Email

Rudd to education unions: get with the times

By Online parliamentary correspondent Emma Rodgers

Posted August 28, 2008 12:32:00
Updated August 28, 2008 12:44:00

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has urged unions to support his education reforms or risk being left in the past.

Mr Rudd made the comments at a Canberra school, while announcing $40 million for literacy programs in schools.

Mr Rudd says the Government is committed to lifting the quality of education but will not be handing over "a blank cheque".

And he told the unions to get on board or risk being left in the past.

"It's time to arrive in the 21st century," he said.

"Let's get past the name calling, let's get past all this pointless debate about blaming someone here or blaming someone there, and let's get on with the business."

The proposed reforms include publishing details of schools' performances and sacking principals who fail to deliver.

However, when asked to respond to teachers' concerns about the plans, Mr Rudd said his message to teachers was a positive one.

"Our teachers are our greatest resource Australia has and what I would say is that we are committed to investing more in quality teaching across Australia," he said.

"We want a quality revolution in Australian schools, but we're going to be there for the quantity as well, which is the additional funds [that will] be invested.

"We believe absolutely, from the pit of our stomachs, that this is the right thing to do and we intend to prosecute this."

Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson says laws already exist that require schools to publish data.

"These laws were passed in 2004, and 2008 is the last year that the states actually have the opportunity to comply with the laws," he said.

"It is law today that as a condition of school funding states have got to provide plain language report cards to parents and also publish the performance of those schools.

"The real challenge for Mr Rudd is that, given 2008 is the last year that the states have to comply, will he now withhold funding from those state government and non-government schools that do not comply?"

The Government has been under fire from the Opposition for recycling its previous policy, but the Government maintains it wants the data so it can target which schools need more attention.

Victorian Premier John Brumby says he does not support ranking schools.

"The one area that we will want to discuss in more depth with the Commonwealth is the issue of the so-called performance tables or league tables," he said.

"This is something we've not supported in the past - not because we don't want parents to have more information - but because measuring these things is exceedingly difficult."

Earlier today Education Minister Julia Gillard said only similar schools will be compared as a way of identifying why some are performing better than others.

Tags: education, schools, primary-schools, public-schools, secondary-schools, federal-government, australia

Comments (35)

Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.

• wmc:

  28 Aug 2008 12:53:37pm

  Kev says the unions risk being left in the past. Here's the news Kev, the unions are in the past, as is the principal beneficiary of their funding (your party). The good news is that union membership continues to decline, which is in the national interest.
  
  

  Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • Rod:

    28 Aug 2008 12:55:30pm

    o yes.. lets hear it for the rise of conservative cowardice and the strangling of the decent Australian. (if there are any left).
    No wonder this country is an utter disgrace

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • anne:

    28 Aug 2008 12:59:29pm

    Its is never in the countries best interest to lose one of the checks and balances that make up the fabric of any society.
    People have a right to form blocks of like interests and unions are one of those forums.
    Perhaps considering the teaching unions are made up of professional educators it behooves us to listen to them as we listen to any other expert group.
    Look to the reforms which have been on going in England which now suffiecient data to show they aren't working and also have sufficient data to show how patheticly parents chasse to get their kids into the top schools.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • MO:

      28 Aug 2008 1:19:49pm

      Anne - the right to unionise still exists. What is missing is the relevance and value of doing so.
      
      I agree re the checks and balances, but Australians are voting with thier feet. I am sure that unionism will increase again if the fee money is demonstrably providing value.
      
      The union movement has seen the ground shift under their feet and do not know where to jump to retain relevance.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • david:

      28 Aug 2008 1:50:50pm

      The issue though is that if I join a union, I am explicitly linked to the labor party, even though I don't support them.
      
      If unions want to really represent their members, they need to break the current arrangement and take a more moderate position so they can lobby BOTH parties for the best for their unions.
      
      While they are tied to Labor, the union is no longer in my best interests, wnen it puts Labors best interests ahead of mine

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Willster:

      28 Aug 2008 1:53:22pm

      "People have a right to form blocks of like interests and unions are one of those forums."
      
      Yep, and that right was reinforced by the freedom of association laws introduced by the Howard government!!!!
      
      However militant unions (e.g. CFMEU) refuse to accept an individuals right to NOT belong to a union. Unions have their place, there is no doubt, but when they become corrupt and start acting outside of the law and bring damage to the country's economy then they need to be brought to heel, hence the power given to the Australian Building and Construction Commission to deal with an industry rife with corruption and bully boy standover tactics, and hence the reform of the waterfront which was in itself a factor in the economic good times this country enjoyed under Howard and Costello.
      
      If you've never had to deal with a militant union rep on a construction site where nobody wants him then you have no idea.
      
      And what do we have in the 9 months of Rudd? Unemployment up, inflation up, fuel up, groceries up, interest rates up, consumer confidence down, business confidence down, and a committment from Gillard to abolish the ABCC in 2010 to pander to an increasingly irrelevant and corrupt union movement.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • chalkie:

    28 Aug 2008 1:15:06pm

    Union membership in education is about 90%. No drop here, and in my workplace has gone from 50 to 95% in the last 5 years as more micromanagement has radicalised the workforce.
    
    Unions in education act as an institutional representative for the most part. Teachers almost never strike or use any other form of industrial action but share such systemic similarities that unions do represent their voice.
    
    Your criticism is factually wrong and its simplification reveals a more telling ignorance or just wilful self-interest.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • MO:

      28 Aug 2008 1:23:18pm

      Yes Chalkie, but don't you see that the solution that many appearing to agree with to reform education and let it progress is being hindered by the union.
      
      Education is one of the last bastions of unionism, which is why the opposition is so bitter.
      
      I agree with equal work for equal pay. The education union does not, as it assumes that all the abilities to perform the work are equal - which patently they are not.
      
      Equal work for equal pay is not the same as having the same job title or for seniority (1 year of experience 20 times?)

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • dalek:

        28 Aug 2008 1:45:20pm

        This post, along with many other comments are a clear mis-representation of the position adopted by the teachers union. In fact, it seems as if we are now getting to the point where union bashing has become the norm here, largely on the basis of mis-information.
        
        One of the key issues here is that it is very difficult to make a fair comparison between schools on the basis of their performance due to large range of variables that have an influence on this and need to be moderated for in the process.
        
        The question is - tell us about a performance management system (whether it is for schools or teachers) that is fair and actually works. The responses almost invariably are simplistic and can easily be shown to heavily flawed for a wide variety of reasons. When these flaws are pointed out, unions are characterised as just being anti-performance management.
        
        In reality, unions are anti-flawed-performance management and make the point about it being very difficult to construct a system that isn't flawed.
        
        So here is a challenge, both for the pollies that are proposing these things, and for the commentators that are supporting such proposals - come up with a satisfactory system of performance management that is equitable, doesn't rely too heavily on the unaccountable judgement of a few individuals and is not too burdensome to administer.
        
        When you have done this, then people might start talking more resonably about the options here.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • MO:

        28 Aug 2008 1:54:43pm

        dalek, then I assume the union will get behind the changes and engage in the process of coming up with a staff and school rating system that does work to their satisfaction.
        
        When I see that, then I will believe they care.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Dave:

        28 Aug 2008 1:50:25pm

        Unions do not assume that all abilities to perform the work are equal. Unions assume that their members, teachers in this instance, are entitled to a minimum set of standards encompassing pay, leave, hours etc. I'm sure the unions would be very happy to see some of their members move to conditions above and beyond these standards so long as no one drops below, and the reasons for moving above are fair and right and equally applied.
        
        Now, the comparison between schools is very hard and intuitively it seems that schools that are underperforming should receive more funding as they are the ones who need to improve. The problem is the competitive nature of the education system and the perception that this extra funding is a reward of some sort. It is not a reward and neither is not increasing a schools funding a punishment. It is simply an allocation of funds to those areas that need it most and where it will have the most impact. Obviously, schools that receive extra funds should show improvement across a range of measures. These measures and the processes for helping schools achieve them should be determined by the government in consultation with the teachers unions, parents and school principals.
        

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • MO:

        28 Aug 2008 2:04:07pm

        Dave, what if the individual wants to chase better conditions and is prepared some of the conditions that have lesser value for that individual?
        
        Secondly, you seem to agree that a rating system is a valid way to create progress. All are agreed that developing the system will be difficult.
        
        If the union wants to be relevant, engage in the process to ensure the rating system outputs contain the points you want, But stop throwing the baby out with the bath water.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Guy:

  28 Aug 2008 12:59:26pm

  "Let's get past the name calling, let's get past all this pointless debate about blaming someone here or blaming someone there, and let's get on with the business."
  
  Yes Kev lets do that, but then again you might actually have to do something tangible, sometime, somewhere.
  
  The 'quality revolution in Australian schools' you talk about (and I assume this is your 'education revolution'), could be initiated by delivering those much promised computers.
  
  Was this or was this not the 'first pillar' of the revolution.
  
  Stop talking and start delivering on the policies you outlined!

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• chalkie:

  28 Aug 2008 1:04:16pm

  "Earlier today Education Minister Julia Gillard said only similar schools will be compared as a way of identifying why some are performing better than others."
  
  Class politics could make this dud idea a winner with the states. There has long been rumours that state testing might be moderated according to student SES (socio-economic status). WIth Ed QLD having equity (and not quality) as its stated goal, there was the fear that some bogus and political rating system would make terrible state schools 'pass' while objectively more successful private schools would have a higher bar to make their relative performance less obvious.
  
  While I support making state education truly competitive with (generally better funded) private education, this is a cut price and flawed trickery. Spend the money, nail your standard to the mast but spare us the shams.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• James A:

  28 Aug 2008 1:16:01pm

  We need to fully privatize education immediately. The federal government should take control of education from the states, sell all the schools to private firms.
  
  Then they should create a voucher system whereby each student gets a set amount to pay for their education.
  
  The option of HECS style funding for primary and secondary education for the difference should be available to poorer families. That way kids can pay for their education when they grow up.
  
  Let the market decide what schools go and what schools stay.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Steve:

    28 Aug 2008 1:32:28pm

    The idea that the invisible hand of the market always creates the best outcomes was discredited pretty thoroughly about seventy years ago, mate.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • James A:

      28 Aug 2008 1:44:32pm

      I beg to differ, the market only fails without adequate supervision.
      
      The problem right now is that people in the upper echelons of public education services are not being held accountable for failure. Instead they pass the buck by blaming problem parents, problem students and graduate teachers who aren't of 'high enough quality'.
      
      Rather they come up with populist solutions that are stupid. Things like this Krudd scheme, or in Victoria whereby putting new teachers on casual 'contracts' so they don't have to pay them while school is out on holidays.
      
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• It:

  28 Aug 2008 1:17:05pm

  "And he told the unions to get on board or risk being left in the past.
  "It's time to arrive in the 21st century," he said.
  "Let's get past the name calling, let's get past all this pointless debate about blaming someone here or blaming someone there, and let's get on with the business.""
  
  So, he says, "end the name calling", when, in the same speech, he calls the unions names? He has effectively said that the unions are living in the past.
  
  What are the primary qualifications for being an Australian prime monster?
  
  Hypocrisy and insincerity.
  
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• MO:

  28 Aug 2008 1:17:21pm

  I have to say I agree with Kevin on this one. I think though he has realised it is much harder in government than in opposition.
  
  Thin ice for Kevin on this issue.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• OFistFullOfDollars:

  28 Aug 2008 1:18:36pm

  Its time to privatise more of the government schools.
  
  The cost of running any particular school is known. Parents can be given payments upfront covering the full tuition fees, before the school year to send their children to the former government school that their child or children would have attended.
  
  The upfront payment can include a bit for reasonable profit for the school owners. If the school is poor in standards the parents can make their feelings known and sue for breach of contract!

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • pmoes:

    28 Aug 2008 1:51:28pm

    There is already too much public money giving profits to private companies who do everything they can anyway to avoid paying their share of tax.
    Education is a public interest and essential service.
    It should be paid for by the public with any"profits" put back into the system to improve it.
    Accountability is necessary. Just get the mechanism for that right.
    Paying teachers according to student outcomes is not an acceptable way to achieve that.
    Independent inspectors are the only way to achieve true accountability for teacher appraisals.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Emma:

  28 Aug 2008 1:20:44pm

  So now we have 'Schools Watch'. Or is it 'Dob in a Teacher' watch?
  
  These days I am failing to see any difference between Rudd and Howard. The 'your rights at work' campaign was a significant election platfom for Rudd, but it seems he has forgotten all that.
  
  Rudd has abandoned and is now trampling all over public education - which has been left demoralised after 11 years of coalition government. I find this kind of bullying of stakeholders over policy very reminiscent of Howard. I can't see any evidence for the merits of this punitive policy and the unions have a right - indeed it is their purpose - to stand up for the teachers and educational experts who disagree. These are the people that work at the coal-face, not the bureaucrats who will have to implement this - at enormous expense no doubt.
  
  How many people have hidden their Kevin 07 t-shirts at the back of their wardrobe in disgust I wonder?
  
  Luckily for me, I didn't trust them and voted Green.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • MO:

    28 Aug 2008 1:40:11pm

    Emma, have you considered that actually making the changes as mooted by the previous and now this government may actually be right.
    
    Many who have never been in anything but education do not understand the management by objectives process, but it does work.
    
    I suggest that if the teachers got out of their own way then the improvements they seek might just flow.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• muzz:

  28 Aug 2008 1:22:53pm

  There are too many "motherhood statements" in this proposal. Of course we all agree with open, clear and fair reporting however the current proposals are neither clear or fair.
  
  The "revolution" proposed appears to be a really small set of changes. These changes might sadly give more power to the powerful ( higher socio economic status areas) and reduce the effectiveness of those already struggling to cope.
  
  Lets all get behind a really effective plan that empowers those most in need.
  
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • James A:

    28 Aug 2008 1:29:33pm

    This scheme is just open for weasels because it removes the incentive to mark kids based on how well they are actually doing.
    
    So to not lose their jobs every kid will do extremely well under most teachers from now on I expect.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Gray:

      28 Aug 2008 1:42:03pm

      Here is the reallu nasty of all this. Underperforming teacher/school. On what level? Results, health, stress, behaviour? Or could it be on pushing the government line. The enourmous "Do it our way or don't do it at all" The end of free thinking! The end of free speech. Time allows these things to happen. A minor change here and a minor change there and suddenly it's doing something else. Example. The No welfare for truants. Started out as a quarantining of welfrare payments to ensure adequate spending on the children. The legislation introduced yesterday actually takes the money away which means absolutely no money for that child(ren). Slick. Oh by the way - this includes withholding Tax Benefit A and B for working families - this is not just for those on social welfare.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• hekler:

  28 Aug 2008 1:25:40pm

  "Our teachers are our greatest resource Australia has and what I would say is that we are committed to investing more in quality teaching across Australia," he said.
  If they are the greatest and he also says they are underperforming in fact sackable - we really are truely screwed as a nation.
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Paul:

  28 Aug 2008 1:32:48pm

  The policy approach to review academic performance of students to the scholarly dedication of teachers and principals lacks the fundermental approach to the basics of education.
  
  Students in our schools are educated to a level and height by contribution of the school, the enthusiasm and natural intellect of the student and the support of parents. The latter is fundermental.
  
  There are serious misgivings in our society on the perormance of parents in our society. This is reflected in the perormance of students. There is no facility lacking in our schools.
  
  Ms Gillard has to visit the subject of parental guidance and support. There lies the problem. The home is where education achievements commence.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Steve:

  28 Aug 2008 1:35:41pm

  Our teachers are the greatest resource we have. Excellent. Pay them accordingly, Kev.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • MO:

    28 Aug 2008 1:46:31pm

    This IS the point Steve. He only wants to pay the GOOD ones accordingly.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Spank:

  28 Aug 2008 1:43:41pm

  This is going to be so much fun to watch! A labor party trying to be liberal. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
  
  Didn't Kev jump all over Joe Hockey for saying something similar in the election lead up?

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• geoff:

  28 Aug 2008 2:00:21pm

  how's this for a way to monitor school performance, and at the same time eliminate the league table problem.
  in may this year kids in year's 3, 5, 7, and 9 were all nationally tested.
  so, whatever any school got this year, that score, for that school, is ten. doesn't matter if it is a school in Shadytreebighouseville or Leakyroofbythe swampberg, they both get ten.
  that is the base line from which to work. so next year, if the score at Weliveinaditch primary is 11.6, then that school has improved. whereas over at Mymobileisdiamondstudded primary their score is 8.3, that means they have gone backwards.
  doing it this way, aggregate scores can never be used to compare schools, but rates of improvement can.
  there would have to be some allowance for the odd but true fact that in different years what is called the cohort do vary in ability.
  so if Ihaveachauffeurtoridemybikeforme High gets ten this year and 9.7next year, that may just mean that cohort is academically a bit weaker, which does happen, rather than be the result of any lowering of educational quality in that school.
  to put it in table form:
  
  school aggregate 2008 "score" aggregate 2009 "score
  
  A 2000 10 2100 10.5
  B 1500 10 1600 10.6
  
  and so on. From those two it can be seen that while school b is still performing at a lower level than a, it is improving at a slightly better rate, ie the school is doing its job.
  that is assuming that this whole scheme really is about improving school performance.
  i am offering this as a serious proposal, and if it is adopted i would like to be executive director in charge of renaming schools.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• GT:

  28 Aug 2008 2:08:08pm

  I would be pleased to support these proposals if the Government could demonstrate they would lead to improved student outcomes, particularly for below average students. League tables have been used in USA for many years and compared to other OECD countries their education outcomes are pathetic and have not improved in recent times. What is achieved by league tables is 'test flight' (parents chasing the school with the best test results) and that helps no-one. The school on the hill wins and the school in struggle town loses. If the aim is to improve outcomes for low performing students the last thing we need is public comparison of school test results. If the aim is to provide a stratified school system to protect middle class kids from the riffraff it will work fine.

  Agree (1) Alert moderator

• spewbag:

  28 Aug 2008 2:17:53pm

  finally...some sanity returns to Oz politics....unions especially teachers' and builders' unions really need to get off their self inflated egos and serve their membership with more integrity, honesty and principles - cowardly bums like Kevin Reynolds (CFMEU) should never have been allowed to crawl out of their caves.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Max Prince:

  28 Aug 2008 2:19:57pm

  Why would you sack,destroy,demote the Principal of Wyoming P.S. whose students are very disadvantaged socio-economically when his students are being taught remarkable well and at the same time laud,acclaim, promote the Principal of Foert Street H.S. whose kids are tutored 27/7 by their Chinese parents? Are you mad or what? Kevin 07, I voted for you in 07 but mate, never again if this stupid, thoughtless, ex-Liberal Party measure gets passed. I mean NEVER mate.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator