Home > Library > Submissions > (2002) Attracting and retaining teachers > (2002) Commonwealth Review of Teaching and Teacher Education - initial submission
Commonwealth Review of Teaching and Teacher Education - initial submission (2002)
The text of AAMT's initial submission to this Review, commenting on the lack of teachers on the Review committee and the shortness of the timeline.
Initial Submission from the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers Inc. (AAMT)
9th September 2002
Note: This Initial Submission results from a discussion of the Review and its processes by the AAMT Executive. A full Submission will be provided later.
Summary
The Executive of the AAMT wishes to express its concern about the composition of the Review Committee and the inadequate timeline for feedback on the first Discussion Paper and suggests that action be taken to address the issues identified.
We believe that in taking the approach adopted thus far, the Review Committee has signalled a lack of valuing of teachers and their capacity to inform this work. Although it is accepted that this may well be unintended, it is nevertheless very unfortunate and will detract from the Review achieving its aims.
Submission
Composition of the Review Committee
The AAMT Executive is concerned at the almost total lack of practising teachers on the Review Committee — there is no-one with a current involvement in the teaching of mathematics at any level. Without direct access to the perspectives of practising teachers, we believe that the Committee will have significant difficulty appreciating the complexities involved in the learning and teaching of mathematics, science and technology. This is in no way a comment on the individual capabilities of those chosen to be members of the Committee. It is simply that, collectively, their knowledge and experience bases do not encompass current direct involvement in the areas being studied.
We believe that urgent consideration should be given to expanding the Review Committee to ensure that teachers’ perspectives are a direct part of its considerations.
Processes to be used by the Review Committee and Secretariat
We note that the Reference Committee does include, among other stakeholders, representatives of organisations representing teachers of mathematics, science and technology. If it is decided not to adjust the composition of the Review Committee as indicated above, a ‘next best’ strategy would be to hold joint meetings of the Review and Reference Committees at strategic times, and to ensure that the Reference Committee has ample time to consider and comment on draft materials. We note that the draft Discussion Paper was circulated two days prior to the first meeting of the Reference Committee and do not see this as appropriate practice in future.
Further, the Review Committee should pay due respect to the input provided by members of the Reference Committee — and indeed all those who take the time to provide input to the Review — by preparing a detailed Consultation Report to note input and the Committee’s response to it, with reasons. We believe that transparency and accountability will be served by this process .
Timeline for responses to Discussion Paper 1
The Paper was published on 6th September, with Submissions due by 5th October. It should be noted that every jurisdiction will have a school vacation during that period. Hence, most teachers will have only two weeks on duty during the period in which submissions are sought. This does not appear to be ‘teacher-friendly’ and will certainly limit the time available to teachers to work together to discuss the issues and develop the sorts of imaginative input being sought.
We urgently request that the period for submissions be extended until mid to late November to ensure that teachers are better able to provide considered input .
Submission prepared and presented by
Steve Thornton
PRESIDENT
on behalf of the Executive and Council of AAMT Inc.
