Launceston Grammar woes a bigger problem: Doug Grubert

The board and the Bishop publicly endorsed the Headmaster's viewpoint soon after. Such accusations, levelled at the teaching staff, hardly model the school's four Cs: courage, curiosity, creativity and compassion. To publicly castigate one's own teachers in the eyes of the community, the parent body and the alumni is not an act of compassion.

Recent research from Monash University The Perceptions of Teachers and Teaching in Australia report is one of the largest surveys of Australian teachers ever conducted, nearly 2500 took part, and it is sobering. Some 70 per cent of teachers find their workload unmanageable; 58 per cent expect to leave the profession; 70 per cent feel the public does not appreciate their work. Research also indicates that teacher effectiveness is the most important factor in student achievement. Every parent knows there is never one side to a story. But the school's leadership offered only two possibilities, either (a) teachers were trying to manipulate an EBA process to leverage personal gain, or (b) teachers at Grammar were incapable of adapting to change.

It is a position that seems to contradict the school's aspiration for its students, to be nurtured, challenged and inspired. It appears the leadership at Grammar has taken a gamble; one that threatens the effectiveness of the single most important factor in student achievement: teachers. To suggest recent turnover in staff is "in line with the average" and therefore, acceptable, shows limited consideration and depth of analysis. It completely misses the point. The best research shows that not only is the 'norm' unacceptable, it is highly problematic.

When good teachers leave a good school (for Grammar is that), the parents and the board must demand a measured response underpinned by careful bigger picture analysis. Grammar has always had strong academic achievements. The claim "as a result of recent changes, we are achieving the highest and best academic and sporting results in the school's history" demands scrutiny. Was it the 'changes' implemented over a very short period of time that caused the result or was it a complex interplay of factors? Factors such as years of nurture from quality teachers, the support of caring parents who place a value on educational attainment, and the potential for an especially strong cohort are absent from this narrative. Was it the Grammar 'village' or was it the result of a Headmaster's implemented 'changes'? Are they even the best results in the school's history, all factors considered? Launceston Church Grammar School has a 174-year-old history - it's a big, bold accolade to claim. I am not convinced teachers are using pay as a significant driver for their EBA negotiations. When I joined Grammar, I made a financial sacrifice to join a community of teachers deeply committed to their profession and more importantly, their students. I never worked so hard in my life. But I wanted to be somewhere I could flourish as a teacher. Most teachers are idealists in that way. It is pertinent to note there are two EBA negotiations underway for teachers at Grammar. The last one proved so protracted that it was not agreed before it was time to negotiate the next (current) agreement. That speaks volumes about the patience and goodwill of the Grammar teachers. They aren't threatening industrial action lightly.

I imagine Grammar teachers want transparency about the bottom line and the balance between executive staff and the lowest paid staff, those working with students, who are being warned that future changes in funding will affect the school's bottom line. I've always been motivated to see my non-teaching colleagues achieve fairer pay and clearer classification of their roles. I'm not unique; I expect most Grammar teachers, and perhaps teachers more broadly, find this problematic.

I think such treatment goes against community values.

In my experience, Grammar teachers aren't against change, even major change. For example, the introduction of the International Baccalaureate PYP, is the most ambitious, learner-focused initiative in recent memory at Grammar. I'm sure Grammar teachers are opposed to changes that leave them feeling undervalued, unappreciated and unseen. They perceive a change in culture that sees their vast knowledge, experience and expertise not influencing decision-making in an authentic way. These are the teachers who helped students achieve the results of which the Headmaster spoke. These are the teachers who nurtured not just those with top scores in ATAR or NAPLAN, but all the students at Grammar.

A consultative process, something enshrined in the Enterprise Agreement so it is enforceable, costs the school nothing. Evidence proves teachers are the single most important factor in student achievement. Why wouldn't the board want to tap into the courage, curiosity, creativity and compassion of those whose day-to-day work is in the classroom with the students? That is where quality teaching and learning occurs.