Very good points O and L. Give Graham Young, the Principal a ring,  and ask him. If you don’t get a straight answer you will know he is infected by the Team Bartlett virus and has something to hide. On the other hand, you just might get a pleasant surprise but they are rare in Tasmania these days.

I’ve never heard of one, but doesn’t your alumni association keep you busy enough that you wouldn’t have time for another association?

What is the EC Association - well, it is an almost defunct organisation because it’s another example of a stuffed up reform in the DoE which hasn’t worked. All school groups, including P&Fs;, mothers clubs, canteen committees etc were forced to amalgamate into one school association about 4/5 years ago. There were many reservations at the time of implementation which, just like the TT reforms, have proved to be accurate. It has resulted in fewer parents participating rather than more - very much like the college reforms actually!!
Sadly, the majority of principals have to conform to the party line and either do not have the capacity and/or the courage to put their jobs on the line by disobeying orders from above.

Interestingly Graeme Young has already secured his promotion in the Academy, so he has the incentive to force Eliz College into this mess. Also Graeme Young has a long reputation for (strong opinions) directed to college councils/association going way back to Alanvale college and through Newstead College. For him a meeting involves 30 minutes of him talking and the council listening. Never any discussion or alternative views. It will take balls to stand up to him.

In other words exactly the type of principal the DoE chooses (and they DO choose - selection panels are mostly corrupt and just a joke) and wants to have in charge. It makes complete sense if you’re the Dept - make sure you appoint principals who will toe the party line, bash the union, keep the parents under control, and slavishly take on any top-down reforms because it’s the only way to ensure a promotion. It was widely known at the time of the ELs that there was a directive from DoE that promotions would not be given unless applicants supported the reforms loudly and enthusiastically. Organised bureaucracy is very hard to beat.

Perhaps principles toe the party line because the party is elected by the people. The teachers union does not represent parents or kids. Some teachers need to go back to their core values. and put children first and move away from this bully union. Help the change instead of fighting change.

The “school association” which voted to ignore the vote of college staff consisted of SIX people so I think we can safely say it does not represent parents. All parents would have received notification of the meeting.  In the AEU vote 99 teachers received ballot papers, 89 ballot papers were returned with 48 voting to stay out and 35 willing to go in, in 2010; a majority of 58%. Not huge, but still a clear majority. Perhaps parents need to take more part in their children’s education.
 
The biggest bullies in this affair are Bartlett and his bureaucrats - the same bureaucrats who have been there for decades and who serve him up whatever latest fad they think will feed his ego and bolster his career. If you don’t understand that that is how govt depts work then you are very naive. The reason teachers are against the new system is exactly because they are going about their core business - they are opposed to the detrimental affects this new system is having on their students.

And as for the union being a bully, that is quite laughable when you understand that most of the college teachers believe that “the union” (ie the officers and Exec) has been far too weak in allowing this system to become as established as it is. Many were begging “the union” to stop it right from the beginning and believe that they were not listened to by “the union”. What is the point of “helping the change” if that change is fundamentally flawed, inappropriate for Tasmania and detrimental to student welfare and educational outcomes? Why is the entire staff of Claremont college, including the principal,  willing to put themselves on the line, against all odds, against all dept pressure, and beg to stay out of it? Because they already do a tremendous job with their students in a difficult socio economic area and to divide their students into an academy and polytechnic would be a tragedy and a denial of all the equity achievements they have made over the years.

Do people not realise that we got rid of this very same system in the 80s because it gave students less chance of equity and success?

re 5: all arguments for anarchy. Not that its a bad thing. I have observed that competence available is inversely proportional to the size of the organisation.