March 2010

Principals' Performance and Teaching and Learning Audits

Issues

Numerous principal members have contacted the QTU with concerns arising from recent meetings with some regional and executive directors.  These concerns were also raised by principals at the QTU State Council on Saturday, 6 March 2010.

Concerns related to:

• Linking of Teaching and Learning Audits to performance processes, including in one region, the Managing Unsatisfactory Performance Process;
• Linking of Teaching and Learning Audit outcomes to a new customary model.  That is, principals of schools with poor audit outcomes would have their autonomy reduced; 
• Linking of NAPLAN results to Managing Unsatisfactory Performance issues.

QTU State Council decisions (6/3/10)

In response the QTU State Council determined:

1. That Council condemn the Department’s approach to the Teaching and Leaning Audit because the Union was always assured that the process would be developmental and not linked to principals’ and teachers’ performance;
2. That the Director-General be requested to ensure that her regional directors deliver consistent and sensible messages to executive directors and principals on issues of importance;
3. That Senior Officers report back to May Council in relation to the Department’s response to the Union’s concerns and that May Council consider its future cooperation with Teaching and Learning Audits, should the outcome of the negotiations not be positive.

Meeting with the Director-General

These issues were raised with the Director-General on the Monday following State Council.

The QTU can report:

• That the Director-General has confirmed that the Teaching and Learning Audit is a school developmental process not linked to any performance process;
• That the “performance agreement” process mentioned in some regional documentation has no status (see below for the facts in relation to performance processes);
• That the new principal “autonomy” model mentioned in some regional documentation has no formal status within DET.

It is important to note that feedback from members in relation to the actual Teaching and Learning Audits has so far been very positive.

Our concern is not with the audits, but rather the attempt by some to inappropriately link them with performance processes and principals’ autonomy.

Managing unsatisfactory performance

The QTU has received reports from principals in at least one region that the Department is telling them that “the QTU has signed off on a new, streamlined and more efficient process of getting rid of principals through MUP”.  The obvious aim is to threaten and intimidate principals, and defame the QTU in the process.

The facts of the matter are:

• The certified agreement (section 17.6) includes a commitment to review procedures for managing unsatisfactory performance within six months of the commencement of the agreement (which has yet to be certified).  (This issue has been raised over a period of 18 months by QTU members, including principals at principal forums convened by the QTU and the department);
• The agreement provides for the creation of separate processes for classroom teachers, heads of program and school leaders;
• As yet there have been no negotiations, let alone agreement, regarding MUP.  When negotiations occur, the QTU intends to keep members informed and to circulate draft policies and procedures for member consideration.

The QTU has no fixed position on reducing or lengthening the timelines for the MUP process.

The QTU’s objective is a fair and clear process that allows a reasonable time and support for an employee to rectify underperformance before termination of employment or demotion as a final resort.

The only mention of timelines is a reference that “MUP outcomes and timelines will be appropriate for the seniority and responsibility required of the position”.

Performance development

In at least one region there has been reference to a “principals performance agreement”.  This “agreement” process has no status.  The only other process related to performance is the Developing Performance Framework, which is contained in the certified agreement.  This process will be agreed between the QTU and DET.  The Union will not accept other processes for principals indicated outside the certified agreement.

Conclusion

The Union has always protected the rights of principals.  We will continue to rigorously do so.  If you have concerns please contact the QTU.

John Battams                                  Paige Bousen
QTU General Secretary                  QTU A/Assistant Secretary  

Authorised by John Battams, General Secretary, Queensland Teachers' Union,
21 Graham St,  Milton,Q.4064