Analysing teacher appointment systems: Teacher Appointment in New South Wales and Queensland

Abstract

<p>Purpose</p> <p>The purpose of this study was to develop a framework for the analysis, description, and comparison of the administrative arrangements used by school systems for making decisions about the selection of teachers for appointment to positions in schools. Administrative arrangements are defined in terms of the administrative units of which they are composed, the functions performed by these units, and the relations that exist between them. The term 'appointment' refers to any kind of appointment and specifically includes first appointments, transfers, promotions, and appointments made on a permanent, temporary, or casual basis.</p> <p>The purpose was to be accomplished through the analysis, Gescription, and comparison of the administrative arrangements used by the state education departments of New South Wales and Queensland. The study had three specific objectives: 1) the development of an analytic framework; 2) the description of the arrangements used by the two state education departments; and 3) the identification of significant distinguishing features.</p> <p>Procedures</p> <p>The concurrent, parallel case study approach was adopted for the examination of the selected appointment systems. In this approach the same research procedures are used in the investigation of each case, and each phase of the investigation is carried out in respect of each case before proceeding to the next phase.</p> <p>Data were collected in the sequential mode, i.e., analysis proceeds concurrently with collection and influences subsequent data collection. The major technique of data collection was the research interview. In these interviews the focus was provided by the researcher, the detailed structure and content by the informant. Twenty-five major interviews were conducted, fourteen in New South Wales and eleven in Queensland. A preliminary analysis of each interview was made as soon as possible after the interview. This analysis converted the raw data of the interviews into items of information which provided the basis for further analytic procedures. Supplementary information was obtained by a large number of less formal interviews.</p> <p>The interviews were preceded by an analysis of the formal framework of each appointment system based on official documents. The information obtained through the interviews was used to develop this framework and to contribute to the evolving description of each system. The descriptions of the systems were compared in terms of the framework.</p> <p>Findings</p> <p>There was a great variation in the character of the administrative units identified by the study. They ranged from those whose membership and functions are prescribed in some detail by law or regulation to those which have no formal constitution and are identified largely by the function they perform. Three major orientations that one unit may have to another were identified: 1) sequential; 2) parallel; and 3) hierarchical. The orientation that exists between any two units circumscribes the questions to be asked about the detail of the relations between them.</p> <p>Type of tenure and level of position were identified as the key appointment type variables. The values of each of these variables fell into two categories. Full and restricted in the case of tenure, base and higher in the case of position. The combination of these variables result in four appointment types: 1) higher-level positions, full tenure; 2) base—level positions, full tenure; 3) higher-level positions, restricted tenure; and 4) base-level positions, restricted tenure.</p> <p>Three decision areas were identified: 1) teacher assessment; 2) teacher listing; and 3) teacher placement. They were found to apply to each of the appointment types, thus the basic analytic framework consisted of twelve cells, four appointment types each divided into three decision areas.</p> <p>The comparison of the descriptions of the administrative arrangements used by each system revealed important similarities and significant differences. They shared: 1) an interdependence between various decision areas; 2) an interdependence between various appointment types and subtypes; 3) a concentration of formal power near the top; 4) a notable concern for teacher welfare; 5) varying degrees of formality in different parts of the system; and 6) being in a state of constant change.</p> <p>Many differences were identified. Particularly significant differences related to: 1) promotions lists; 2) handling teacher preferences; 3) inter-regional transfers; and 4) staffing less popular schools.</p> <p>Conclusions and Recommendations</p> <p>The major conclusion was that the framework developed in the course of the study was suited to the purpose for which it was designed. Other conclusions were: 1) the information available in official documents is insufficient for an. accurate description; 2) the research interview as used in this study was a particularly appropriate means of obtaining the data required; 3) the use of the sequential mode of data collection is clearly indicated for research of this kind; 4) the distribution of information among informants makes the systematic collection of multiple viewpoints essential rather than merely desirable; and 5) the study of any component of an appointment system must take into account the influence of other parts of the system on that component.</p> <p>The major recommendation is that the framework developed in this study be applied to the analysis, description, and comparison of other systems of teacher appointment. To this end the study includes a recommended approach to such studies. Other recommendations for further research are: 1) further analysis of administrative arrangements and in particular the development of a taxonomy of administrative units; 2) investigation of the consequences of using particular administrative arrangements; and 3) the application of the methods used in this study to the investigation of the arrangements used for making decisions about other important matters (such as curriculum).</p>