosing to Sharon etal
> or climbing the principalship ladder. This is a very dangerous course
> for teachers to go down and should be rejected as a matter of urgency.
>
> Now instead of attacking a great unionist like Michael Findlay give me
> ten reasons why IPL should see the light of day.
>
> Keep your coins .I want change
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> View message @
> http://n2.nabble.com/SSTUWA-at-WA-Industrial-Relations-Commission-tp3594740p3635861.html 
>
> To unsubscribe from Re: SSTUWA at WA Industrial Relations Commission,
> click here
> <<Link Removed>>.
>
>

Thanks for that Peter. I sent you a brief message along with a
friendship request on the union site.

[Mr. Bean]

What's this?
Having made a public idiot of himself, poor old Michael F contacts Peter George at his old boys club asking for 'get well' card, then sends it back to himself and posts a copy of it on this site.
Loneliness is a terrible thing.

[Primary Teacher2]

I have had first hand experience of Independent Public schools in New Zealand where it has been the norm for all schools for about 10 years.
I can tell you .. there are NO positives!
Here are SOME of the negatives ...

1. Despite the promises, schools are never given enough money to operate independently.
2. Jobs for the boys, cronyism abounds
3. More bullying than ever by principals
4. Weakened unionism because teachers are employed by each school ... suddenly you have hundreds of employers, not one. Its harder for unions to act in cases where teachers are wrongly treated by their employer (the principal and/or the school council or board) and need union assistance.
5. A changed dynamic in the workplace where staff are less willing to speak out because they are employed by the school.

The Independent schools plan should be resisted by every means possible.  Don't believe me?  Wait and see .. or move to NZ!

[Michael Findlay]

To whom am I directing this reply, Mr Bean? or the United States of 'Government School Teacher'?????

Sorry about my private post being published here. I simply replied to Peter who somehow sent me a message to my private email address via Nabble. I had no idea my reply would end up here as well - A disadvantage of being logged on here with a legitimate contact email.  You wouldn't understand the 'friend' bit as I'm assuming from your other posts on this forum that you don't sacrifice any of your income for the common good of the majority of government teachers in this state. The SSTUWA is far from an 'old boy's club' if it was you would probably join, as long as they waived the fee.

I have come to the conclusion that not only are you a rude, ignorant, schizophrenic, know-all, Mr Bean etc, but you are the Mr Jones type from Bob Dylan's 'Just Like Tom Thumbs Blues'.