GT=GR: Wolf in sheep’s clothing

While much of the debate has focused on teacher and principal rankings, we should not forget the other elements that lurk within the government’s Great Teacher = Great Results (GT=GR) plans.

Action 1 of the plan focuses on a performance appraisal system –the element of the plan currently under negotiation. The QTU has been clear that it does not oppose a performance review system that supports the development of teachers and principals.

However, it clearly opposes a system that results in teacher and principal ranking.
In the negotiations, the QTU has focused on the current Developing Performance Framework and, when looking at any performance review process for principals, will call for the recognition of the work already being undertaken by members in terms of the Principals’ Capability and Leadership Framework.

The QTU has also called on the department to reach an agreement about the use of data. This agreement, e.g. a joint statement, would clearly outline what constitutes mandatory data and how it is to be used. For any process to be successful, data should be used to inform, not drive which goals are established.

If the QTU and DETE reach an agreement on this issue, DETE will inevitably act to implement other facets of the GT=GR plan, some of which give a true indication of what the government would like to see in any new industrial instrument. These include the plan’s requirement for a review of EST. It should not be forgotten that EST came as a result of EB negotiations, which resulted in school leaders and heads of programs receiving an additional 2.5 per cent salary increase and classroom teachers gaining access to EST following a minimum of 13 years of experience, resulting in a 2.4 per cent increase for a significant proportion of the membership. Any review of EST should be in the context of its purpose – to create another classification for experienced classroom teachers and recognise their contribution to the profession. It was not established as a professional pay position or as a pseudo-classified officer position.

The government is also seeking to push its contracts for school leaders agenda through GT=GR. The government clearly wants to introduce performance-based contracts and prescribe further qualifications for principals. The QTU has rejected the notion of principal contracts and has advised DETE that any changes to the principal performance review process will also need to be negotiated.

Implementation of the plan has also resulted in QTU representatives being removed from selection panels and the revised discipline processes in schools.

The government recently announced the new mentoring program for beginning teachers, Action 2 of GT=GR. The QTU supports the program, provided that mentors and beginning teachers have access to time in which mentoring and constructive feedback can take place.

The Union believes that any attempt to implement any of these changes, resulting in a change to working conditions, salary classifications or employment arrangements, would constitute an additional claim under the current agreement. The government is well aware that this would constitute a trigger for industrial action and that QTU members will not give up their hard-won working conditions without a fight. Consequently, it is the Union’s position that no changes can be implemented without negotiation and agreement with the Union.

Kate Ruttiman
Deputy General Secretary


Queensland Teachers' Journal, Vol 119 No 4, 23 May 2014, p11