Feature
Back to school
by Mary Jane Boland
Should a union be given Education Ministry money to run training days for teachers?
Principals describe it as bizarre, costly and a waste of time and effort. But the union, the Post Primary Teachers’ Association, describes it as “great news”.
Late last month, school principals were surprised to receive a letter from PPTA advisory officer Judie Alison, telling them the Ministry of Education is financially supporting “curriculum jumbo days” next year. These union-run training days for secondary school teachers will cover aspects of the new national curriculum. Prime Minister Helen Clark announced at the PPTA’s annual conference that in 2009 all teachers would receive two extra professional development days to learn about the curriculum, which is being implemented for those up to Year 11 in 2010.
And at the end of last month’s PPTA letter?
“We do need to let you know that because PPTA is putting a considerable amount of its members’ funds into this project, attendance at the seminars will be free for [union] members but there will be a charge of $250 per person for non-members … We have discussed this with the Ministry of Education, and officials are perfectly happy with this arrangement, given the financing of the project.”
That fee and the fact that the union is doing the training with the ministry’s blessing and funding have angered principals and some teachers. Secondary Principals’ Association president Peter Gall says he has received dozens of calls from concerned principals.
David Hodge, principal of New Zealand’s largest school, Rangitoto College, describes the union’s involvement as “bizarre”. Hodge says his school, like most others, has already consulted staff and worked out training requirements. He is concerned that the ministry “is abdicating its own leadership responsibility and handing it off to someone else”, and he notes that principals weren’t consulted about whether such training by the union was necessary.
Asked if it was appropriate for the ministry to pay the union to do the training, Hodge says: “Absolutely not. There just has to be in the aims of the union a degree of conflict of interest. For example, what if the best way of implementing an aspect of the new curriculum was something that was work-intensive? In other words, it requires teachers to do a significant amount of extra work. There is no way that a responsible union would advocate for that, but we all know that change does mean extra work. On a very fundamental level there are going to be conflicts of interest.”
Gall says one principal told him that sending staff – many of whom weren’t union members – on the course would cost the school about $50,000.
He says he understood many principals, professional development groups and teachers responsible for curriculum development had complained to the union. Gall shares Hodge’s concerns about the ministry funding the union to do the training, and says that schools will be at different stages of their curriculum training. This may make the PPTA training days redundant.
PPTA president Robin Duff says the training decision came after intensive lobbying by the union, and he is “staggered” that some principals say it may not be that useful. Duff says the ministry has changed its stance and would fund the cost of the training. The union has revisited the idea of charging non-union members $250 each a day and this would reduce the cost to about $25, but could even be less.
Asked about Hodge’s concerns over conflicts of interest, Duff says: “Clearly, we have to look after the workload concerns of our members. There’s no question about that.”
But, he said, the union also had a responsibility to ensure that teachers received proper professional development. “My priority for the PPTA is focusing on continued pressure for increased funding and resourcing and time to implement the new curriculum.”
In a statement to the Listener, the ministry’s curriculum, teaching and learning manager Mary Chamberlain said the training was a PPTA-led initiative that was costing the ministry $50,000. “The ministry saw value in being involved with the professional association in further workshops on the curriculum …”
She said the ministry had a range of training and professional development initiatives as part of implementing the new curriculum. It was being supported in that work by the PPTA and the New Zealand Educational Institute, the primary teachers’ union.
