13 Replies to “A Quick Question About the VIT”

  1. Marty, Marty, Marty. It serves a very important purpose. It’s THE Professional Body for teachers!! THE Gatekeeper of Teaching Standards. You even get a special card that proves you’re a teacher and can work with children.

    OK, I tried ….

    It’s just more redundant bureaucracy designed to take your money and in return make life hard for everyone (particularly graduate teachers). At least vampires are honest about what they are and you can kill them with a stake.

  2. I was going to say they bought me dinner once back in 2004. Similarly, grasping.

    The card does prove useful sometimes in winter when you have ice on your car windscreen. It is a lot better quality than it was in 2004. Colour hasn’t changed.

    1. Holy moly, how time flies. Yes, back in the day the card entitled you to some serious discounts (I can still remember getting discounts at Borders).

      In seriousness and fairness, I should say that one useful purpose the VIT does serve is to provide a simple mechanism for getting rid of teachers unfit to teach. This is a good thing. Now, whether that service is worth what registration currently costs and whether the general VIT pedantry (including the crap it puts new graduates through) is reasonable are debatable points.

      Number of teachers in Victoria multiplied by the compulsory cost of registration equals a ton of money and I think it’s reasonable to ask where that money goes ….

      I would have much less of an issue with the VIT if it gave better value for money, perhaps engaged in some of the issues that the Teachers Union does (or used to, anyway).

      1. John, ignoring the massive amount of money skimmed from teachers to fund that “mechanism”, and ignoring that VIT’s PD nonsense is pissing off “fit” teachers, is there any evidence that the mechanism works efficiently or accurately to get rid of “unfit” teachers?

        1. Good question, Marty. I believe that VIT has access to the National Criminal Database, so any conviction deemed to make a person unfit to teach will result in that person having to attend a VIT hearing and plead his/her case. I used to read about some of these cases in the VIT Professional Practice issues (until these issues became a series of links to videos rather than pdf’s that you could download and scroll through).

          ‘Unfit’ to teach typically involves offences involving violence, drugs or offences against children (grooming, inappropriate relationships) etc. and it’s a very good thing that this stuff is weeded out.

          However, laziness, incompetence, bullying etc. understandably usually slips through this mechanism (but you’d hope it gets dealt with at the school level. Indeed, I have sometimes seen incompetence get rewarded with promotion – usually to another school).

          1. The criminal policing of teaching is overblown and infused with paranoia, but it is important. So, how much money per teacher per year would you estimate it requires to administer that? Five bucks? Ten bucks? Why does that even require a separate organisation from standard policing? Why, anyway, are teachers paying for that?

            What else? What does VIT offer teachers? Or anyone?

            John, I know you’re playing vampires’ advocate here. But you have your work cut out.

  3. Well, not really vampires’ advocate. I just figure that if I’m going to say mostly negative stuff, it looks more reasonable and balanced if I also acknowledge the one positive.

    Yes, the criminal policing of teaching (as with all other professions and trades) is important. And I think having one professional organisation to administer this is OK. And I’m OK with paying *a* cost for weeding out the unfit elements of the profession.

    But you’ve asked the $95.55 question …. How much to administer this? And what else is offered? As I commented earlier, it would be good to see where the money goes. Because a lot of what I’ve seen looks completely overblown. A lot of image and very little substance, not much transparency or accountability (that I can see). It’s similar to all the crap that goes on with VCAA audits of SACs – and you know my views on that.

  4. Marty (and others) in answer to some of the questions:

    1. Yes, the VIT process does stop some people from becoming teachers. I know this first hand, teaching as part of a university pre-service teacher program for a few years (no longer).

    2. When a teacher is “suspended” but nothing has been proven, the VIT, I have been told, pays their salaries, so that is where a large part (I would assume) of the money goes… especially if they were quite senior at the time.

    3. If anyone starts an alternative body for registering teachers – I’m in.

    1. Well #2 really ticks me off. Since when should *my* money pay the salary of someone who’s ‘suspended’ when nothing is proven!!? Surely the *employer* continues to pay the salary of its employee until such time as something *is* proven! What a blatant misuse of *my* money. See, no transparency or accountability. I am looking further into this.

    2. Number 8, what do you mean by “stop some people from becoming teachers”? You mean the registration of teachers? The registration and reregistration of teachers amounts to idiotic hoop-jumping based upon an idiotic degree based upon idiotic national standards. I am sure this is where much of the money goes, and it is a phenomenally bloated, ridiculous system.

  5. On two different occasions I have worked for a university and have been directly involved with teaching the pre-service teaching qualification. The VIT rubbish has delayed many a good graduate from registering. All anecdotal, of course. Probably lots of other things going on.

    As regards point 2 above, I have tried in vain to confirm what I was told. Not so easy to get answers.

    1. Anecdotal evidence is not to be sneezed at – especially when there’s a lot of it. I can well believe that evidence – Convoluted processes that require inane hoop jumping are always necessary to to justify your existence and show that you’re doing an excellent job.

      Re: #2. How unsurprising that it’s not so easy to get answers. Again it gets back to no transparency or accountability. Surely an Annual Report showing where the money’s being spent, among other things, is an essential requirement. I’m planning to submit a FOI (speaking of jumping hoops). I’d also like to see ICAC take a look ….

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.