|
|
Broadland |
| |
|
|
| |
8th April, 2008
NUT STRIKE ACTION on 24th APRIL 2008
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON STRIKE ACTION
What is this about and why does it affect us all?
This dispute is formally with the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families about the level of teachers’ pay.
In 2005, 2006 and 2007, the Government determined that teachers were to have what were in effect pay cuts. The additions made to their pay were less than the increases in their living costs. The Secretary of State now proposes another pay cut in 2008, a 2.45% addition to pay whilst living expenses are increasing by over 4%. The Union balloted members on strike action believing that it is time to make a stand before this gets worse year by year. Members have agreed.
Who is being called on to strike?
Members of the NUT in England and Wales who would normally be working on 24th April will be called out on strike.
This includes NUT members employed in the local authority maintained sector and paid under the School Teachers' Pay & Conditions Document (STPCD), including all teachers employed in local authority maintained schools, whether community, voluntary aided or foundation schools, and all teachers employed in local authority central services paid under the STPCD.
It excludes supply teacher members, members in independent schools, members in some academies and a small number of members who are not covered by the Secretary of State’s decisions. We are also not calling on members to take strike action in the last year of service before retirement. Included are around 200,000 members.
Has this decision that we should strike been made by a small group of people?
No. It has been decided by a 75.2% majority in a national ballot of Union members. It’s happening because NUT members believe that it’s the right and necessary thing to do.
198,989 ballot papers were distributed. 64,101 valid ballot papers were returned, a turn out of 32.2 per cent. Of these 48,217 (75.2 per cent) voted in favour of strike action; and 15,884 (24.8 per cent) voted against.
THE STRIKE AND YOUR SCHOOL
Can I strike if I haven’t voted in the ballot or if I voted against?
Yes, you certainly can. The 75% majority of members who voted in the ballot have given legal authority for all members whom the Union calls on to take part to do so. Some critical commentators have already tried to make something of the 32% turnout, but we know from experience that that is a good turnout to give authority for action and it does not represent the support for the action. We would like the strike itself to be supported by all those who have been authorised by the ballot to take it. That includes members who did not vote and indeed members who voted against but who are now prepared to accept the democratic majority decision.
It is interesting to note that the current Government was supported by just a little over 20% of the electorate. The turnout in the local government elections next month are likely to be of a similar order to the turnout in the NUT ballot.
Will my head teacher close the school on 24 April?
That’s up to the head teacher and the decision will be based on whether the health, safety and satisfactory education of pupils can be guaranteed in the absence of teachers taking strike action, having conducted proper risk assessments. The head will also need to take into account that members of other TUC-affiliated unions should not attempt to undermine the NUT’s action by undertaking work which would otherwise have been undertaken by an NUT member.
Many head teachers who are themselves NUT members will be taking part in the action. They will be deciding whether the school can safely remain open.
Do I have to tell the head teacher that I'm going on strike?
The head needs to know who is going to be on strike in order to make decisions about the safety of children. There’s nothing to be ashamed of and nothing to hide. This action is for a very positive purpose to have teachers properly rewarded and motivated and to ensure that teaching is an attractive career for the future. That is for everybody’s benefit, particularly that of today’s and tomorrow’s children.
NUT school representatives are being asked to advise the head teacher of the NUT members who will be called upon to take strike action, giving at least two days’ notice.
Can we be replaced for the day by supply teachers? Can our classes be covered by colleagues?
The NUT would expect that non-NUT members will not be asked to undertake the work of colleagues taking strike action. The Union has written to the TUC asking them to remind other affiliates with members working in schools of the usual convention that their members will not undertake work normally undertaken by those who are taking strike action. Advice has already been issued by ATL and NASUWT to their members in accordance with that convention. We will keep pressing for this convention to be applied at local ,regional and national levels.
The same principle applies to supply teachers accepting work to substitute for striking teachers.
“Employment businesses” which supply teachers they employ are prevented by law from supplying teachers to cover the work of regular employees taking industrial action. Any infringement should be reported to your NUT Regional or Wales office.
The head intends to cover the absences of striking NUT members by aggregating classes for sports activities and / or large groups in the school hall. Is there anything we can do about this?
Head teachers must make their own judgments having conducted proper risk assessments. It would be very unwise for any head to be influenced in this judgment by a desire to try to minimize the effect of the strike. The safety of children on the premises must be the deciding factor. This is certainly how NUT head teacher members will be advised and we expect other teachers’ organisations to advise their members similarly.
Can the head teacher take action against me for striking?
This action is being called by the NUT in accordance with all the relevant laws. Strike action is accepted as a legitimate means for members of a workforce collectively to express their feelings. The NUT calls strikes only very rarely and as a last resort in a dispute. The last national strike by NUT members was as long as 21 years ago.
In any strike some people will always try to lay blame on the strikers. From the NUT’s point of view, the blame lies clearly with those whose decisions have provoked teachers to take action.
Head teachers who, in these circumstances, attempt to penalise striking NUT members can only be seen to be using their authority to impose their personal opinions without respect for the differing opinions of their colleagues. We do not expect that to happen but if it does the Union will give very strong support to members affected. Your best protection is the fact that thousands of colleagues will be acting with you on 24th April, but you also have legal protection against action being taken against you selectively and the NUT is very well equipped to assert your legal rights. .
Any member who feels they are being put under pressure by a head teacher or Governing Body should contact the NUT Regional Office or, in Wales, NUT Cymru.
What if I come under pressure from colleagues to work on 24 April?
The NUT does not instruct members to strike, and we resist members being put under pressure not to strike. The decision is yours and you should be able to make it freely.
We want to tell you why in our view there are good reasons why you should join the strike. We urge you to read the literature explaining what has happened and to join your colleagues who have democratically decided what should be done through the ballot. Success in the Union's campaign of which this strike forms part will benefit all teachers, and the education service which depends on them, including those who take no part in the campaign which achieves it.
The salary of every teacher includes significant amounts of money which have been gained through the campaigns of the NUT.
Any attempt to victimise, threaten, intimidate or otherwise bully you in respect of your following the Union's call should be drawn to the attention of the Union, through your Regional office or, in Wales, NUT Cymru.
I want to help the Union defend teachers’ pay but are there enough of us to make an impact in my school?
This is a national strike in England and Wales. Even if the number of NUT members in your school taking action is small, every one of them will be part of a national declaration of strength of feeling. It matters much more that you should be part of that, than that you should have an immediate impact in your own school.
I am an NUT head teacher. Can I take strike action?
A very definite YES is the answer to this question. The NUT recognises the special position of its head teacher members. Advice specifically for head teacher NUT members and to other leadership group NUT members is being posted on the Union’s website and sent to relevant members’ home addresses.
IMPACT ON PAY AND PENSIONS
Will the NUT pay me anything towards my lost wages?
Of course, you will not be paid by your employers for a day on which you withdraw your labour. Your contract of employment anticipates that you may at some time be on strike and provides that for a strike day your normal pay will be reduced by 1/365th, one calendar day, of your annual salary.
The Union cannot compensate members for loss of pay in a national strike. A 1/365th deduction in respect of the strike day on 24th April 2008 is a sacrifice. For NQTs on M1, the loss in take home pay would be some £35 to £40. For teachers on UPS3, the loss in take home pay would be around £70 after tax and other deductions.
The Union believes it is a sacrifice worth making. There is a lot at stake. The Government’s below inflation pay increases, however, are depriving you of £3 to £5 every day and it gets worse whilst current pay policy in relation to teachers and others in the public sector continues.
Your Local Association will be considering arrangements to assist any member who will suffer particular hardship as a result of losing a day’s pay and you should contact your local secretary in the first instant whose details are on your membership card should you wish to seek assistance.
What impact will the strike have on my teachers’ pension?
Your pension is based on your pensionable salary and your total length, in years and days, of pensionable service.
For most teachers who will not be retiring in the next few years, the impact will be negligible as you will simply lose the pension due for the one day you take strike action. For a teacher with a pensionable salary of £30,000 and 30 years’ service, each day lost in a strike will take £1 a year from your pension, and £3 from your lump sum.
For teachers who are closer to retirement, there could possibly be some pension losses in addition to those set out above, should the pensionable salary be affected by strike action. The likelihood and extent of any losses cannot be predicted with absolute certainty because they would depend upon the date of retirement and on future movements in pay and prices.
I'm in my last year of teaching before retiring - if I strike, will it affect my pension?
For retirements on or before 31 December 2008, there are three options to determine the pensionable salary and your pension benefits will be calculated on the best of the three options. For retirements after 31 December 2008, only the second and third options will apply and your pension benefits will be calculated on the better of those options.
The three options are:
• your best 365 consecutive days average salary in the last three years of pensionable employment;
• your salary received in the last 365 consecutive days of reckonable service;
• the average of the best three consecutive years in the last ten years re-valued in line with the Retail Prices Index.
If, therefore, you are planning to retire in the 12 months from 24 April 2008, you should be aware that taking strike action could have an adverse effect on your pension over and above the loss of one day’s reckonable service. In particular, it would be necessary to go back over a longer period to get 365 consecutive days or 1095 consecutive days of reckonable service and this could reduce your pension.
For this reason the Union is not calling on members in their last year of service to take strike action and advises members in this category not to do so if it appears that the action would have an adverse effect on their pensions. If you do decide to strike you will receive the same support as all other members taking industrial action.
THE DAY OF THE STRIKE
What should I do on strike day?
A strike day is a day when together with thousands of other teachers you can be making a stand for the principles and values which brought you into teaching. There will be NUT organised activities taking place all over England and Wales. Information will be distributed locally but also placed on the Union’s website at www.teachers.org.uk in advance of the action. Please find out about them and join in.
Do I have to join in the strike as an NUT member?
You have a legal right to decline any call from your Union to take industrial action. As an NUT member, you won’t need to rely on that legal right because we do not instruct you anyway. We want you to join the strike. We want you to do so because Union leaders have worked hard already to resolve the dispute over your pay without a strike. We want you to show your support for the work that is being done on your behalf and make very clear the strength of that support. This is not a lost cause. On the contrary it’s a cause we must make every effort to win if the teaching profession and the service it provides are to prosper. If you decide not to take action however, the Union respects your right to make that decision and continues to value your membership of the Union.
Can non-NUT members take part in the action?
NO but they can participate as NUT members if they join the Union before 24 April.
Can members of other unions show their support by going on strike too?
NO. They cannot lawfully take action without the support of a ballot conducted by their own union.
Will the other teachers' organisations be joining in the strike action?
Despite our repeated efforts to unify the teachers’ organisations in this dispute, none of the other school teachers' organisations have balloted for industrial action and they cannot lawfully join the strike without having done so. .
The University & College Union (UCU), which includes the former NATFHE union, is balloting in a separate dispute for action on 24 April in further education. NUT members who work in those colleges are being balloted and will join their UCU colleagues in action should that ballot be successful. The NUT wishes the UCU well in its dispute.
We have a school trip organised for the day of the strike. What should we do?
It is likely that you will already have entered into contracts to enable the trip to take place. If so, the school trip should go ahead as planned.
What happens if there are or OFSTED or ESTYN inspections on 24 April?
The Union has written to the Chief Inspectors of Ofsted and ESTYN informing them of the Union’s proposed day of action. The Union has asked Ofsted and ESTYN to recognise that many schools may be fully or partially closed on that day and for inspection arrangement as to take that into account. If your school is scheduled to be inspected on 24 April 2008, please seek guidance from your NUT Regional Office or, in Wales, NUT Cymru know. The NUT will take up individual cases with Ofsted and ESTYN.
What would happen in the case of a parents’ evening already being arranged for 24 April?
You should seek to have the date changed. Your school will need to recognise that if it goes ahead NUT members on strike may decide not to attend. If there are particular difficulties please seek guidance from your local secretary or the NUT Regional Office or, in Wales, NUT Cymru.
What if there are public examinations arranged to take place on the day of action?
The Union does not wish to disturb pupils’ examinations.
Members should therefore fully co-operate with the exams calendar. This only affects a very limited number of exam boards.
CATEGORIES OF NUT MEMBER
Can new NUT members take part in the action?
New members can take part if they join the Union before 24 April 2008. Those joining before the day of action can participate in the strike action, with the same rights and protection offered to all.
Can lapsed members, as opposed to new members, join the action?
NO. Lapsed members who want to join the action should contact the Records & Subscriptions Helpline on 0845 300 1666 in order to restore their membership status and make good their subscriptions. They should be prepared to enter into direct debit or pay their subscriptions by credit or debit card over the telephone.
What about NUT members on the Graduate, Overseas or Registered Training Programmes?
YES, they can take part.
Can supply teachers participate in the strike?
YES. Members who had accepted engagements for a period including 24th April 2008 were included in the ballot, and are now included in the Union's strike call.
NUT members are obviously encouraged now not to accept new supply engagements work for the 24 April 2008.
All supply teacher members can, of course, participate in NUT campaigning activities on 24 April 2008, whether on strike or not.
Is there any reason why NQTs should not join in the strike?
NUT members who are NQTs are in the same position as any other member. They are not prevented by in any way from taking strike action. The Induction Regulations provide that teachers may have up to 30 days absence in the induction year without any effect upon the induction process.
What about fixed-term or part-time teachers?
The same principle applies as for supply teachers: those who have been balloted can take strike action, but all can participate in campaigning activities
REASONS FOR THE NUT’S STRIKE ACTION
What has the NUT been doing leading up to this strike?
Strike action is always the last resort for the NUT. This is the first national strike over pay for 21 years. It has been provoked by growing problems over teachers’ pay which the NUT has made every effort to resolve through other means.
Teachers have suffered below-inflation pay increases in each year since 2005. It is likely that below-inflation pay increases will operate until 2010. The Union has consistently opposed these below inflation pay increases and has been campaigning for more than a year to persuade the Government to protect teachers’ pay and the living standards of their families.
In its campaign to date, the NUT has:
• met with Ministers and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss the Union’s concerns about below-inflation pay increases and the Government’s public sector pay policy
• held pay rallies and meetings
• worked in partnership with the TUC and other public sector unions
• organised a petition calling for teachers’ pay to be restored and protected
• organised mass e-mailings of MPs
• sought widespread media coverage
• placed advertisements in the national, local and education press
• produced a range of campaign resources and newsletters.
It’s because the Government has not so far responded positively to what has been done that we are taking this step of calling strike action. Please go to the NUT website www.teachers.org.uk and read the NUT leaflet “Fair pay for Teachers” for a full account of the reasons for the NUT’s campaign and of the effects of below-inflation pay increases on teachers and their families and on the education service as a whole.
Will a strike have any effect?
Yes! The NUT firmly believes it will. We have made out your case to government and it’s a very strong case. It is important that the Government now sees the strength of feeling amongst teachers for their case.
An NUT strike in which there is wide ranging active member participation will also energise our union. It will boost our organisation and the confidence of members to tackle other issues, such as workload. This is a real opportunity now to start a positive movement for change in which the teaching profession can regain its self confidence. This has to be good for teachers and what is good for teachers is good for education.
Does the NUT plan to take further strike action after 24 April 2008?
The NUT ballot asked members to support a single day of strike action on 24 April. If the Union believes it will advance the campaign to take further strike action after this date, a new ballot of members will be required before any action could be considered.
It is important to remember that we are campaigning against a 3 year pay award in the context of rapid price increases. Our campaign will go on whether or not it involves further strikes or other similar action. We hope that the action on 24 April 2008 will inspire all members to be active in the further campaign and that includes colleagues who for reasons of their own do not take part in the strike on 24 April 2008. We want you to take part. We think it is important that you should but, even if you don’t, you will still be a valued member of the NUT and someone we hope will wish to be involved in the Union in other ways.
5th April, 2008
Conference 2008 Manchester
President’s Address, Treasurer’s Address, General Secretary’s Address & Full Text of Motions
President’s Address given by Bill Greenshields
We teachers have never needed our union more than we do now. Our Conference theme - "Organising for education, professionalism and solidarity" - is not just a slogan or soundbite. As someone almost said, "This is not a time for soundbites; we feel the hand of history on our shoulders." Our theme throws out a challenge to us, to all teachers, and to all those who stand for educational progress.
As Vice-President, I've been taking part in discussions with members and local officers all over England and Wales - in schools, training events, campaigning activities, school group, association and division meetings.
I can tell you this... The Union is in very good shape, in good heart, with a strong activist base determined to protect and develop our education service, and our profession, which lies at its heart.
Teachers are committed people, with a passion for the learning process, who look forward to and love teaching. The education process should be one that is liberating and exhilarating, responsive and dynamic. The relationship between teacher and student should be a daily mutually invigorating experience. Central to this, is the teacher's ability to exercise their professional judgement, in directing their work, to the real needs, aptitudes and interests of their students.
So why, for increasing numbers of teachers, is this very far from their daily reality? Why are they facing punitive inspection, top-down target setting without proper educational basis, policies that divide teachers and make them compete, bullying management practices, useless paperwork, crushing workload, imposed mechanistic teaching styles?
We need to explain to the world what is happening, and why it's happening. Now we are balloting for action against year on year pay cuts, ready to work closely with all other unions.
The best way to "just say no" to all the unacceptable pressures and burdens heaped on teachers, is to just say YES in the pay ballot. Enough is enough! The NUT is standing up for all teachers.
Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind. In the face of adversity, the NUT is taking positive action, leading to sustained membership growth.
We are organising new young teachers, developing new organising tools and methods, putting forward challenging proposals for the future of our service based on the professional judgement of teachers and our solidarity with all education workers and the communities that we serve. In doing so, we restate our total commitment to professional unity, to a single union for all teachers.
Put half a dozen, ten or twenty teachers in a room to discuss these issues, and you unleash a lively debate - full of passion and strongly held beliefs. We all know that, to be useful, such debate must produce unity around the way forward. That's our task over the next few days, with hundreds of teachers in the room, each representing hundreds more.
We love our Conference, because of the passion, the conviction, the high quality of debate - but above all because of the unity, and the vital activity, that results.
So,” Organising for Education". Education, worldwide, is both the most essential of services to individuals, and the most essential of industries to the societies in which we live. Our product is educated, self-confident, sophisticated, innovative citizens and the potential for soundly-based, developing, healthy communities and nations in a peaceful world. In a fast changing world - each new change in technology and science, presenting us with an ethical and philosophical challenge - we need young, critical minds.
And those critical minds will be most effective when, equipped with a world view, they can deal with worldwide challenges - environmental change, genetic engineering, human rights and the sovereignty of nations, peace and war, economics for profit or for people.
But education in itself is not enough to guarantee positive outcomes. All aspects of social life are interconnected.
For education to achieve positive, progressive outcomes, we need a positive, progressive social and political environment. But we live in a very divided world, and in very divided societies, within that world - particularly in terms of class, wealth and access to power.
The demands of the most economically and politically powerful often lead to huge disparities - in terms of "haves" and "have-nots" - nationally and internationally - leading to problems for the educational process, and for those working in it.
One such policy, accelerated over the last two decades, is the fragmentation and marketisation of education - schools encouraged and forced to compete with each other - increasing Local Authority marginalisation, and increasing private sector control.
The rapid expansion of the Academies programme is the latest step in this "direction of travel". If they are not stopped, there will be worse to come. Despite evidence that Academies work against the interests of precisely that section of children that the "spin" says they were to serve - the children from the toughest backgrounds - the programme continues to expand, together with its ugly twin the Trust School programme.
Our evaluation, through our Anti- Privatisation Unit, and the Anti-Academies Alliance, reveals a very different picture to that "spin". More exclusions. Fewer children with special needs on roll. Less teacher control. Even greater workload. Misuse of the curriculum. public money used for private purposes. No accountability. Damaging effects on neighbouring schools... The list goes on.
So why is this process pursued so aggressively? This is not just a bad education policy arising out of misguided politics.
There is a lot of money involved in public education in Britain and worldwide - money that some want to turn into profit. Global government spending on education, runs at ?subject=From Website'>2 thousand billion, including the employment of well over 50 million teachers and maintenance of hundreds of thousands of educational institutions - and it's a growing "market".
Education International puts it like this.
"Some see this immense bloc as a dream market for future investment… in the wake of other major public services which have been subject to extensive privatisation and deregulation, public education is increasingly being targeted by predatory and powerful entrepreneurial interests. The latter are aiming at nothing less than its dismantling by subjecting it to international competition."
As Michael Milken, convicted securities fraudster, "junk bond king", and leading US finance capitalist, said to Arthur Levine, President of Teachers' College, Columbia University, while "discussing" education privatisation,
"You guys are in trouble - and we're going to eat your lunch…"
Through EI, we hear similar stories from all over the "free market" world. This drive to exploit education for profit is what lies behind the worldwide "direction of travel" towards the fragmentation, marketisation and privatisation of education.
This despite the international research that integrated, publicly run, comprehensive systems deliver the highest quality education to the broadest range of children.
I said that there could be worse to come. Read "Academies: a model education?" - a new publication by the neoliberal think-tank "Reform" - particularly popular with the Tory Party. It proposes that all state schools should have completely independent managements, our national pay and conditions should be abolished, schools should have the right to exclude pupils without appeal, and "the teacher unions' role should be transformed from protecting and negotiating members' employment rights" - referred to elsewhere in the document as "blocking reform".
But let's not forget who is in charge right now. Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Schools and Learners, Lord Adonis' principal policy areas are "school formation including Trust Schools, Academies and Specialist Schools, primary education including phonics, the City Challenge Programme, and Special Education Needs."
He first served the Government as Tony Blair's Education adviser at the No 10 Policy Unit - and, in that capacity, took a dozen education journalist "opinion formers" to Milwaukee to see the first major School Voucher system, by which parents "spend" public funds in private schools - a direct source of profit.
Actually, it is not strictly true to say that Milwaukee's was the first school voucher system. It was pre-dated by that introduced by General Pinochet in Chile, as part of his programme to reverse the development of state education undertaken by the Allende government that he had overthrown by coup and bombing of the Presidential Palace.
Vouchers are one route to full blown privatisation. There are others. Our government is signed up to the World Trade Organisation's General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) which targets 160 services for privatisation. It is legally binding, commits members to a liberalisation agenda, and locks-in domestic privatisation, deregulation, and contracting out of public services.
At present UK education is exempt from it, as it is - or at least has been - so heavily identified as a "state service". But the Government's "direction of travel" - with Trust Schools and Academies, and all new schools being offered to the private sector - undermines that exemption.
WTO and Education International lawyers - coming from very different positions - agree there could be a generalised risk to our state schools as the process continues.
Many experts agree that the privatising agenda embodied in European Union initiatives, such as the discredited Constitution and the Services Directive take us in the same direction.
Organising for state comprehensive education, for a good local state school for every child and community is thus a huge task, against very powerful forces. To achieve it, we'll need all the strength of a united profession, supported actively by our communities on a local and national scale. Not only that.
All public services are being threatened by the same process, and all public sector workers need to confront the threat together. A big task!
A simple message to the individually and corporately rich, who are backing the school privatisation programme.
Our communities do not want their schools sold off. If you really want to support education as you claim - try paying your taxes. So, secondly, "Organising for Professionalism".
For some, the term is one that they prefer not to use, as its common usage has given it an "elitist" edge. That's certainly not what we mean. We fight for teacher professionalism not to distance ourselves from other workers, but because it embodies key, unique features that are essential if our schools and service are to be properly run, if the needs of all children, not just a few, are to be met. We highly value and respect the role of all workers in our schools - admin, school keeping and maintenance staff, dinner supervisors, librarians… a long and important list.
We need and value the work of our fantastic teaching assistants working directly alongside us, one-to-one and with small groups of children.
This is our team - and it needs to work well together, each having an indispensable and distinct role.
And clearly the lead role of the qualified teacher is not one that can be replaced by any other. But respect for teachers' professional roles has never been a central theme of New Labour.
This is Margaret Hodge (then at the Department for Education and Employment) writing in the New Statesman, just one year after the 1997 Blair election under the headline...
"Fewer teachers, please, not more."
"When the public think of teachers, they think of militant unions, resistance to change and long holidays…
In a few years, I believe, some classes will not be led by a fully trained teacher. This may sound heretical, but it is common sense. A trained classroom assistant may be as useful as a teacher.
In ten to fifteen years, I believe there will be fewer trained teachers in our schools. The teachers' monopoly in the classroom will be brought to an end…."
As early as May 1998, Margaret Hodge was preparing the way for "The Workforce Agreement".
Ostensibly aimed at reducing teacher workload, this in fact had a trio of purposes - firstly to bring to an end "the teachers' monopoly in the classroom", then to break the joint union unity that then existed on the need to act to reduce workload, and thirdly to suck some of our sister unions into an exclusive and continuing "top down" relationship with Government they call the "Social Partnership", excluding the NUT.
Another such strategic position has been to maintain and develop the "target and testing" regime - again undermining our professionalism. Teachers become subject to a "what, when and how to teach" diktat, against which we are spuriously measured by often mechanistic, statistically based performance targets that have nothing to do with real educational objectives; this within a deficit model of inspection that is based on an assumption that there are "weak teachers" in every school, who need to be identified and "dealt with". This, in turn, leads to top-down management practices, as headteachers fear that they themselves will be criticised as "weak" if they do not follow this orthodoxy.
Management bullying is thus on the increase, attempting to coerce often the most experienced teachers to conform to a model of mechanistic lesson planning, delivery, assessment and paperwork. No teacher is afraid of hard work - though we challenge the imposition of workload which means teachers often working 12 hours a day and more, and through weekends.
We hate "useless toil" as William Morris called it, and in demanding that our professionalism be respected in knowing best how to teach and run schools, we champion "useful work".
High quality education relies on teachers creatively responding to children's needs through the thoughtful application of their professional judgement.
But in the current Orwellian world, this is just seen, in Margaret Hodge's words, as "resistance to change".
Let's be clear. Teachers are NOT resistant to change, but we are and will remain resistant to political impositions in pursuit of a "public service reform" agenda that has nothing to do with standards of services and everything to do with privatisation. We are resistant to the dismantling of state education and its replacement by competing individual educational institutions. We are resistant to increasing control of schools by the private sector. We are resistant to the "commodification" of education, with parents encouraged to "shop around" using misleading statistics. We are resistant to the undermining of teachers' professional judgement through distorted top down punitive models of performance management and inspection. We are resistant to the replacement of qualified teachers with unqualified staff. We are resistant to crushing workloads which prevent teachers from performing as creative professionals. We are resistant to competition for pay between teachers, in what should be the cooperative process of education. We are resistant to salary cuts for teachers and other public sector workers.
Would it be too far fetched to suggest that there is a conspiracy to force through "public service reform" - privatisation and the deprofessionalisation known as "flexibility" - by creating impossible conditions in our classrooms, and so denigrating teachers and state schools?
You might think so… but listen to this - a direct quote from "The UK Government's Approach to Public Service Reform" from the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit at the end of 2006...
"The Government's approach to public service reform has four main elements
* top down performance management (pressure from government)
* the introduction of greater competition and contestability in the provision of public services
* the introduction of greater pressure from citizens including through choice and voice; and,
* measures to strengthen the capability and capacity of civil and public servants and of central and local government to deliver improved public services"
These are the very factors that teachers find so destructive to their role as professionals - punitive performance management, meaningless paperwork, the threat to schools through Academies and Trusts, the "targets, testing and league table" approach to evaluation, and the threat of capability procedures for those who do not conform … and all to achieve the government's political policy on public service reform.
Yes, we are resistant to that. Change in education, essential as the world develops ever faster, should be firmly based on teachers' professionalism and professional judgement. What a revolutionary idea!
A message to government. Put teachers in the driving seat, give us the resources to do the job, stop undermining our profession and our schools, and you will see the fastest and most radical change you could ever imagine. And so to the third element of our Conference theme - solidarity.
Let me quote from our General Secretary's introduction to "A Good Local School For Every Child And For Every Community" - the sequel to the ground breaking "Bringing Down The Barriers"
“The explicit value of solidarity needs to underline our approach internationally, nationally and locally.
It can inspire action to promote active citizens taking responsibility and understanding their rights.
It can help engender community spirit and self-respect. It will help us appreciate that children and parents are not 'clients', that citizens are not mere customers.
Importantly, an emphasis on solidarity will enable us to play a part in the construction of policies to help build community cohesion, end poverty and exclusion…."
For several decades all the research regarding educational achievement has given us the same uncompromising message.
There is a direct and clear correlation between the background of the child - their family's relative wealth and poverty - and the educational opportunities they can access, and their attainments.
RH Tawney in 1931 wrote, "The hereditary curse upon English education is its organisation along lines of social class… the barbarous association of differences of educational opportunities with distinctions of wealth and social position."
Hoggart, Jackson & Marsden, Newsom, Douglas, Hargreaves, Bernstein, Bourdieu, Halsey - names familiar to all who studied to become teachers when examination of research was central to that study - all followed in subsequent decades, all starting from different points, all reaching the same incontrovertible position - there is a direct, sustained and devastating correlation between education attainment and social class.
Recently the work of Leon Feinstein of University College London, quoted in Gillian Evan’s work
"Educational Failure and White Working Class Children in Britain"
"The research shows how it is possible to combine socio-economic classification of the household with the child's overall developmental score at age 22 months to accurately predict educational qualifications at the age of 26 years…
By the age of 22 months, children's developmental score is already stratified by social class, and that stratification has increased significantly by the age of 10 years"
And in The Guardian,
"A study by academics at University College, London has given statistical backbone to the view that a child's social background is the crucial factor in academic performance, a school's success is based… overwhelmingly, on the class background of its pupils."
The Government recognises the link. The Department for Education & Skills, publishing the "5 Year Strategy" in 2004 wrote,
"We also fail our most disadvantaged children and young people… internationally our rate of child poverty is still high ….
The links between poor health, disadvantage and low education outcomes are stark."
David Miliband, then Schools Minister, told a conference on social mobility,
"When it comes to the link between educational achievement and social class, four factors are key to this depressing pattern. First, the simple fact of growing up in poverty, with the restrictions it places on housing, diet and lifestyle. Second, family factors - critically parental interest and support, which itself is driven by parental experience of education. Third, neighbourhood factors. The fourth is the quality of schooling.
The first three require long-term change in social and economic life. But the great power of schooling is that it is in our power to change it now, and change it for the better."
We have to ask, "If the first three require long term change in social and economic life - where is Government strategy? Why is your absolute priority not the elimination of poverty?"
In fact, as the recent Rowntree report shows, the situation has worsened considerably since Miliband's statement - with over 100,000 more children living in poverty, the total being 3.8million - one in four children.
Consider the Government's figures from the Office of National Statistics
* The richest 1% of the population own 34% of the total wealth
* The richest 10% own 71% of the wealth
* 90% of the people share just 29% of the total
* The poorest 50% of the population share 1% of the wealth between them
Let's be clear about "social class". The fact is that 90% of the population, black, white, women, men - teachers included - rely on our ability to work for our living, not on profits, dividends or executive bonuses.
We are all subject to periodic attempts to cut our pay, and are just a few pay packets away from financial disaster.
Those in work are made to work too hard and too long, and job insecurity is growing. The halo has been stripped from those professions previously the subject of reverent awe.
The fact is, that 90% of us are working class now. The logic of such a society is that the wealth gap is huge between those at the very top, and those at the very bottom.
This gap is widening, the process accelerating, and what little "social mobility" there was is declining.
Those at the bottom are not the insular, simplistic, racist crew often portrayed in the media, but - both black and white - the victims of society's division… and their real needs and aspirations need to be addressed.
The vicious exploitation of this by the fascist Right needs to be challenged, not pandered to. The sad fact is that governments - both Tory and New Labour - while recognising the correlation between class disadvantage, poverty and educational underachievement, have attempted to turn the matter on its head, and have sought to blame the education system, teachers and other public sector workers for continuing inequalities, for lack of "social mobility" and social cohesion!
Most recently, Ed Balls put it like this in a Guardian article.
"A culture of excusing poor performing pupils on the basis of deprivation will let another generation fail".
We could put it another way.
"A culture of excusing poor performing governments on the basis of blaming teachers will let another generation of politicians get away with it."
Now the Government strategy is to impose a new socially engineered "legitimacy" in these issues.
We see "Skills Academies", Specialist Vocational Schools and "Vocational Pathways" for what they call "disaffected" pupils, and academic schools for those more "motivated" by such education. The former will be largely populated by young people from the toughest backgrounds - and often staffed by "appropriately qualified staff" as the Department calls them - in other words, often not qualified teachers.
Our approach is fundamentally different. All children whatever their backgrounds need and deserve a broad, balanced curriculum - not divergent academic and vocational "pathways".
The devastating effects of social and economic inequality in Britain are not just on the pages of the research papers - they are in front of us daily in our classrooms - and in our hospitals, in our housing and on the streets of our cities, and amongst those subject to rural poverty too.
Recently the Association of Chief Police Officers, in the person of the Forensic Science Director of the Metropolitan Police proposed that primary school children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds should be targeted for DNA sampling.
He said, "If we have a primary means of identifying people before they offend, then in the long term, the benefits of targeting young people are extremely large. You could argue the younger the better.
Criminologists say some people will grow out of crime, others won't. We have to find out who are possibly going to be the biggest threats to society."
The concept of targeting the victims of poverty for special surveillance is totally unacceptable to us, and we will have nothing to do with it.
To identify a group as potentially criminal by virtue of their class position is not just foolhardy, prejudiced and dangerous. It has the smell of the police state about it, the whiff of fascism as faced by many teachers and communities elsewhere in the world.
We will not allow our disadvantaged young people, badly behaved as they may be as a result of their life experiences, to be demonised and criminalised and labelled as "the biggest threats to society".
We teachers have a responsibility here.
Of course, we must continue to do everything - and then a bit more - to raise all pupils' aspirations, motivation and achievement. But we have to refute the notion that schools can in themselves put the matter right.
The problem has its root in our wider society, in a system that relies on the existence of "have-nots" in order that the "haves" can have more than their share - a lot more than their share.
The huge elephant in the room of class discrimination remains the private education system.
Educational privilege based on wealth is unfairly discriminatory. A recent Sutton Trust study of 500 leading figures in law, politics, medicine, journalism and business showed that over 50% had been privately educated, whereas just 7% of today's school-age children attend independent schools.
Dr Anthony Seldon, Master of Wellington College, recently told his private school colleagues that they should not "…carry on as we are in splendid isolation, detached from the mainstream national education system… thereby perpetuating the apartheid, which has so dogged education and national life in Britain since the second world war".
Well, we'd disagree with his answer - more private school sponsorship of Academies… but we might have other suggestions for dealing with this unfair discrimination, this privilege based on wealth, this educational apartheid.
Firstly, we are monitoring Gordon Brown's "aspirational target" of matching the funding of state schools with private sector funding. But let's also consider our own alternative "direction of travel" - from private to public - towards bringing all schools into the state sector. Then, as those who have sought to buy educational privilege found themselves unable to do so and obliged to send their children to community schools – then we would see some urgent improvements in our state system!
There is not just one Britain, not just one set of British values.
Class differences remain strong - and the values of ordinary working people of community, fairness, justice, equity, security, hard work are not reflected in those others whose priorities are wealth, power, privilege and individual and personal advantage.
The unpalatable and politically unpopular fact is, in my view, that social class advantage and disadvantage, the growing wealth/poverty gap - far from being aberrations in our free market, dog-eat-dog, private not public society - are economic imperatives that government feels unable or unwilling to challenge.
If it is money that makes the world go round, it is inequality in wealth and power that keeps it turning the way that we are encouraged to think of as normal. We teachers need to be part of a wider movement that rejects the fundamental systemic inequalities of society, rejects the social mechanisms that sustain inequality, and works strategically against them.
We need and want to reflect the values of the ordinary people of Britain, not those of the ruthless
"free market”. This is the solidarity we need to build and express - solidarity with other trades unionists, with our communities, with the families of the children we teach.
We need to definitively research those class factors that limit the achievement of children - and we need to promote policy designed to eradicate them.
We need to insist that the Government takes specific action to meet its own stated aim to halve child poverty by 2010.
They "missed" the first 2005 target, and are on track to miss the 2010 target. The TUC's Brendan Barber was right to declare his "bitter disappointment" after the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review. He said, "The Chancellor had a golden opportunity to show his commitment to ending child poverty. Instead, he decided to transfer meagre tax levies from the super-rich to the merely well-off.
If the super-rich and big companies are not paying their fair share, it means that public services are not getting the growth they need, and that we do not have the resources to end child poverty."
The recent budget again presented the opportunity - and again it was refused.
Of course children do not live in poverty by themselves. It is a question of family poverty, conditioned by unemployment, low wages, poor housing, inadequate benefits.
The target of halving child poverty by 2010 must not be relegated to another Government "aspiration".
Action to achieve it would have a real impact on children's chances in education.
What policies and measures should they follow?
The TUC has proposed the development of integrated policy on education, training, youth employment and apprenticeships.
That Government should ensure security of employment rather than promoting insecurity - particularly affecting low paid workers - in the name of "workforce flexibility."
The level of the minimum wage, and benefits too, should be raised to a level necessary to support dignified and secure living.
There should be a new commitment to high quality affordable council housing - and no child should, under any circumstances, be sleeping rough.
There should be the extra £4billion pounds put into Child Tax Credit that the Institute of Fiscal Studies says would give a "50:50 chance of halving child poverty by 2010".
And there should be established a progressive, redistributive taxation system aimed particularly at getting the super-rich, non-doms and big companies to pay "their fair share".
All are fundamental to raising educational achievement. How about that as a budget for a Labour Government?
In deciding to follow such targets, any Government would need allies - and they would find no stronger supporter in this than the trade union movement.
Some teachers may regard this sort of thing as being too political. but it's often these same teachers who work hard and long - often too hard and long for their own health - to raise the aspirations and achievement of children from the toughest backgrounds.
Their commitment and work is a very fine thing, something that all should value and respect. But despite generations of such teachers, the problems remain.
All the evidence is that the solution is very largely outside of the classroom, and is based on social progress, on progressive policies that challenge "global market" imperatives, the power of money and privilege. Such policies do not come about without a bit of a struggle.
The pressures of the privatisation agenda are international pressures - but they impact directly on us, and have their effects every day in our classrooms.
International solidarity, mutual support between teachers around the world, is not just a slogan - it is a practical necessity and absolutely central to our work, if we are to win the fight for education at home and abroad.
We need to act on our solidarity with all those in both the developing and developed worlds struggling for publicly provided education and against privatisation. We need each other!
If there is not renewed governmental commitment, we are on target to miss the UN's Millennium Development Target of seeing every primary aged child in education by the year 2015.
So it is particularly important that we show our solidarity both with the achievements of those developing nations that have made education a priority, and with teachers who are persecuted by reactionary governments for their efforts to do so.
I've just returned from the Cuban teacher union conference, where they have been isolated from "free market" imperatives for the last 50 years.
Uniquely in that part of the world, every child is in school, with free education, uniforms, food and health care. Class sizes are limited to 20 in Primary Schools and 15 in Secondary Schools. All educational initiatives have to be agreed by the teacher union, and largely emerge "bottom up" from best practice in their schools. Their education system is regarded as one of "good practice" by UNESCO.
If a small developing nation subject to economic blockade by the world's most powerful nation can make education a priority, and put the professionals in charge, why can't the fourth most powerful economy in the world?
At the other end of the scale, in Ethiopia, where our General Secretary has played such an important role in supporting the beleaguered teachers' union, and in bringing the situation to world attention, the government has stepped up its assault on our comrades there - declaring the Ethiopian Teachers' Association illegal, seizing its assets, and threatening again its leaders with imprisonment, and violence from the security forces, who already murdered the Deputy General Secretary Assafa Maru.
So, today we again express our solidarity with all those who are struggling to build their systems of education and defend teachers' rights, and solidarity with teachers who are persecuted by repressive governments for their commitment to doing so.
Solidarity with those who are fighting privatisation, both in the developing and developed world. And solidarity with our communities here at home.
Britain's history has been one of struggle for democracy, for equality, for reforms and improvements in working people's lives, and for social transformation.
At each stage of that struggle, there have been those who have believed that the status quo could not be changed, that the fight could not be won.
But there have been others who have taken up the fight, and passed it on to the next generation.
We meet in Manchester - a historic city at the centre of that struggle, with the early milestones of the Peterloo Massacre in 1819, the formation of the National Charter Association in 1840, the source of Engels' influential work "The Conditions Of The English Working Class" in 1844, and the establishment of the TUC in 1868.
"Cottonopolis", as Manchester was known, encapsulated the struggle of ideas and values, as well as physical struggle.
On one side - slavery, brutal repression, exploitation of workers at home and abroad, resulting in acute poverty - also resulting in huge wealth and power for the minority.
On the other side, a demand for democracy, decent living and working conditions, respect and education - resulting in solidarity and collectivity, and the empowerment of the mass of people.
The struggle for education for ordinary working people has been a central theme of that history - then and ever since.
It has been a struggle because there have always been those who have feared, rightly, that such advances would challenge their privileged positions.
Of course, the conditions we face are not those of the 19th Century. But some of the issues are very similar. Community or individualism? The common good or private profit? Solidarity or control by powerful minorities?
Now in the conditions of the 21st Century it is our responsibility to take the struggle for education forward. We are living through pivotal times - as important as the 1870 and 1902 Acts, the huge advances of 1944, the fight for Comprehensive Education in 1960s.
The historians will look back at the first decades of the 21st century to ask, "What happened to state education? Was it dismantled and privatised, or was there such a struggle that the situation was reversed, and became a marker in the history of the fight for social progress?"
The first blow we can strike following Conference is to announce a massive YES vote in our pay ballot.
Teachers' pay is not something separate from the fight for education. Only with decent pay will we attract the best to be teachers… we don't do the job for the money, but we can't do it without. If a society values its children, it will value its teachers.
Much more will be said during this conference on this issue - but let no-one be in any doubt. The NUT is determined to protect teachers' pay, as part of our campaign for properly resourced, properly run good local state schools for every child and every community.
And we will do so in solidarity with all other public sector workers facing the same issues, defending their pay, defending their services, and defending the users of their services - just like us.
The responsibility for future teachers, for the education service, for the children in our care, and for the communities who depend on us, is ours. We will live up to the task.
That's why the National Union of Teachers is organising for Education, Professionalism and Solidarity.
I'm very proud to be President and a National Officer of this great Union. You'll be able to let me know how I'm doing as I go along, I'm sure.
But when all is said and done, the Union's strength and effectiveness lies in its members, and therefore in your work - Association and Division officers, School Representatives and activists.
We need to recommit ourselves to our "organising agenda", building our strength in every school, building members' confidence that union membership really does make a difference, building our strength in every community to organise the fight for education on a wider basis.
The Union is giving priority to renewed support to local Officers and School Reps. This will certainly be my number one priority, and I look forward to visiting as many meetings, schools, training events as possible to discuss this with you.
I want to conclude by quoting GCT Giles, NUT President in 1944, and a bit of a hero of mine.
President at the time of the defeat of Fascism, of the leap forward of the 1944 Education Act, of the huge expression of the people for major social change, leading to the victory of the 1945 Labour Government - we ought to mark his words carefully.
"Our responsibilities and our opportunities are immense - nothing less than the nurture, education and training of a generation with the necessary character, skill and knowledge and the still more necessary devotion to the people's cause and the democratic way of life.
For the cultivation of the human resources of the whole nation is a necessary condition of a developing and broadening democracy,
just as social progress is a condition of a democratic education system.
It is a grand task, for which we shall need all our strength and faith, for it will not be easy.
The reactionary, die-hard forces, which too often in the past have succeeded in strangling educational and social progress, have not undergone a sudden and miraculous change of heart - they will have their successors.
Against them we shall need all the strength, experience, leadership and resources of our great Union and of a united profession. We shall need more. We shall need, and can win, the active sympathy and co-operation of a public opinion more enlightened and more determined than ever before to sweep aside the obstruction of vested interest and privilege.
We need, and can win, the aid of the parents of the children, of a united people. With the aid of the people we can conquer the future for all children, and that victory will open up new opportunities, new hopes and new visions. And it will lay on us the responsibility of seeing that these hopes are not betrayed."
Well, I couldn't put it any better than that. It is a grand task, and it is a great responsibility.
But we are a great profession, with a powerful Union - and we are up to the task.
Together, we can win, for education, for professionalism…
Solidarity - forever!
Address by the Honorary Treasurer, Ian Murch
The Union Treasurer addresses Conference in a private session. This has often, in the past, been a session that some delegates leave for a break, as they find it uninteresting. However, Ian Murch is able to make it an interesting session by summarising what the figures really stand for. He said that 2007 had been a good year. The Union had budgeted for surplus funds of £1½ million, mainly for the Staff Pension Fund. However we had achieved a surplus of over £4 million. This was after four years when we had no reserves and were in deficit. The Staff Pension Fund is still a final salary scheme for which the Union is contributing about 24% of each salary.
We assessed that, as the number of employed teachers is declining, our membership would reflect this. However, last year our membership grew by 1,400 FTE. We decided against giving new members a free year, which would have cut our income by £750,000. Our income from rents at headquarters and investment increased and we received commission from Teachers Building society and Norwich Union.
Our staff costs increased slightly, but these could be more next year, due to current staff vacancies. We spent less on campaigning, but there has been a great increase in training, with more courses, especially for young teachers. Our legal costs have increased, but this depends on what cases are presented. Our investments have remained steady, with some improving and others giving poorer results. It is likely that we will spend more on campaigning in 2008, but we are financially prepared for this situation.
General Secretary’s Address
This was given on Tuesday, 25th March, 2008. Tragically, Steve died of a massive heart attack on Friday, 4th April, 2008. This is a great loss to our union.
Steve said that our finances are healthy and with our finances up, we are the biggest teachers’ organisation in the UK and the largest in Europe.
We have achieved this whilst teacher numbers are down. Teachers trust us because we have principles. Our ballot on pay is about fairness. To use public service workers as a cause of inflation is dishonest. They are not the causes of inflation. They are the victims. Some of the very rich are avoiding paying taxes to the tune of £41 billion. This figure could be spent on more one to one learning, classes of 20, not 70, getting asbestos from schools, affordable housing for teachers or getting rid of student loans for teachers. It is tough for young teachers to get on the housing ladder or the cost of public transport to get to work.
Steve said that he wanted to work with government to stop the waste of teachers leaving the profession. He was aksed by a journalist why there are no inspirational teachers these days, so he sent him a video of inspirational teaching. It showed a teacher breaking up a fight by two large pupils. When the teacher said, “You are hurting me”, one pupil ran away and stopped the fight. There was no call for exclusion of the pupil. The teacher had made a judgement and it was an excellent result. When he later met the pupil he was given an apology and they hugged. This is an example of an inspirational teacher. Steve visited a school in Leicester where, in 2004 visitors were being attacked by people wandering around. The school is now safe, with new buildings. The pupils said this was due to Mrs Brown, the new headteacher. She is an inspirational NUT member. Steve said that he could give many other examples.
Another journalist asked Steve why we were so interested in Scandinavian models. We just need to give examples of Finland’s success in education.
They reject:
social segregation
light touch inspections
They :
have more equal societies
trust their teachers.
Ours is driven by mistrust with an intractable monitoring system that was demolished in Wales a few years ago, with no league tables. We know that the best systems trust teachers. We now need to change to an autonomous profession which decides its own values. Our “A Good Local School For All Pupils” gives the requirements for teacher entitlement.
We are surrounded by people who have never been teachers. Why does OFSTED/Estyn fail to understand teachers’ lives?
We have a professional charter for teachers calling for (and we urge the other teacher trade unions to work together) no more initiatives and policies to be “rolled out”. Our slogan is “No more roll outs”.
Schools are now the only place where pupils can socialise. They used to do this in the community and home. Last year I called for a band on alcohol being advertised on football shirts. I took this message to the Secretary of State and there is now no advertising of alcohol on children’s football shirts. I say that we should stop all advertising on football shirts by 2012, the year of the Olympics.
Life expectancy is less in Manchester than in Kensington. We should not advertise size 0 models, because these make people feel inadequate. Boys are taking steroids to grow bigger and quicker. Their shape is being dictated to by the media and advertisers.
The Union’s rejection of academies is being followed by other unions and this will lead to a joint policy. Schools becoming academies are presenting teachers with a 12-page document in legal terms as a condition of maintaining their jobs. This was written by the academies department of the Department for Schools Children and Families. If you sign if you keep your job. If not, you lose your job.
Here is a complete list of all of the motions passed at Conference.
Young Teachers
Conference notes the continued hardships faced by young teachers. In particular we note:
1. The starting salary for teachers is lower than that of many other graduate professions, and salary progression is far slower than in other professions. This causes young teachers financial hardship;
2. Housing is becoming less and less affordable for teachers, who often cannot afford to live in the areas where they work. Despite some of the schemes, such as the Government’s key worker scheme, there is still a lack of affordable housing available for teachers in many areas;
3. The current system which sees rises in the amount of inner, outer and fringe weightings in London discriminates against young teachers, and pays more to those higher up the pay scales.
Conference further notes that the recruitment crisis for teachers has eased for the present. However, retention rates remain worryingly low, and we note that that this is in large part due to new teachers facing high levels of stress caused by workload, low pay and the lack of a work-life balance.
Conference recognises the good work being carried out with many young teachers by the national union and local associations and divisions. Conference welcomes the establishment of the young teachers’ advisory committee and the young teachers’ conference.
Conference recognises that building a healthy, campaigning union has proved the best way to engage young teachers in the union’s activities.
Conference recognises the importance of the union’s involvement with wider political initiatives like Love Music Hate Racism as well as events and activities specifically aimed at young teachers.
Conference welcomes the way that the Executive has placed young teachers at the heart of the Union’s campaign to win Fair Pay for Teachers and has sought to draw particular attention to their position and actively involve them in the campaign.
Conference welcomes the Union’s survey of the financial position of young teachers, carried out in accordance with the 2007 Conference decision. This has shown that almost half of the young teachers responding believe it is possible or very likely that they will have to leave teaching for financial reasons within the next two to three years.
Conference instructs the Executive to
(i) Highlight the financial hardships faced by young teachers within the Union’s general pay campaign and to campaign for starting salaries that are in line with other graduate professions;
(ii) To campaign along side other unions for affordable housing across the country;
(iii) Make funds and support available for local associations and divisions to run activities for young teachers;
(iv) Keep the subscription arrangements under close review and continue to use the Union’s resources to provide tangible benefits and services for teachers at the start of their careers.
Support for School Representatives
Conference values the work carried out daily by our Union representatives in schools across England and Wales and condemns the absence of any statutory entitlement to time off with pay to undertake union activities. Conference recognises that the vast majority of school Union representatives are struggling to find time to discharge their union role.
Conference knows that school representatives and safety representatives should be entitled to facilities time and resources within their school, and that
this facility would greatly ease their workload and increase their effectiveness, from which we would all benefit
Conference therefore instructs the Executive to:
1. Send advice to school representatives to assist them in gaining facilities and time within school for carrying out their Union role;
2. Support divisions in seeking from their employers’ reasonable time and facilities for union representatives to undertake union activities.
3. Plan a campaign of action at national, local and association level to get more facilities for our Union representatives and to raise the profile of the importance of their role;
4. Monitor and coordinate the union material sent to school representatives to prevent excessive demands on their time.
Conference notes that all too often our school representatives/health and safety representatives (and local officers) are subjected to intimidation, bullying and harassment from school/workplace management for simply carrying out their union activities.
This victimisation has resulted in some of our representatives feeling unable to fulfil their union role and represent members effectively. Furthermore, in some cases, it has resulted in our representatives resigning from their role as school representative/health and safety representative.
Conference further notes that this union needs more members to take on the crucially important role of school representative/health and safety representative in order to protect our members from the abuses of management and government.
The Union also needs to give continued assurances to our representatives that they will be protected from such victimisation and supported when it occurs. If, as the largest teacher’s union in Europe, we are not able to protect and support our own representatives adequately then clearly our members will have no confidence in the union’s ability to protect and support them in similar situations.
Conference therefore instructs the Executive to support requests for a ballot for sustained industrial action in order to protect a school representative/health and safety representative (or local officer) who they feel has been victimised.
Support for Local Associations and Divisions
Conference recognises that a key priority for the Union must be to support Local Associations and grow the Union’s activist base of Division and Association officers. Such a key priority is central to the organising agenda.
Conference recognises that
1. The Union’s membership continues to grow steadily, with an increase in in-service membership of more that a third in the last 10 years alone;
2. This creates extra demands on our lay structure, including both local officers and school representatives;
3. Competition between teacher unions to recruit new and existing teachers has never been more intense;
4. The growth in the number of individual employers of teachers makes bargaining, representation and individual casework ever more complex;
5. The Union’s commitment to an “organising agenda” puts greater demands on lay representatives as well as Union staff whilst we seek to expand our activist base.
Conference welcomes the setting up of the Support for Local Associations and Divisions Working Party as requested by Conference 2007.
Conference instructs the Executive to:
(i) Ensure that the Working Party is fully supported by senior staff, and that the contributions of its Regional/Wales representatives are made known speedily to the appropriate Committees of the Executive;
(ii) Ensure that Regional/Wales Offices have a clear knowledge of the capacities and needs of all associations and divisions in their area, having regard to adequacy of facilities time, training needs of secretaries and other local officers, and size and maturity of their activist base; and that the Regional/Wales Offices are able to give
appropriate support to divisions and associations to help them meet any identified needs;
(iii) Ensure that the Union fully and speedily develops the capacity to communicate electronically with members and representatives;
(iv) Ensure that there is a programme with local, Regional/Wales and national input capable of identifying and training a Union Representative in every workplace.
(v) Evaluate the pilot student projects being undertaken in ITT institutions with a view to supporting Divisions and Associations in their work with student members.
(vi) Provide Associations and Divisions with the necessary guidance to assist them in obtaining clerical and administrative support.
(vii) Develop banks of materials available for use by Associations and Divisions to assist them in responding to routine queries.
(viii) Develop support materials for lay officers advising members on casework issues.
(ix) Encourage Associations/Divisions to develop their own local websites using the template supported by the Union recommended provider.
(x) Promote the use of grants to make sure that all Associations/Divisions have the finances necessary to access the internet and develop a website, so that they can become part of an e-union.
(xi) Ensure that Local websites are able to host electronic networks, enabling members with specific educational interests or union role, to interact and communicate with each other.
(xii) Advise and give guidance to Divisions to negotiate agreements with Local Authorities to use the e-mail facilities that schools have and set up Union notice boards on the LA intranet and Learning Platform.
(xiii) Encourage new activists to take up new posts such as environmental and young teachers’ representatives.
Teachers’ Salaries, Workload, Class-Size and Supporting Young Teachers
Conference welcomes the determined stand taken by the Union to protect the living standards of teachers and their families and rejects any attempt to use the current financial crisis occurring in various parts of the world as an excuse to hold down public expenditure or the pay of public sector employees.
Conference endorses the decision of the Executive to ballot for industrial action on 24 April 2008 as part of a strategy to restore teachers’ salaries against the cuts in real terms that have taken place since 2005 Conference believes that the salaries campaign conducted during 2007 and 2008 has important lessons for the conduct of its future campaigns.
Conference reaffirms the action strategy adopted by the Union in 2007, which identified the preparation of members for industrial action, in co-operation with the largest possible coalition of the other teachers’ organisations and public sector unions. That strategy needs to be further developed for the Union to secure gains for teachers and the education service following the closure of the current ballot and the industrial action on 24 April 2008. Conference further endorses the TUC’s support for co-ordinated action in the public sector.
Conference welcomes the stand taken by the University & Colleges Union (UCU) to defend the pay of lecturers in further education and to ballot for strike action on 24 April 2008, and the joint campaign “Our Schools, Our Colleges, Our Communities”.
Conference welcomes the statements from the PCS General Secretary that major sections of that union may also be on strike on April 24lh.
Conference calls on associations and divisions to examine the possibility of organising joint rallies and demonstrations on the strike day.
Conference reaffirms the determination of the Union to reduce the workload pressures on teachers. Conference further recognises that to reduce the workload of teachers will require an approach that features both industrial action and national negotiation with Government. Conference welcomes the imaginative action being taken in a number of divisions across all schools; in groups of schools; and in individual schools. Conference urges all divisions to consider such approaches and how they can be applied in support of a reduction in teachers’ workload. Conference calls for consultation with the EIS to see what lessons the Union can learn from the experience of teachers in Scotland.
Conference condemns the Government’s use of the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) rather than the Retail Prices Index (RPI) as a reference point in determining levels of public sector pay. Conference supports the organisation by the TUC of a representative lobby of Parliament on 9 June 2008 by the relevant unions in opposition to the Government’s public sector pay policy and the consequential reduction in the standard of living of public sector workers.
Conference instructs the Executive to fully involve members in bringing the concerns of the Union and the wider trade union movement to the attention of Members of Parliament and Assembly Members.
Conference calls on associations and divisions to arrange a programme of visits to schools by Members of Parliament and Members of the Welsh Assembly for them to gain a better understanding of the priority concerns identified by the Union. Conference instructs the Executive to give full advice and support to associations and divisions in arranging this programme. Conference further urges the Executive to seek the involvement of the other teachers' organisations in the programme.
Conference instructs the Executive to develop from the decisions of this Conference a comprehensive strategy to protect and improve the living standards and conditions of teachers, and make educational gains for pupils and communities-Conference instructs the Executive to consult widely on the development of the strategy. The consultation should involve every association and division. A meeting of Division Secretaries, as part of the development of the strategy, should take place as soon as possible ahead of any decision by the Executive, in the summer term.
Key issues to be addressed in such a comprehensive strategy include the following:
1. protecting and improving teachers’ salaries;
2. reducing teachers’ workload;
3. the establishment of enforceable class-size maxima;
4. easing the financial burden and housing difficulties facing many young teachers;
5. funding state schools on a par with the independent sector in England and Wales.
Conference instructs the Executive to include in such a strategy;
(i) preparing a programme of activities during the summer term around the Lobby of Parliament, including consideration of a national demonstration;
(ii) preparation for a ballot for discontinuous action at the earliest appropriate opportunity following a successful ballot and day of strike action on April 24th and seeking to involve the widest possible coalition of public sector unions;
(iii) such preparation to include proposals for ballots to include all possible members, including those working in FE, Academies, 6th form colleges and on Soulbury and officer grades;
(iv) negotiations with the Government and the Assembly in Wales;
(v) working jointly with teachers’ organisations, other public sector unions and the TUC; and
(vi) active campaigning for education, teachers and the public sector in preparation for and during the forthcoming General Election in 2009 or 2010.
The Public Sector Pay Freeze, Teachers’ Pay and Working Conditions
Conference rejects the Government’s grossly inadequate proposals on teachers’ pay for 2008 to 2011, commencing with a below-inflation pay increase for September 2008 which would further reduce the real value of teachers’ pay following the below-inflation pay increases imposed on teachers each year from 2005 to 2007.
Conference rejects the Government’s public sector pay strategy of imposing real terms pay cuts on teachers and other public sector workers and notes that even the Governor of the Bank of England has not cited public sector pay increases as a threat to the Government’s anti-inflation strategy.
Conference deplores the reductions in teachers’ real and relative pay since 2005 and reaffirms the fundamental necessity of securing proper professional levels of pay and pay progression for all teachers which reward and recognise the job of teaching and are competitive with other graduate occupations.
Conference declares its firm opposition to any further reductions in teachers’ real and relative pay, which would result in further cuts in living standards for teachers and their families, particularly among the lowest paid and youngest teachers, worse problems of recruitment, retention and motivation and damage to the education of our children.
Conference welcomes the Union’s Fair Pay for Teachers campaign and the steps taken by the Executive in furtherance of Union and TUC policy on teachers’ pay and public sector pay, including in particular the ballot for one day’s strike action on 24 April.
Conference is determined to continue and step up our campaign against this unjustifiable attempt to further drive down the living standards of teachers. Conference therefore instructs the Executive to continue to take forward the campaign and to consider further industrial action as appropriate, together with a range of other possible campaign measures such as a national lobby of Parliament, local lobbies and events and other activities to publicise and promote the Union’s salary campaign objectives. Conference also instructs the Executive to continue to seek to involve other unions in a joint and coordinated campaign including co-ordinated industrial action where possible.
Conference notes that many teachers have also suffered as a result of unfair and divisive elements within the current salary structure:
(i) Many teachers have lost pay and pay prospects because there are 30,000 less TLRs than there were Management Allowances, and this problem is particularly pronounced in primary schools;
(ii) Whilst the Threshold and Upper spine process have led to pay rises for
some teachers in recent years, nearly one third of teachers are now at the top of the pay spine, and will see the purchasing power of their pay fall unless the pay freeze is ended;
(iii) Increasing numbers of teachers are trapped below the Threshold or are
failing to progress on the Upper Spine.
(iv) The STPCD currently has no formulation to enable part-time workers to be paid a full TLR for management responsibilities despite the fact that many part-time teachers are meeting these responsibilities in full. This contravenes equality law.
(v) Smaller budgets in primary school can result in teachers with a TLR point coordinating several subject areas for an amount, which would be paid for one subject area in a secondary school. Such practice is likely to discriminate particularly against women who form the majority of teachers in primary education
Conference endorses:
a. the Union’s salary structure policy agreed at last year’s Conference;
b. the Union’s pay claim for September 2008 for an increase of 10% or £3000, whichever is the greater, together with an additional increase to restore in full the pay losses resulting from the below-inflation increases of 2006 and 2007, which is set out in the Union’s submission to the Government and STRB and has formed the basis of the Union’s campaign for Fair Pay for Teachers; and
c. the priority resolution at last year’s Conference and the resolution at TUC calling for a coordinated campaign and coordinated industrial action with other teachers’ organisations and other public sector workers to resist the pay freeze.
Conference welcomes the Union's submissions to the School Teachers’ Review Body during 2007 on the issues of the future of the leadership group, the professional responsibilities of teachers and the pay and conditions of supply teachers and part time teachers.
Conference reaffirms its belief that such a coordinated campaign is an essential part of our strategy for achieving our salary objectives, and instructs the Executive to increase its efforts to achieve this.
Conference recognises that teachers see the Government’s willingness to cut their living standards as part of a bigger pattern of its lack of concern for their wellbeing and lack of respect for their professionalism:
A) The further tightening of regulations around performance management is another attempt to move the system away from professional development towards it being a punitive management tool.
B) The introduction of PPA time and the supposed initiatives to reduce bureaucracy have failed to reduce the workload of classroom teachers, as the Government continues to pile on further new initiatives.
Conference reaffirms its support for the TUC’s campaign for fair pay for public sector workers and instructs the Executive to continue to campaign for the Union’s own policy objectives on teachers’ pay levels and the teachers’ pay structure including the following:
I) A pay structure which maintains teachers’ pay at levels which are at least equal to those set out in the Union’s current pay claim in real and relative terms.
II) The removal of the link between pay progression and performance management and the return of the system to professional development.
III) A moratorium on any further initiatives that increase workload and the adoption by the Government of targets to reduce teacher workload to 35 hours per week within five years.
IV) Statutory guidance to ensure fair payment of TLRs for part time workers.
V) Proper monitoring and regulation of TLR payments across all sectors of school education to ensure equal pay for equal work.
It instructs the Executive to seek the support of other teachers’ organisations for such an approach.
Conference therefore instructs the Executive to vigorously pursue these policy objectives in discussions with the Government and in submissions to the School Teachers Review Body. Conference instructs the Executive that, in the event that these objectives are not secured, it should prepare to ballot members for national industrial action, if possible in co-operation with the largest possible coalition of the other teachers’ organisations and public sector unions, and continue to pursue other appropriate campaign measures, e.g. national lobby of Parliament and local lobbies and events, as set out above.
Supply/Agency Teachers and a Two-Tier Workforce
Conference deplores the development of a two-tier workforce within teaching, with agency and some other supply teachers, home tutors and other peripatetic staff denied their full employment rights, and in the case of agency teachers, their rights to national pay and pension entitlements.
Conference regrets that many teachers are engaged by Local Authorities on ‘casual’ or short term arrangements in circumstances in which they should be treated as permanent staff. Conference also notes with regret the growth of teacher agencies within the sector, with some supply teachers being forced to seek work through agencies.
Conference notes the success of work undertaken by many divisions to require Local Authorities to meet their responsibilities in relation to more vulnerable teachers, and applauds those representatives who have been able to negotiate with their Local Authority for improved security for such sectors of the teaching workforce.
Conference notes that in the period since the Workforce Agreement, promulgated by the social partners, has been implemented has resulted in supply teacher jobs disappearing and a consequent loss of employment and income for supply teacher members.
Conference endorses the work undertaken by the Executive since Annual Conference 2007, including the publication of a “negotiating brief”, to assist divisions, supported by Regional/Wales offices, concerned to negotiate the requisite improvements to their supply teacher employment arrangements in order to match the arrangements in the best local authorities.
Conference applauds the efforts of Andrew Miller MP in seeking legislative change to protect agency and temporary workers by sponsoring the Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill. Conference notes that it was given its Second Reading on 22 February, supported by 147 votes to 11 and that this has maintained pressure on the Government to support the principle of equal rights for agency workers.
Conference notes the failure at EU and national level to agree legislative measures to improve the position of agency and temporary workers, and deplores the Government’s failure to give full support to such proposals.
Reiterating the Union’s commitment to the professionalism of teaching by publicising its opposition to the use of unqualified staff, e.g. cover supervisors, in roles that should be carried out by a qualified teacher, and by ensuring that this standpoint appears in all future Union material that is relevant to the above.
Conference calls upon the Executive to campaign vigorously to end the development of two-tier teaching workforce by:
1. Continuing to promote and support strategies to enforce teachers’ rights to national pay and pension rights and full employment protection;
2. Working with local authorities to ensure that supply work is organised by them and not private firms, whose involvement in the process draws vital funds from education and pay from members.
3. Enhancing the promotion, support and publicity given to negotiating strategies at local level seeking to provide security and decent pay for supply and peripatetic staff;
4. Seeking agreement at national level on recommended contractual arrangements and on the ways in which relevant services are organised so as to ensure full employment rights for all affected teachers;
5. Developing the Union’s support for the Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill with a campaign demanding equal rights for agency workers.
6. Maintaining the Union’s support for the campaign for a Trade Union Freedom Bill and other legislative measures seeking to end a two tier workforce;
7. Issue revised guidance to local associations and divisions stating the union’s opposition to cover supervisors and HLTAs covering when teachers are absent and encouraging them to seek to protect the work of supply teachers.
8. Seeking to ensure that in the further changes related to cover such work is undertaken by qualified teachers;
9. Maintaining the Union’s work to protect Overseas Trained Teachers and other vulnerable groups;
10. Seeking support from the TUC for a lobby of Parliament for a campaign to end the two-tier workforce; and
11. Working with European trade union bodies, ETUC and ETUCE, to take forward the Union’s campaign objectives.
Negotiating Rights and Social Partnership
Conference is clear and determined in its belief that the Union must be party to any consultations or negotiations with Government and employers concerning the pay, conditions and contractual obligations of our members.
Conference notes the NASUWT claims in its 2007 publication “All Achieved by NASUWT Since 2003 Working in Social Partnership with Government” that they have established “a national forum for genuine negotiations on teachers’ pay” and also “a national forum for genuine negotiations on teachers’ conditions of services”.
Conference notes that the Union has been excluded from these arrangements and welcomes indications that the exclusion of the Union that has been brought about through the Blair Government’s “social partnership” arrangements will be brought to an end.
Conference believes that the concept of “social partnership” as a vehicle for achieving improvements in teachers’ pay and conditions has been increasingly discredited over the last year. These arrangements are characterised by a “top-down” process that commits and binds participant unions to “promote and promulgate” all outcomes with members. This approach is inconsistent with the Union’s commitment to our organising agenda, and Conference reaffirms our opposition to such arrangements.
Conference reaffirms its view that a single democratic and campaigning trade union for teachers would strengthen the struggle to defend our pay and conditions. Conference restates its belief that the Union should take every opportunity to forge ‘unity in action’ with members of other teacher unions, encouraging them to join us in united action both locally and nationally. Conference instructs the Executive to organise the conference on unity in action agreed by last year’s Conference.
At the same time, Conference recognises the need to pursue industrial action independently of other teacher unions where necessary and notes, with regret, that ‘social partnership’ has undermined our fellow teacher unions’ preparedness to take national action when it is required. Conference recognises that by taking national action to defend our members, we bring the return of national negotiating rights closer.
Conference welcomes the unanimous endorsement of the TUC Congress 2007 resolution that:
“Congress agrees that the independence of our trade union movement and the independence of every affiliate is one of our guiding principles.
“Congress will oppose any move to incorporate affiliated unions into any form of government or employer-based structure that would limit our ability to act independently, properly represent our members and develop the organising agenda to which the TUC is committed. Congress will oppose any attempted isolation of unions refusing such incorporation. Congress urges all unions seeking to recruit the same body of workers to explore ways to establish new, united and independent organisations, using the good offices of the TUC in this direction”.
Conference welcomes the support of all teaching unions for this TUC Congress resolution and looks forward to working with them to ensure its implementation.
Conference believes that we need urgently to promote the establishment of new, genuine negotiating arrangements between the Union, together with our sister teaching unions and the employers and government. These arrangements must recognise and protect the independence of our trades unions, and the principle that all unions should be properly represented.
Conference instructs the Executive actively to seek the support of the TUC to bring to an end the exclusion and effective de-recognition of the National Union of Teachers.
Overseas Trained Teachers (OTT)
Conference notes the setting up of a consultation committee in 2007 to review The Education (Specified Work and Registration) (England) Regulations 2003 and its decision that “People in training at the end of their 4 years from 1 September 2008 who have not obtained Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) within 4 years will not be allowed to continue teaching beyond 4 years even if they are undertaking employment based training leading to QTS.”
Conference welcomes the deferment of this change by a year and believes this was largely due to the campaign carried out by the Union. However the extension of one year to gain QTS only provides an extra year for those who have already started an employment based training programme. OTTs who have never started an employment based training programme for QTS cannot do so now. Nor can they teach. The only road open to them is to embark on a Post Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE).
Conference believes it is unacceptable to ask OTTs, who perhaps have taught and held responsible positions in our schools for several years, to start a PGCE course which is designed for graduates who have never taught. Consequently conference must demand an amnesty for anyone who has already been teaching here for more than 4 years.
Further Conference must reject the inequalities currently existing for OTTs between Commonwealth and other countries outside Europe and those from the European Free Trade Area.
OTTs from the European Union (EU) can easily obtain QTS without having to retrain whereas teachers from the Commonwealth and other countries outside of Europe are subject to inappropriate retraining programmes like the Post Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) designed for those with no teaching experience.
Conference instructs the Executive to:
1. Call for equal treatment of all OTTs irrespective of the country in which they originally trained.
2. Call for an amnesty for anyone who has already been teaching here for more than four years.
3. Call for the recognition of relevant previous professional experience in calculating the point at which OTTs join the salary scale after achievement of QTS, without any upper limit up to the maximum of the main professional grade.
4. Organize OTT groups at Regional/Wales level.
5. Headteachers should be encouraged to ensure that any OTT without QTS they employ should be put onto an OTT programme immediately.
International Homophobia and Transphobia
Conference condemns all discrimination and violence against lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transpeople in all countries including the UK.
In particular, Conference is concerned that in some nations institutions of the state are responsible for or collude in the oppression, violence and murder of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.
Conference asks the International Committee, as a matter of urgency to enable a delegation of out LGBT teachers to visit Jamaica to meet with the teachers’ unions and J-Flag in order to discuss ideas and suggestions for the education of staff and pupils around LGBT issues.
Conference asks the Executive to convene a special meeting of the LGBT Working Party as soon as possible to meet with the General Secretary and members of the Executive to further discuss the situation in Jamaica and other countries such as Poland, Iraq, Iran and Israel where homophobic acts and violence exist and are increasing.
Conference instructs the Executive to campaign within the TUC, ETUCE and Educational International to ensure that their affiliates are reminded of the obligations regarding equality to which they have signed up. Conference instructs the Executive to make LGBT equality worldwide a priority within its international work.
Conference endorses the Declaration of Montreal adopted at the International LGBT Conference there in 2006 and instructs the Executive to commend it to the Government and to seek its support in bringing the Declaration to the attention of the institutions of the European Community and the United Nations for action.
Workload
Conference believes that despite the statutory requirements a work-life balance is still something about which teachers dream, since few employers actually deliver on their contractual obligation to ensure it. Conference notes that teachers do not actually mind working hard or long if they have control over its purpose and direction but only a lucky few are in that position.
Conference welcomes the publication of Union guidance on Work Life Balance which recommends good practice which divisions in England and Wales can seek to incorporate into local authority policies. It urges all divisions to give a high priority to the attainment of this objective.
Conference believes that there is now sufficient evidence to assert that the Workforce Agreement has significantly reduced neither the workload of teachers nor the high levels of stress caused by that workload.
Conference believes that by looking at the 21 tasks teachers should not do, the Workload Agreement fundamentally failed to address the main cause of unacceptable workload for teachers, which arises from Government prescription and a constant stream of instructions, guidelines and targets.
Conference notes the 2006 report into teacher workload from the Office of Manpower Economics, which says, “in the years 2005 and 2006 there was no statistically significant reduction in teachers’ working time” - and also reports that time spent teaching was reduced by 18 minutes on average for primary teachers between those years, despite the introduction of PPA time. Conference notes that in 2006 primary class teachers were working more than 50 hours per week and secondary teachers just under 50 hours.
Conference notes that, over time, there has been a significant change in the nature of the work carried out by teachers, such that teachers no longer have control over what they do, and are less able to exercise their professional judgement over what is best for the students they teach. Instead teachers have to put themselves under pressure to implement each new change the Government imposes, many of which they view as professionally dubious.
Conference recognises that the increasing demands on teacher time mean that the provision of a contractual entitlement of PPA time of 10% of a teacher’s timetabled teaching time has proved insufficient to significantly reduce teachers’ overall working time. Indeed, Conference is concerned that in many schools where there has historically been a greater entitlement to non-contact time, such as secondary schools, there has been a tendency to actually increase teacher loadings rather then reduce them. Conference reaffirms the Union’s long-standing policy for a minimum 20% non-contact time for all teachers.
Conference regrets the failure to statutorily provide any specific minimum entitlement to Leadership and Management Time. This has meant that many teachers are having to take on positions of responsibility without an adequate provision of additional non-contact time in which to carry out their responsibilities.
Conference believes that schools need to be able to employ additional qualified teachers in order to provide additional non-contact time, as well as to reduce class size numbers. Therefore, if it is serious in its commitment to reduce teacher workload, the Government needs to be persuaded to provide additional funding to increase the numbers of teachers employed. Conference recognises that this is an important factor underlining the need for the Union’s strategy to include preparation for national industrial action.
Conference believes that the main driver of unacceptable teacher workload is the “top down” target driven agenda set by the Government via School Improvement Partners in England and OFSTED/Estyn, which then gets passed down to classroom teachers; examples of this include:
1. League tables in England and their reinvention by Estyn in Wales;
2. SATs in England;
3. Prescriptive targets set for schools and teachers;
4. OFSTED and Self Evaluation;
5. Performance Management;
6. Unacceptable class size numbers;
7. Intensive Support Programmes (ISP) in England;
8. Prescriptive requirements on planning;
9. Insufficient provision of non-contact time.
Conference notes that the DCSF has advised that schools should expect to implement from 1st September 2009 the objective that teachers should only rarely provide cover.
Conference believes that there is an urgent need to further develop the Union’s current strategy for combating unacceptable workload which, whilst leading to some successes in some schools, is not capable of addressing the root causes outlined above on a national level. Even in schools where the Union’s workload guidelines are adhered to, there are still unacceptable levels of workload.
Conference therefore instructs the Executive to:
(i) Launch a high profile campaign aimed at addressing points 1-8 above;
(ii) Call on the Government and the Welsh Assembly Government to undertake an immediate review, in conjunction with all teacher unions, of teacher workload, including working time, and the impact of Government initiatives;
(iii) Call on the Government and the Welsh Assembly Government to undertake a “time cost” analysis of any proposed changes to the curriculum, and other new initiatives, which impact on teachers workload;
(iv) Work with other TUC affiliates whose members are subject to Government and the Welsh Assembly Government imposed targets;
(v) Consider ways in which this campaign can be linked to the campaign on pay;
(vi) Conduct its own research into teacher workload, particularly with a view to ascertaining the views of members on items 1-9 above;
(vii) Issue new guidance encouraging associations and divisions to use the current workload campaign to develop campaigns across Local Authorities, including ballots across schools;
(viii) Draw up a claim for a set of detailed and concrete improvements to teachers’ working conditions, in line with Union policy, for negotiation with the Government, Welsh Assembly Government, employers and the School Teachers’ Review Body, to ensure a reasonable work life balance for all teachers, and consult members on appropriate Union strategies to secure such improvements, including national industrial action, if no satisfactory response is received to the Union’s claim.
(ix) Develop this campaign alongside a campaign for a 35 hour working week for teachers.
(x) Continue to encourage divisions in England and Wales to combat excessive workload with reference to the Union’s ‘Teachers’ Working Time and Duties’ guide
(xi) Continue to encourage divisions in England and Wales to approach the national action committee where schools or employers refuse to address excessive workload issues.
(xii) Provide briefings and guidance to schools with the aim of ensuring that teachers only rarely cover from 1st September 2009.
Workload
Conference thanks all members, school representatives and local officers for their concerted and continued efforts to reduce teacher workload.
Conference regrets that despite all the measures introduced with the aim of reducing teacher workload, it remains at 1994 levels, as evidenced by the 2007 STRB Workload Survey which revealed the following:
1. Primary class teacher hours had risen since 2006 and they had worked on average three hours more per week than their counterparts surveyed in 1994;
2. Secondary class teachers’ hours were at the same level as those observed for the first workload survey in 1994;
3. The time devoted to teaching and learning had increased for teachers across all sectors by only one per cent since 2000.
Conference, therefore, welcomes the Union’s document “Work-Life Balance – Guidance for Developing Policies for Schools” as an effective tool for use at school level to address workload issues. However, Conference recognises that many of the workload issues facing teachers are driven by national policies that also need to be combated at a national level.
Conference is concerned that workload continues to be the most frequently cited reason for leaving the profession (cited by 40% of all teachers in a recent TSN survey) and, alongside initiative overload, is the main cause of the high levels of stress in the profession.
Conference emphasises that teachers’ excessive workload adversely impacts upon so many other areas, including teacher mental health, work-life balance, stress and the retention of experienced and valuable teachers within the education profession. Teachers cannot deliver effective teaching and learning while burdened with excessive workloads.
Conference therefore instructs the Executive to:
a. Continue to give full support to the Workload Campaign and to publicise the excessive workload borne by teachers in England and Wales;
b. Continue to give full support to requests for industrial action in accordance with the Union Workforce Campaign Guidance;
c. Seek to ensure that teachers undertake no cover for absent colleagues from September 2009 and, in the meantime, eliminate or at least significantly reduce existing cover burdens while continuing to call for classes to be covered by qualified teachers;
d. Promote the Union’s stress policy including stress audits in all schools.
e. Conduct a ballot for national strike action, combined with other issues such as pay where appropriate, to demand that the Government seriously addresses the requirement to provide teachers with an acceptable work-life balance.
Maximum Class Size
Conference notes that the UK, with an average of 25.8 pupils per class in state primary schools, comes only 23rd out of 30 developed countries in the 2007 OECD survey of average class size; and that, with an average of only 10.7 children per class in independent primary schools, the gap in class size between private and state schools is higher in the UK than anywhere else in the developed world.
Conference also notes the Prime Minister’s pledge in 2006 to fund state education on a par with the private sector.
Conference, however, further notes that the Government has been unwilling to legislate for a maximum class size, despite plentiful data linking high achievement to low class size regimes. Finland, for example, which is widely considered to be the highest achieving country in Europe, enjoys a maximum class size of 20, while it is anticipated that in Scotland class sizes for the first three years of primary education are to be reduced to a maximum of 18.
Conference believes that a significant and legally binding reduction in maximum class size in the state sector would be beneficial for schools, parents, students and staff. More personalised learning could be provided for learners, while assessment and planning would be more manageable for teachers.
Conference, therefore, instructs the Executive to:
1. Seek a commitment from the Government to implement a phased legally binding maximum class size of 20 by 2020 in both primary and secondary schools, and a moratorium on school closures. Such a phased reduction in class size should mean reduction in class size maxima to 30 by 2010, 28 by 2012, 26 by 2014, 24 by 2016, 22 by 2018 and finally 20 by 2020;
2. Launch a vigorous campaign for this reduction in taught class sizes amongst members and in alliance with other trade unions, parents, governors and students around the slogan “Our Children are Worth It!”.
Such a campaign to include doing the following
1. Write to the other teacher unions inviting them to be part of launching such a campaign.
2. Write to parents’ and governors’ organisations inviting them to help launch this campaign.
3. Write to every Member of Parliament, Member of the European Parliament and Wales Assembly Member inviting them to be part of launching such a campaign.
4. Hold a launching rally open to parents, governors, teachers and politicians advertising the meeting in every national daily newspaper.
5. Launch a national petition with the target of a million signatories.
6. Launch a campaigning website with campaign resources.
7. Run a large-scale billboard and press campaign in support of reduced class size.
8. Encourage schools to take class size action in line with existing Union policy.
9. Consider before Conference 2009 on what legal basis a national ballot could be conducted to support action against oversize classes wherever they occur.
Performance Management
Conference notes:
1. Past and existing advice that members should not set performance management targets with precise numerical data;
2. Under new performance regulations introduced September 2007, head teachers can impose targets;
3. This Union has successfully intervened to support members in schools where performance management policies required teachers to set more than 3 targets.
4. There has been an increase in the level of complaints from members regarding the number of lesson observations they are being expected to undergo
Conference believes:
a. New performance management regulations have been designed to wring more work and more effort out of already overworked teachers;
b. Students are already over-examined and over-assessed to the detriment of a broad and balanced curriculum, and often their own health;
c. Forcing teachers to set targets aimed at pushing more students up more levels is not the same as raising educational standards, and additionally creates more stress and pressure for teachers.
d. Forcing teachers to undergo more than three lesson observations per annum and the grading of lessons under OFSTED headings is the cause of considerable stress and pressure on teachers.
Conference therefore resolves to support members who have targets imposed on them up to and including industrial action. The Union will also support members who are refused pay progression on the basis of a dispute over targets up to and including industrial action.
Conference resolves that Union guidelines stating that teachers should be subject to no more than three formal observations in any academic year should be strictly adhered to and the Union will support members in schools where this is not the case, with action up to and including industrial dispute. Furthermore, Conference resolves that the Union will seek appropriate ways of challenging schools which use OFSTED headings for internal observations to the disadvantage of our members.
Early Years
Conference reaffirms it belief that comprehensive early years education is vital in ensuring equality of access to high quality education for all children. Conference is concerned by the lack of consistency in early years funding and provision and that in many areas there is no state funded provision at all.
Conference notes the impending compulsory early years foundation stage framework has been seriously questioned by a number of prominent early years authorities (Penelope Leach, Richard House, Tim Brighouse, Sue Palmer and others). The imposition of an overly formal academic and/ or cognitively biased curriculum can distort young children’s learning experience. These occur most naturally and effectively through a subtle combination of free play movement, rhythm, repetition and imitation.
Conference believes that where high quality provision exists within Children’s Centres maintained by the local authority this must be preserved. Conference deplores the actions of some local authorities in seeking to outsource existing Children’s Centre provision. Conference believes that this constitutes a direct threat to the role of the teacher in the affected Children’s Centres.
Conference is opposed to all proposals to privatise elements of education provision and schooling and to the provision of public services by private companies on a for profit basis.
Conference is concerned about the increasing number of advertisements for Heads of Children’s Centres which do not require the applicants to have obtained qualified teacher status.
Conference believes that early childhood education must be at the heart of Children’s Centres and for this to be effective it must be led by a Head with qualified teacher status and considerable experience of working in early years settings.
Conference reasserts its belief that qualified early years teachers are essential to the provision of high quality early years education and that they create the best possible conditions for children’s learning and for their personal and social development.
Conference believes that early years education is vital to embedding equality of access to high quality education for all children.
Conference welcomes initiatives to extend Modern Foreign Language teaching into primary schools and believes that further extension of language teaching into Key Stage 1 and the Foundation Stage should be investigated. However, Conference also believes that the teaching of MFL by teachers who have not received adequate education in MFL themselves will have the opposite to the intended effect. Conference opposes the imposition of a requirement for members to teach MFL by head teachers or Local Authorities, believing that this will have a negative effect on children | |
