Editorial: Be audacious
Queensland Teachers' Journal, Vol 126 No 3, 9 April 2021, page no.5
As part of this year’s International Women’s Day, I was asked what I “Choose to Challenge”. At the time, there was much commentary about the “audacity” of some who called for a more proactive response to alleged sexual assaults in Parliament House, Canberra.
It was this outcry that reminded me of a speech that I heard 10 years ago at AEU Federal Conference about the problem with being audacious. The message from this speech is that audacity is a good thing.
So, I chose to challenge the negative connotations of audacity and to challenge all of us to be more audacious.
We need to be prepared to take risks if we are going to effect change.
Workload reduction, the cessation of NAPLAN in its current form, stopping occupational violence – all these things need us to do things differently, and we need to be courageous enough to do this.
Recently, a school principal excluded a parent from school grounds after a tirade of verbal and online abuse, only to be advised that consideration was being given to overturning the exclusion. The assumption was that the principal’s response was not “proportionate” and that they did not act “reasonably and dispassionately”.
The principal knew that the parent would not respond well to this action, but chose to risk the parent’s anger rather than take the chance that others might be harmed. They acted with audacity (note: the review upheld the principal’s decision).
When the Union challenges the department, we take risks. We must. A Union that is not prepared to challenge the employer is not acting in the best interests of its members.
Without challenging how things are done, working conditions and member safety can be compromised. This includes challenging the Industrial Court’s decision in relation to NAPLAN. If we are not prepared to exhaust all avenues to try and achieve the best outcomes for our members, we are not doing our job.
That is why we dare to challenge department communications – it isn’t to pit members against each other, it is to be clear that we don’t agree.
Placing the word “minimum” in front of requirements makes us question the department’s commitment to reducing workload. To not specify “maximum” requirements suggests that there are no limits to what members should be doing. This cannot be true.
For too long there has been a culture that “good schools do more” or that if you do only what is required then in some way you are “unprofessional”. This culture is what has led to people celebrating overwork. It is what negatively impacts on member wellbeing. It needs to stop.
Our members work hard every day to provide the best learning experiences for students. They work hard to ensure their safety. They do not deserve to feel “unprofessional” for not living up to the limitless expectations of their employer.
Shifting culture; doing things differently; reclaiming the term “professional”; takes courage. It takes audacity. It’s something that we need to do.