<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16441" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><STRONG>Needs to be emailed to </STRONG><A
href="mailto:vit@hlbvic.com.au"><STRONG>vit@hlbvic.com.au</STRONG></A>
<STRONG>prior to 5pm on Tuesday, 18 September 2007.</STRONG> </P>
<H3>Feedback and Recommendations</H3>
<P><STRONG>I. the appropriate objectives for the Institute in the light of
government polices and changes in all educational sectors since its
establishment;</STRONG></P>
<P>Create new structures:</P>
<UL>
<LI>VERB – Victorian educational Regulatory Board: Registration of Teachers,
Approves and accredits pre-service teacher education courses, Misconduct
Investigations. Run by government. Paid from general revenue.
<LI>VEI- Victorian Educational Institute: Promotion of the profession, Works
with teachers. Paid from voluntary membership. Run by members elected by
membership. </LI></UL>
<P><STRONG>II. the effectiveness of the Institute in achieving its original
objectives;</STRONG></P>
<UL>
<LI>VIT has destroyed the little goodwill it has at its inception through its
unwillingness to represent “the profession” in any real sense:
<LI>VIT made no protest re. the imposition of registration fees and criminal
record checks on teachers, revealing itself to be a government cipher
<LI>the manner and timing of its demands for money have alienated teachers
<LI>the wasteful style of practice most prominently in relation to its
expensive and self promoting “communication” expenditure further alienated
teachers
<LI>VIT made insignificant contributions to public debates re. educational
issues where “promotion of the teaching profession” is needed. e.g. VELs
reporting and assessment systems, new curriculum structure, teacher stress,
assaults on teachers etc <BR>It thus reveals itself o be another arm of
government rather than a body representing the profession – an arm of
government that teachers substantively pay for ! </LI></UL>
<P><STRONG>VIT has irreversibly lost support from teachers and nothing short of
a major re-organisation in terms of structure, purpose and personnel could begin
its recovery</STRONG></P>
<P><STRONG>VIT Purposes:</STRONG></P>
<UL>
<LI><STRONG>Registration of all teachers</STRONG>: Achieved but only at the
cost of near universal alienation of teachers due to:
<UL>
<LI>the timing and manner that registration was organised,
<LI>the high level of charges,
<LI>the use of fees collected for purposes considered by teachers to be
wasteful and unnecessary (e.g. glossy publications, ineffective “promotion
of he profession etc etc) and
<LI>the absence of any attempt by the VIT to pressure the government to pay
for functions that are clearly the employers responsibility (e.g.
registration, police checks, pre-service course evaluation etc etc) </LI></UL>
<LI><STRONG>Promotion of the profession</STRONG>: Pitiful performance on most
issues reinforcing the strongly held conviction that the institute only
parrots the policy of the employers and the government. <BR>Virtually no
worthwhile contribution to important community debates on such issues as
assessment and reporting, teacher stress and safety from assault, curriculum
changes under VELs etc etc
<LI><STRONG>Works with teachers</STRONG>: Documents produce supposedly to
“work” with teachers were verbose and full of jargon (“edu-speak”) and looked
and smelt like a fait accompli.<BR>Importantly, VIT made NO attempt to provide
any shared communication with the profession.<BR>One would think, after
spending unknown sums on a website that there would be a discussion forum (as
seen on so many news and community sites !!) where teachers could share
responses and communicate to VIT and with each other.<BR>NO ! As befits an
organisation that gives consultation only “lip service”, responses to feedback
go into a magical black hole which generates an invented consensus
view.<BR>People attending public hearings have no idea what becomes of their
contributions. The website contains no record of what was said.
<LI><STRONG>Supports teachers in their first year of teaching with a
structured induction program</STRONG>: Done. BUT the people who actually make
it work are in schools. The contribution of the bureaucratic and verbose
“support” materials to the success of the program is very small. Why not
provide funding direct to schools to support induction activities !!
<LI><STRONG>Approves and accredits pre-service teacher education courses that
prepare teachers</STRONG>: No idea what has been achieved. Annual report
mentions the organisation of a conference and cyclical review of 6 courses
which were all approved.<BR>The process described seems to be just another
paper shuffle (2007 Annual Report p.20). If the VIT was really serious about
this role, it would have implemented or required some real review procedures
such as direct feedback from teachers trained by the institutions and/or from
the schools where they work. Accreditation of new courses should presumably be
built on objective data about the performance of existing courses so that
improvements can be targeted at existing and emerging needs rather than “ivory
tower” fads unrelated to the real world of classroom practice.<BR>Experienced
teachers who have worked with beginning teachers have a distinct impression
that the skills provided in pre-service training are not well matched to the
demands of actual classroom teaching. Reports on individual teachers do not
elicit this as they are heavily weighted towards supportive suggestions about
the individual teachers practice rather then the pre-service course
itself.<BR>The VIT should provide (or insist on) opportunities for all
beginning teachers to evaluate on the adequacy of their pre-service courses at
6 months, and 18 months after commencement of teaching. This could easily be
conducted at zero (YES zero !) cost through online an questionnaire and open
forum for teachers to share impressions and experiences.
<LI><STRONG>Investigate and make findings on serious misconduct, incompetence
or lack of fitness to teach</STRONG>: No idea of how well the VIT is
performing this task. </LI></UL>
<P><STRONG>III. the most appropriate structures for achieving the objectives
identified under point I;</STRONG></P>
<UL>
<LI>Regulatory functions such as registration of teachers and investigation of
misconduct as well pre-service course review should be conducted by a
government department at no cost to teachers.
<LI>Promotion of the profession and development of recommendations regarding
professional practice should be undertaken by an organisation with voluntary
membership.<BR>Most teachers already have the option of membership of such an
organisations in the form of their union and voluntarily pay considerable
membership fees. </LI></UL>
<P><STRONG>IV. whether the Institute or a successor body has a role to play in
this future environment; changes that may be required to its functions,
structure and legislative mandate; and</STRONG></P>
<UL>
<LI><STRONG>VIT, in its present form and with its present management, should
be scrapped</STRONG> because it has no credibility with teachers in relation
to its independence, its management of registration and police checks, or its
promotion of the profession </LI></UL>
<P><STRONG>V. the appropriateness of the fee structures and operating costs of
the Institute.</STRONG></P>
<UL>
<LI>As the dominant purpose of the institute is to <STRONG>regulate</STRONG>
teachers rather than to assist them, the costs of the institute should be born
by the employers and the state.
<LI>IF the government insists on passing on the cost of regulation to
teachers, then the organisation should be run as an efficient administrative
structure devoid of the fat of self promotion and the pretence that it is
serving any other purposes
<LI>The VIT Budget Report for 2005-6 (<A
href="http://www.vit.vic.edu.au/retrievemedia.asp?Media_ID=1061">http://www.vit.vic.edu.au/retrievemedia.asp?Media_ID=1061</A>)
indicates that the organisation can’t even remain within it’s income of about
$8 mill and overspent by $253000
<LI>the organisation makes no attempt to separate expenditure relating to its
separate functions – registration, promotion, standards development,
induction, teachers course approval, misconduct investigations.<BR>It is
highly likely that this conceals the fact that the organisation spends the
vast bulk of its funds merely administering itself as a sinecure for fat cats.
This is certainly the near universal belief of teachers in schools.
<LI>The expenditure on communications is identified 1.5 mill but not explained
in terms of publication types purpose, web site etc.<BR>Virtually all teachers
would assume that the lions share of this expenditure falls under the umbrella
of self-promotion rather than fulfilling any of the VIT aims<BR>On receiving
expensively produced VIT communications in schools, teachers universally sigh
with exasperation in the realisation that the pamphlet has been produced
mainly at their own expense – and then consign it to the bin.
<LI>If the government decides NOT to listen to teachers and to scrap the VIT
in its present form, it could AT LEAST par the organisation back to its bones
so that the registration cost is minimised and “optional” activities such as
promotion and communication are eliminated. </LI></UL>
<P><STRONG>It would be far better to remove the confusion of purposes, the
secret cross subsidy of activities, and the huge legacy of antipathy developed
by the current VIT, and create new structures:</STRONG></P>
<UL>
<LI><STRONG>VER</STRONG><STRONG>B – Victorian educational Regulatory Board:
Registration of Teachers, Approves and accredits pre-service teacher education
courses, Misconduct Investigations. Run by government. Paid from general
revenue.</STRONG>
<LI><STRONG>VEI- Victorian Educational Institute: Promotion of the profession,
Works with teachers. Paid from voluntary membership. Run by members elected by
membership.</STRONG> <BR><BR></LI></UL>
<P><FONT size=2>====================================================<BR>Stephen
Digby, Learning Technology Manager<BR>mailto:
admin@cheltsec.vic.edu.au<BR>Cheltenham Secondary College
www.cheltsec.vic.edu.au<BR>Ph: 613 955 55 955 Fx: 9555 8617 Mb:
0431-701-028<BR>====================================================<BR>Universities
are of course hostile to geniuses, which, seeing and using ways of their own,
discredit the routine: as churches and monasteries persecute youthful
saints. Ralph Waldo Emerson </FONT></P><p></p><p><b>Important - </b>This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender, and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.</p></BODY></HTML>