grodscorp@grods.comWhy teaching is like joining the Liberal party
 | Posted by The Editor on Thursday 22 February 2007, 6:50 pm Categories: Education, Politics Tags: AWAs, BehaviourManagement, IndustrialRelations, JoeHockey, JuliaGillard, Labor, Liberal, teaching |
“In short, we simply believe in individual freedom”
– Liberal party website
This guiding belief can be clearly seen in much of the federal government’s legislation over the years, such as penalties for not buying private health insurance and the ultimate clanger: WorkChoices.
The Editor: I’m nearly 30 and I’d like to purchase private health insurance.
The Liberal party: Great! We’ll support you in your decision.
The Editor: I’m nearly 30 and for the time being I’d like to remain within the public health system and pay a Medicare levy.
The Liberal party: No worries. We’ll just wait patiently and then slaughter you when you do decide to take out health insurance.
The Editor: I’d like to sign an AWA please.
Liberal party supported employer: Great! We’ll support you in your decision.
The Editor: I’d like to sign a union-negotiated collective agreement.
Liberal party supported employer: No.
As the weeks roll on I see more and more parallels between the Liberal philosophy of individual choice and the classroom management strategies employed in a primary school. In my first month of teaching I’ve tried hard to emulate the minister for industrial relations and avuncularity, Joe Hockey, by providing my students with Liberal style choice. I’ve found myself saying things like:
“I think you need to make a wiser choice about where you sit, student.”
“It’s time you thought about the choices you make in this classroom with regards to distracting other people, student.”
“You can choose to be an active member of this class and learn or choose to sit outside staring at the wall for the rest of the year, student”
It’s blindingly obvious that I’m not offering any real choice to the students but am trying to soften the command by giving the illusion of choice. Joe Hockey demonstrated this very philosophy in his “debate” with Julie Gillard last week:
JULIA GILLARD: I am happy to see workers sitting around and working out how they want to deal with their industrial arrangements.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Without a union, if they don’t want one?
JULIA GILLARD: If that is what they choose. And, to take an example, let’s look at the Queensland netballers, that’s been a big issue today. 20 women on the team, they play as a team, they want to negotiate their employment conditions as a team, and they can’t under the Howard Government’s legislation. Now, I don’t care whether they want the union involved or whether the 20 of them want to sit around and do it themselves, that’s entirely a matter for them, but if the 20 of them want to do it together, then they should be able to do it together, and they can’t achieve that under Mr Howard’s laws.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Joe Hockey?
JOE HOCKEY: You need to have flexibility in the workplace, Kerry. Flexibility can include individual contracts. Again, under the Labor Party, individual contracts were essentially based on the award system, they were a bolt on to the award. What we are saying is, there has to be freedom. If individuals want to negotiate individual contracts, that is great.
KERRY O’BRIEN: What about if the individual doesn’t want to but is intimidated into?
JOE HOCKEY: What choice does an individual get if they are thrown a collective agreement?
KERRY O’BRIEN: Well, which is worse?
JOE HOCKEY: I would say it’s worse to have a collective agreement thrown at you with no choice, or an award thrown at you which is negotiated by lawyers down at the Industrial Relations Commission in Melbourne, I think that is far worse than having an individual contract that you can tailor in negotiations with the employer…
JULIA GILLARD: Look, Joe has just tied himself up in a logical knot and I don’t think he’s ever going to get out of it. He is saying people should have choice, but let’s take the actual example of the Firebirds, the 20 netballers. They want a choice. The choice they want is they want to work together and have their own collective agreement. Under Mr Howard’s laws, what is getting thrown at them isn’t a collective agreement or an award. What is getting thrown at them is individual agreements they don’t want. So the Howard Government is actually saying, “You don’t really get a choice. If you choose a collective agreement, too bad.
But at least my teaching style will directly contribute to a stronger economy, less terrorism and more values.
GrodsThink Ep.31 (16/9/08)
Thursday 22 February 2007, 8:14 pm #Jackie
Nicely put, Ed.
Friday 23 February 2007, 8:25 am #Iain Hall
The reality that you have discovered is that in life some one has to take the initiative and become a leader, a decision maker especially in the classroom. Master that and you will be able to impart your wisdom to your charges .
As for “work choices”, which I do not support, you may just be pissing into the wind because I don’t think that the situation will be changing any time soon.
Friday 23 February 2007, 4:44 pm #The Editor
There’s one simple reason that I’m not going to rise to your pathetic attempt at condescension, Iain: your misunderstanding of the modern teaching profession. Teachers no longer “impart wisdom”; instead they facilitate children developing their own. Imparting wisdom belongs in John Howard’s long-gone golden age of society and education when facts was facts.
Other than that, I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say.
Friday 23 February 2007, 7:44 pm #Iain Hall
Teachers no longer “impart wisdom”; instead they facilitate children developing their own. Imparting wisdom belongs in John Howard’s long-gone golden age of society and education when facts was facts.
Scott you can call it “facilitate children developing their own” if you like but it amounts to the same thing as my saying that teachers “impart wisdom”. The point that I was trying to make is that unless you have control in the classroom there will be no learning anyway. Is that put plainly enough? I am married to a teacher and have some close friends who are also in the profession so I do have a reasonable understanding of the issues.
Friday 23 February 2007, 7:55 pm #The Editor
Scott you can call it “facilitate children developing their own” if you like but it amounts to the same thing as my saying that teachers “impart wisdom”.
No it doesn’t.
The point that I was trying to make is that unless you have control in the classroom there will be no learning anyway.
Agreed. With conditions. But what makes you think I don’t have control? Are you telling me that the measure of an in-control teacher is their lack of a need to say the things I said in the original post? Against those criteria almost no teacher in the world would meet the Iain Hall measure of ‘in control’.
I am married to a teacher and have some close friends who are also in the profession so I do have a reasonable understanding of the issues.
In that case… my wife did psychology at uni and I know a few psychologists, so I feel qualified to diagnose your disorders based on some blog posts. You’re a freak.
Saturday 24 February 2007, 12:37 am #Mikey
Oh Christ he still here.
Anyway, go gilliard. She totally swept the floor with Joe.
I feel sorry for him. Being one of the more ‘actually has a heart beat’ libs he got saddled with the second most Cruella da Ville portfolios you can get.
The first being Immigration. Held by Kevin Andrews … former Industrial Relations minister.
He’s a Christian by the way. Yep, big man o upstairs happy with his work.
Saturday 24 February 2007, 7:54 am #Iain Hall
Yeah Mikey I’m every where :cool:
Is your arse still stinging? :lol:
Scott
are you trying to tell me that you don’t discuss the minuet details of your daily life (as a teacher)with your wife? And that she may have ” a reasonable understanding of the issues.” as a result pf those conversations?
But I suppose that you have not been married as long as I have and maybe you don’t share everything the way my wife and I do.
Saturday 24 February 2007, 8:05 am #The Editor
So now you’re criticising my marriage as well as my teaching style. Based, let us not forget, on blog comments.
Especially hilarious from somebody who is constantly whining to others about their need to “play the ball and not the man.”
Are you pissed off that I’ve turned off those pathetic emoticon things, Iain? Try expressing yourself in words instead.
Saturday 24 February 2007, 2:45 pm #Iain Hall
Scott
I am NOT criticising your marriage at all and I apologize I gave you that impression.
Why do you always imagine that I blog or comment from anger?
As for the emoticons; your blog your choice but frankly I think that they help to make up for the narrow wavelength of text based commenting by designating the intended tone.
Sunday 25 February 2007, 4:51 pm #John S.
Words are far more expressive than a mere emoticon could ever be.
Monday 26 February 2007, 1:59 am #Adam
Actually I find that emoticons often clarify the intent of the writer. They’re a crude but effective substitute for some of the important non-verbal communication that takes place during actual face-to-face talks.
Monday 26 February 2007, 7:33 pm #Iain Hall
My feelings precisely Adam ;o)