Site navigation

Change font size: SmallerLargerReload

Human Rights navigation

Rural and Remote Education Inquiry Briefing Paper

12. Career structures

Overview

While the turnover of rural and remote staff is still high compared to metropolitan schools, there has been some slowing in teacher turnover since the recent economic downturn and the tightening of the employment market (Boyan & Bandy 1998, page 153). The consequence of teachers staying for longer periods in rural and remote schools means that their access to professional development is reduced. Some States and Territories provide a points scheme (see table above, 'Comparison of Australian State and Territory Teacher Allowances and Incentives') whereby career enhancement is possible through a rural or remote appointment. In Western Australia however, Level 111 (management) positions are determined through 'merit based selection'. In this instance, an appointment in a rural or remote school can actually impede career enhancement because merit is determined to some extent by training and professional development. Whilst additional points were once allocated to Level 111 staff in rural and remote schools, they must now compete with their metropolitan counterparts for transfer positions. Remote schools may become the posts of 'last resort' making it more difficult for incumbent staff to transfer back to metropolitan schools (Butorac 1998, page 4).

Evidence to the Inquiry

Level 111 positions (management) are all promotions on merit. Country teachers have difficulty accessing professional development and their lack of connectedness means that it is more difficult to obtain promotion (Michelle White, Australian Education Union (WA), oral submission, 1999). The level 111 teacher concept is meritorious however rural teachers have an additional hoop and hurdle to address in overcoming the vigorous selection process. The whole ritual impacts on their teaching time and time spent with students and detracts from the education program. The criteria for application are unreasonable (Butorac 1998, page 4).
Last updated 2 December 2001.