Laurie Fitzimons and Elizabeth McPherson were in the Community between March 3 - 14, 2003 to look at the controversial area of Industrial Relations and Flexible Delivery. This article summarises the outcomes of that event.
Background/Context:
Traditionally Teaching Awards have been based upon classroom teaching and a fixed term or semester timetable. Thus teachers have conditions that provide, with some State variations, the following:
- Teach 19-23 hours of classes per week
- Be in attendance for 42 weeks of the year
- Attend the Institute for 30 hours per week
- Recognise normal hours of duty between 8.30am and 6.00pm.
Nowadays with the advent of flexible online and workplace based delivery, managers and teachers are finding it very difficult to organise a teachers workload within these “restrictive” work conditions.
Each Institute has a range of practices operating to cope with flexible delivery. For a number of years State Training Authorities have placed this issue in the “too hard basket”. However in 2002 a number of initiatives at State and Federal levels have raised the level of the discussion on the IR issues.
Elizabeth McPherson (ACT) and Majorie Blanco (NSW) have managed ANTA ‘pocket” policy research projects looking at teachers’ workloads and Award provisions within the flexible delivery environment.
The AEU established a National Steering Committee to provide advice to the Federal Executive on flexible delivery arrangements.
Laurie Fitzsimons was granted a Flexible Learning Leaders scholarship to investigate the issues from a practitioners point of view.
The Victorian TAFE Association commissioned Gerry Griffin at Monash University to prepare a position paper on “VET Educator Careers and Job Classifications”.
Now you have the opportunity to contribute to the discussion. This is especially relevant as governments in Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania and Northern Territory enter into Enterprise Bargaining Agreements during 2003.
Two papers are presented as stimulus material. Laurie Fitzsimons provides some background to the IR debate in flexible delivery and outlines some of the models that have been used to calculate a teacher’s workload in the new environment. Elizabeth McPherson presents a preliminary summary of her major research project that looks at some possible solutions to calculating a “fair and equitable” workload for flexible delivery teachers.
Laurie Fitzsimmons and Elizabeth McPherson were in the Australian Flexible Learning Community between March 3 - 14, 2002 to discuss this important topic. The discussion forum centred on the following questions:
- What do you consider to be the main Industrial Relations issues surrounding flexible delivery as a manager? As a teacher?
- What are your experiences of workloads associated with flexible delivery?
- How have these workload issues been addressed? Has this been satisfactory?
- What are your reactions to the Guidelines presented in the research paper by Elizabeth McPherson?
- We look forward to reading your contribution to the discussion and hopefully being able to provide a clearer appreciation of the industrial relations issues surrounding flexible delivery.
Discussion transcript:
Laurie: Welcome to this discussion on the industrial relations aspects of flexible delivery. In my work as a Flexible Learning Leader in 2002, I talked to a number of teachers and managers in the VET sector about IR issues. This discussion is an opportunity for a wider range of practitioners to have input.
Can we begin by addressing the the crucial point of just what are the industrial relations issues in flexible delivery as you perceive them? (In a practical sense you might like to describe these issues in terms of your actual teaching conditions in flexible delivery)
I would like to point out that this forum is a very public place and anonymity is not possible. However if participants would like to express views privately I would be happy to correspond through my email address (provided).
Member: Hi there, I'm pleased to see that technology is forcing the issue. I've taught in some pretty far distant places, and in the blistering heat of summer, a 7am start was the best thing for staff and students alike. Try it, and watch the envious looks as your class heads out for the swimming pool at 2.30pm. TAFE regulations state the earliest we can start is 7.30am. Sometimes it could help to start even earlier.
There should be some flexibility there for a trusted professional approach to duties and teaching program providing it does not interfere with other teaching sections or modules, or stretch the required willing student attendance beyond reasonable limits. As winter arrives, needs change.
With flexibility the catch cry, it is yet to be noted that widespread implementation is approved, including innovative application in many teaching fields.
For so called 'straight' classes, (even mixed integrated classes, General Studies, Foundation Studies, Adult Learning Centre, ESOL) there is scope for a wide range of modules to be taught in individual packages rather than as the regimented format of lockstep learning based on the slowest progress rate.
Its tough, exhausting work, but it can be done providing the classes are not too large, and the preparation lead-up time is accepted as essential for smoother individual progress. Where there are modules running that require very stringent supervision, Hospitality, Welding, Auto etc., flexibility would have to consider the storeperson as well as the teaching staff for OH&S factors.
Laurie: Many thanks for being the first contributor to the discussion. You seem to be a very enthusiastic advocate of flexible teaching arrangements to meet the needs of students. You mention that TAFE regulations suggest that you cannot start before 7.30 am? Does that mean that normal hours of duty are between 7.30 and perhaps 6.00 pm? What conditions might apply for workplace deliverers who may need to deliver on shift changeovers at midnight or at 6.00 am ?
Member: Great to see that what you have learnt over the last few years is being used in such a productive way. I hope that there are lots of contributions. It really is such a difficult issue in some ways. I guess that the challenge is to ensure that teaching staff receive a fair days pay for a fair days work whilst allowing the public providers to be competitive in the training market. It will be interesting to see if there are any good ideas that arise.
As a provocative statement that might stimulate some discussion: Teachers using online technology are more facilitators that 'real teachers'. The course materials are all there so all they need to do is assist students. Why shouldn't these teachers teach for 30 hours per week?
NOTE: This is not my personal position so don't send the hate mail.
Laurie: Thanks. The issue you raise is at the forefront of the debate on flexible delivery and that is "how does one define the work of a teacher?". There is a slight Freudian slip in your comment that "Teachers using online technology are more facilitators that 'real teachers'. Why shouldn't these teachers teach for 30 hours per week?". If they are "teachers teaching" then they are indeed teachers, are they not?. However the situation is that there are already TAFE Institutes who have defined new work classifications such as Tutors, Industry Skills Instructors and Workplace Training Officers. Other roles that are under discussion are Online Facilitators and Online Tutors. These positions are generally paid at less than teachers rates and may not need a teaching qualification. Management sees the creation of these roles as consistent with the specific skills required in the changing nature of delivery and certainly in line with the funding imperatives under which they have to operate.
The issue is part of the enterprise bargaining being undertaken in Victoria where management has put forward a proposal for a VET Trainer and Industrial Skills Instructor classification stream. This is being strongly resisted by the Victorian AEU. We await to see what eventuates.
Member: Teaching online is not an act done in isolation. Many of the issues of time and effort that are covered in our EBA's are predicated on an assumption that teaching is done by one teacher following the instructivist model of delivery ie: closing the door and teaching before the doe-eyed students who regurgitate, get a tick and go forth to lead a productive life. Online teaching is best done in as part of a team - that means that the teacher is no longer a one-size-fits-all term - the job is being desegregated; what was once done by a teacher can now be done by a non-teacher - the AEU must be more considerate of what this means for its members. Homogeneity will fail the student at the end of the day.
Member: Hi Laurie, I've been reading the postings with interest and your topics are really 'hot' right now, great timing.
I note the distinctions between the various types of teaching involved in the 'blended learning' landscape. I believe that we do need to have such distinctions to determine the 'skills' required for the more complex teaching roles and inform the salary/wage setting bodies to provide appropriate payment for those performing them.
However, I believe that in most cases the pay scales should increase NOT decrease. The greater flexibility that is required of teachers in the 'blended learning' require higher level skills and should be compensated accordingly - a bit like the Advanced Skills Teacher positions in the Secondary system promoted some years ago.
When you attempt to 'measure' the actual duties that the new 'advanced skills E-Learning TAFE teacher' performs then a real picture emerges of the complexity and wider ranging skill sets involved. If we were to decrease our standards (employing those without standard teacher qualifications) and decrease our payments, we would be devaluing the services provided by our TAFE teachers. We are now requiring TAFE teachers in Victoria to reach a certain standard of ICT literacy and fluency, perhaps we should be able to offer further incentives for them in dollars, not laptops.
To teach in the 'blended learning' environment we need to be properly developed, valued and rewarded. And of course, we are 'real teachers', to take up the earlier provocative comment, in fact we are becoming the new 'advanced skills TAFE teachers'.
Laurie: Both [postings above] suggest that the work of a teacher in flexible delivery, especially online delivery, is becoming MORE complex rather than less complex even though the trend in some Institutes is to compartmentalise and desegregate the skills of teachers in these areas. One suggests that the AEU is perhaps not addressing these issues. At the recent National Conference of the AEU held in Adelaide in January a major paper on The Changing Nature of Teachers' Work (attached) was presented. It outlines AEU policy in the area of Flexible Delivery. How these ideas are implemented and imbedded in Institute work practices is another question and there is much work to be done at a state and institute level to achieve this. The policy highlights the move to negotiated work conditions, perhaps on an individual basis, ensuring that such negotiations incorporate various principles. Elizabeth McPherson's paper on How you are measuring your teaching time (attached) provides a framework for such negotiations. The AEU policy is attached to this posting and is worth reading.
Member: You asked: "What are the industrial relations issues in flexible delivery as you perceive them?"
Equity, Quality, Measurement, Timeliness.
Equity: How do we ensure employees are rewarded fairly? In a sense this represents the input side - qualifications, experience, time invested, innovation, student numbers.
Quality: How does "the system" regulate the quality of learning experiences? This encapsulates the output.
Measurement: "One size fits all" seems unworkable. How best to measure teaching loads while providing reasonable equity and rewarding quality? Ideally this should be kept simple.
Timeliness: Management likes to know the numbers in advance, but would also like to reward good teaching. How does management balance these aspects?
Laurie: You have presented a very succinct picture of the key issues in flexible delivery. Quality is seen an issue for many teachers, whether they are working in online delivery or workplace based delivery. They often feel under resourced in terms of time and expertise to deliver quality outcomes. A realisation that adequate professional development in these emerging technologies is a must for effective delivery is gradually permeating the system. Your point about measuring teacher loads is an interesting one. Certainly "one size doesn't fit all" although there have been attempts through the application of various formulae to get a simple solution. (See a discussion of some of these applications in the attached article IR issues in flexible delivery). If one size doesn't fit all then this must lead to tailoring loads and working conditions to individual requirements through a negotiated process. How do we ensure that these negotiations are fair and equitable? The AEU has suggested some sort of appeals system to be established either on a statewide basis or at an institute level. On what basis can the negotiations be carried out? Again, Elizabeth McPherson's paper presents a structured method that both parties could employ to arrive at a win/win outcome. Elizabeth is hoping to trial her model in Canberra Institute of Technology over the coming months. We would be interested in any comments on the application of the models that teachers have experienced in their workplace.
Member: I'm thinking about the comment "The greater flexibility that is required of teachers in the 'blended learning' require higher level skills" and wonder if they are actually higher level skills or a different set of skills? What do others think?
Member: This is a vexing issue Laurie. I feel the main issues are that flexible delivery is so difficult to equate in terms of teaching time and requires more time to prepare, develop, interact with students and maintain. Teaching conditions will be whittled away if flexible delivery is viewed as an 'easy' option or requiring less time or expertise. I am really pleased you are taking up this issue!
Laurie: Thanks for the encouragement. It is indeed a complex issue with a whole range of situations impacting on it. These include entrenched attitudes to industrial relations on both sides of the political divide, casualisation of the workforce, State differences in teaching conditions, funding of the TAFE sector and the problems associated with rapid change in the TAFE sector. However, the encouraging aspect, I believe, is that during 2002 influential bodies such as FLAG, the AEU and NCVER have recognised the importance of the IR situation in the development of flexible delivery strategies across the VET sector and have provided funding to research the issue further.
Elizabeth: What an interesting range of comments so far!
{} has talked about the different amounts of time needed for preparation, development, interaction with students and maintenance compared with classroom teaching and reminded us that flexible delivery is not an easy option.
{} has categorised the main issues & challenges of flexible delivery as equity, quality, measurement and timeliness while Ian has summarised the issue as teachers needing a “fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work” while allowing public providers to be competitive.
{} has highlighted the different and more complex roles for teachers, claiming that blended learning needs “advanced skills TAFE teachers”, while {} challenged this by questioning whether these new skills are actually higher level skills or just a different set of skills.
{} demonstrates that a professional teacher’s response to meeting their learners’ needs appropriately should always remain flexible.
And {} makes the point that teaching awards assume an instructional model of delivery and are therefore not well suited to the needs of online teaching where team work, are required.
Laurie: We have had some discussion around the broad philosophical issues surrounding IR issues in flexible delivery.However what about the situation at the coal face? How are people dealing with their workloads in online or workplace delivery? Can we have some concrete examples to get a feel for what is happening out there? Last year in my travels as a Flexible Learning Leader I discovered, for example, a teacher who had 15 hours a week in front of a class but was also responsible for up to 40 fulltime online students. How are teachers dealing with rolling individual enrolments in online classes and how does this affect their workloads and how is it fitted into their teaching load? I also discovered a group of teachers working in distance flexible delivery who working as a team, met management targets, provided quality service for students and were comfortable with their workload and their working environment. What other strategies are out there that might provide support for those working in this flexible delivery environment? These can be sensitive issues and if participants would prefer to email me directly rather than posting to the discussion they should do so. (Email provided).
To me the complex array of different teacher roles, and requirements for teachers to use new and old skills highlight that the flexible teacher’s work cannot be simply defined or measured or encapsulated in a formula. If this is the case, what options are there for ensuring “fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work”? I have suggested in my article attached to this discussion that negotiation of teacher workloads can provide a solution. What do you think? Can this work?
Member: Elizabeth says "I have suggested in my article attached to this discussion that negotiation of teacher workloads can provide a solution. What do you think? Can this work?"
I believe it has to work Elizabeth because it is the only solution. So let's see how we can make it work.......first we need to document all our negotiated arrangements, particularly within one organisation, to ensure equity across faculties. There will be inequities at first but I believe they'll disappear in time as we become more experienced at negotiating. Who knows this documentation might reveal the magical formula!!!
What else can we do to ensure negotiating works?
Member: In response to the "wonder if they are actually higher level skills or a different set of skills? What do others think?" questions, I'd like to add an OTEN (DE) perspective to blended learning. I agree that the skills can be different rather than just higher. We're encouraging teachers to use online as a way of working smarter not harder. For example, if they have 15 individual students phoning and asking questions on the same issue, the answer can be posted to our Learning Support website. Students are then encouraged to look here first next time. There's still a long way to go, but some teachers have already commented that the site is saving them, not costing them time. It's great to have a forum for this discussion
Laurie: Thanks for the contribution. You raise an issue that initially was lost in the drive to online delivery, that is that online delivery requires more teacher time and more costs than traditional delivery. "Curtain has estimated that the recurrent costs of mixed online delivery in a classroom could be double or more that of face-fo-face delivery alone. However, his results also suggest that, for mixed mode delivery that is classroom based(the most common form of online approach), high levels of interactivity using the internet and pre-existing web-based resources can contain costs and lead to levels of student satisfaction aove that for conventionaaly taught courses." ( NCVER At a Glance "Flexibility through online learning" p3)
The secret is to provide online teachers with the skills to "work smarter, not harder" as you rightly indicate. One of the premises of Elizabeth McPhersons research was to look at the ways in which online teachers can make more effective use of the technology by providing them with shortcuts and other useful tips for their online delivery.One online teacher I spoke to last year was very optimistic when she stated "There are some very good things of how you can cut your workload down. By learning shortcuts I believe that you can keep online delivery to the equivalence of face-to-face teaching".
Member: {} notes "The greater flexibility that is required of teachers in the 'blended learning' require higher level skills." I'm thinking about that comment and wonder if they are actually higher level skills or a different set of skills? What do others think?"
Yes,"different" I think. Lots of different design skills needed for a computer mediated environment - e.g. how to design active learning activities, how to cater for different learning stlyes in a largely text-based environment...
As a facilitator - how to engage and sustain the attention of learners? How to make and facilitate purposeful and relevant activities? How to enable effective collaboration? How to focus and/or deepen online discussions? In some cases teachers have been use to the 'sage on the stage' approach, and so moving to a more student-centred approach requires new skills...
Member: I think the comment about "real teachers" (intentionally provocative as it was) recognises the heart of the problem when online/flexible learning is under discussion. There has been an underlying presumption that the technology will do the teaching/nuturing of the learners. Interesting that when we used textbooks as our primary teaching tool, we didn't make the same presumption.
At our organisation we try to recognise that flexible learning draws on a wider range of professional expertise--from technical administration, to teaching and assessment. As such, we use a funding model that recognise the variety of roles and attempts to allocate work loads accordingly (ie, administration to administrators, teaching to teachers). Of course we still hit the same ceiling, and at the end of the day, I know we are asking for far more from our teachers that we can compensate them for. Seems to be a perpetual feature of our profession. I am hoping the new classifications under discussion in Victoria may provide the much needed flexibility our profession now demands.
Laurie: The example I referred to was in the distance education area conducted through mixed mode delivery - some onsite and offsite workshops along with primarily traditional print based, CD ROM supported distance education.There was no online delivery although they had set up a communications hub but this was in its infancy. Students had access to staff 24 hours a day through email. The four members of staff worked as a team and had adopted informal roles based on their strengths - one looked after the finances, another developed teaching materials and one looked after the management issues. The unit operated on the basis of delivering 68,000 SCH so they were in fact using the Student Contact Hour model outlined in my attached paper "IR Issues in Flexible Delivery". As the group indicated to me "We had the opportunity to be given our budget and our hours and we could work it out ourselves. We don't sit around and count 21 hours per week. We recognise what has to be done and put in place mechanisms to do it. It works in our team but it wouldn't work in others."
In the online context there are many examples of team based development of online resources, especially in the initial stages of the TAFEVC in Victoria. Here we had instructional designers, content experts, multi media experts etc coming together in highly funded programs. However once these developments were completed the teams disbanded. Under Learnscope funding, as part of professional development, these types of team synergies are continuing. Again though I am not aware of any operational type teams (outside of the professional development arena) that have been established in the online environment. If there are any readers of this forum could learn a lot from their experience. Anybody able to contribute on this point?
Member: Laurie, thanks for your ideas and input. If we are moving inexorably to more flexible teaching arrangements
- how will this affect the recruitment of teachers? What sorts of capabilities will be required of new recruits both part and full time time?
- How will a wider range of capabilities change awards eg a pay rise? a promotion? an extra few lines in the statement of duties?
- What professional development will be required of the more flexible teacher? If PD is a requirement, how does this get factored into the work load?
- What will happen to those teachers who don't match the new set of capabilities?
Laurie: I would love to know the definitive answers to your queries but life is never simple. I can give some considered opinions if you like.
In terms of recruitment, Institutes are certainly looking for teachers with skills in the flexible delivery area and this may involve high level technical skills and online facilitative skills as well as workplace trainer and assessor skills. (This forum has focused mainly on the online environment however we should recognise that most of the flexible delivery is being done in the workplace, not necessarily using online technologies). Institutes have tried to move to a number of recruitment practices to meet their needs in these areas - use of sessional teachers, employment of tutors, use of non teacher personnel. The AEU has actively resisted these developments but they have not been entirely successful. The area will continue to be one where some Institutes seek greater flexibility in employment practices to meet their funding imperatives and where teacher bodies try to safeguard what they see as the integrity of the profession. (See recent article in Campus Review 7 March, 2003 - TAFE Victoria and AEU reach deal on teacher classification)
A pay rise for those with increased skill levels? Again this will depend on State teacher classifications and negotiations at a State level. Victorian TAFE teachers can expect a large pay rise as they catch up with the other states and with the secondary sector. This has more to do with sector imbalance rather than the extra skill levels that may or may not be required in the flexible delivery area.
Professional Development is one area that, I believe, is starting to be addressed reasonably satisfactorily, at least in Victoria. Here we have 30 hours of profesional development allocated in our scheduled duties. In the flexible delivery area Learnscope funding has been available for some years. Again, Elizabeth McPherson's paper highlights the importance of providing professional development in ensuring a satisfactory working environment for the flexible delivery practitioner.
What happens to those teachers who don't match the new set of capabilities? Remember that online delivery is only a small proportion of the overall delivery of an Institute. Most teachers are still working in what might be called traditional area. I would hope that Institutes would have "people management practices" in place to deal with the changes that Institutes are facing .
Contributors:
Lyn Ambrose, Cathy Baxter, Lucia Butler, Grant Casey, B Driver, Greg Drury, Laurie Fitzsimons, Lyn Goodear, Carole McCulloch, Margot McNeill, Elizabeth McPherson, Ian Robertson, Peter Robertson
