Young Teachers

YOUNG TEACHERS

HOW CAN THE UNION INVOLVE YOUNG TEACHERS ?

Phil Clarke (elected to the NUT Young Teachers Advisory Committee from the South East Region)

T he NUT Young Teachers’ Conference took place between the 2nd and 4^th March this year at Stoke Rochford Hall.

N

The common thread running though all the topics was a desire from young teachers for the union to spell out what it will do – what action it will take to defend their interests

umbers were slightly down this year -mainly because funding had to be obtained from the branch rather than applying directly. Nevertheless, most young teachers attending had not been involved in any union activity before, and this event was their first contact with even a local NUT association.

This fact should not be overlooked. It is vital that in many areas of the country new members are not just recruited, but channelled into active involvement in the union; a conference such as this can be a strong starting point for such participation.

The theme this year was “Classroom Climate, Global Climate” (not a weekend long discussion about the ‘upper limit on classroom temperature’ motion being proposed by my Lewes, Eastbourne and Wealden Association at Annual Conference – which I certainly hope delegates will be supporting!). Instead the theme was an extension of last year’s subject of international development, with an emphasis on environmental issues.

These are, of course, some of the most important issues facing us today and it is vital that the labour movement is at the core of the struggle to protect our planet. However, apart from the advent of workplace environmental reps, the keynote speakers’ main contributions were limited to endorsing photocopying on both sides of the paper and taking a bike to school. While no one would argue against these sensible but individualistic measures (which should be taken up by environmental reps), they are not the sort of vital campaigning points that will have overworked young teachers rushing to take a role in local associations.

Much better than the main speakers, where time for points from the floor was very limited, were the smaller sessions on specific subjects. Sessions on the union structure and the specific roles of workplace reps are very useful for those of us new to the union, but most interesting were the discussions around issues facing young teachers in the work place.

In a repeat of the discussions last year on the government white paper, it seems that the rank and file of the union are well to the left of the leadership – if not always consciously so – in their expectations that the union can be an active, fighting body.

Workload was a subject that cropped up again and again, especially from new teachers who suffer at the hands of bullying management and have no experience of saying ‘no’ to excessive demands. The workload agreement, despite laying down guidelines, is no good if it is not enforced, and in schools where the union is not strong this is too often the case. The reaction from these young teachers showed that, if the leadership put forward a fighting strategy to bring in an acceptable work-life balance, they would have without doubt been overwhelmingly supportive.

T

A major concern raised was that … observers can criticise a teacher for classroom techniques that a previous observation praised, while themselves providing little or no helpful feedback.

he pressures of teaching are all too obvious, with over-sized classes and targets to meet; excessive observations only add to this, with NQTs being hit harder than most. Alongside the number of observations, a major concern raised was that there seems to be no standards system or training for those observing newly qualified teachers. Observers can criticise a teacher for classroom techniques that a previous observation praised, while themselves providing little or no helpful feedback. It was keenly felt that the union should push for real limits on observations and training for those carrying them out.

Lack of affordable housing, worries about performance-related pay and the attacks on comprehensive education in general also featured heavily; but the common thread running though all the topics was a desire from young teachers for the union to spell out what it will do – what action it will take to defend their interests.

The Young Teachers’ Advisory Committee elections have just taken place with view to replacing the ad-hoc group running the conference for the last few years. We must look to the example of the civil servants union, the PCS, in particular, as to how to build a successful and expanding young workers section. This is helped by the PCS having a combative left leadership which has built the union as a whole, but has particularly inspired young members, who see it as especially standing up for them.

It is important that members of the committee help put together young sections in associations and divisions, to build up a new activist base in the unions and, at events like this conference next year, debate concrete – and if necessary, controversial – topics. These will educate young members and show them that, with their involvement, the NUT can and will take action to promote their interests - and those of the students they teach.

CLIMATE CHANGE - How “green” will our politicians go ?

NUT Conference will be debating a motion urging the Union to raise awareness of the threat of climate change. It rightly points out that “action on these issues … will require a new level of global co-operation … to overcome the anarchy of existing world trade principles” (in other words, we would argue, a socialist world). But can Blair, Brown, Cameron and the world’s other capitalist politicians offer any way forward ?

THE STERN REPORT on the devastating economic effects of global warming has highlighted the seriousness with which sections of the British ruling establishment are taking the issue of climate change. In particular, the Tory party leader David Cameron is trying to portray himself as the champion of the environmental cause with a radical sounding programme that includes the possibility of environmental taxes and more regulation.

Blair also probably realises that something needs to be done about global warming, but what has happened since he came to power shows the difficulties the Tories would be faced with. Blair claims that the UK Kyoto targets will be met, but this is very unlikely if current upward trends in greenhouse gas output continue. In fact, emission levels only fell in the early years of the Labour government because utility companies were switching to gas from coal burning, for commercial reasons largely unconnected to any government policy on global warming.

B

It is probable that, like Blair, the Tories would turn to nuclear power as the ‘lesser evil’ … a position, unfortunately, some on the left are now flirting with as well.

lair, of course, is under an obligation from the Kyoto treaty to cut emissions, but has been under intense pressure from big business to water down the commitments.

Ironically, it is possible that Cameron may, to a greater extent than Blair, stand up to the pressure he would come under from the capitalists, whose interests his party traditionally represents. Firstly, his credibility will be on the line in delivering on this issue and, more importantly, sections of big business, particularly those in non-carbon intensive industries, who understand that their long-term profits could be threatened by global warming, may back him.

So, assuming that he succeeds in doing this, and puts through the measures he wants; will they be effective in tackling global warming? The emphasis is on market permit trading through a development and extension of the Kyoto treaty. But the Kyoto treaty has been a disaster, and has no chance of coming near to its (very modest, cosmetic) target.

Another problem with Cameron’s proposals is that his ideas on green growth do not hold water. Citing the example of one or two firms that have made money at the same time as cutting their emissions proves absolutely nothing about the claimed rosy prospects for green growth on a market basis. If it really was more profitable for firms to switch to a sustainable basis of operation they would all have done it decades ago. Looking at the economy as a whole, using oil pumped out of the ground is by far the cheapest option available and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Assuming that Cameron is really serious and realises that permit trading is not working, he could then turn to an approach that would have a better chance of being effective: tax rises on gas, oil and coal, and regulations to force firms to cut emissions directly. (Carbon taxes, except on luxury consumption, would be very regressive, hitting the poor hardest – something socialists oppose.)

This would be the real test of the Tories’ resolve on the issue and it is not clear that Cameron would be able to push it through. The capitalists would say: why should we take a hit on our profits unless firms in other countries follow suit, particularly since unilateral cuts in UK greenhouse gases would have a negligible effect on global warming. In these circumstances, it is probable that, like Blair, the Tories would turn to nuclear power as the ‘lesser evil’ since it does not generate greenhouse gases, a position, unfortunately, some on the left are now flirting with as well.

The need for international action cannot be avoided because global warming is what it says, global, and unilateral cuts in emissions by any one country, even the biggest culprit, the USA, would not solve the problem. Capitalism has become a world system based not only on a massive expansion in the trade of goods, but also the export of capital on a huge scale, carried out by competing multi-national corporations. Despite these manifestations of globalisation, the nation state simultaneously has grown in importance as the defender, by force if necessary, of the monopolies that lie under its jurisdiction, as competition for profit between firms based in different countries has intensified.

This is the contradiction, undiminished today, that led to the wars and horrors of the 20th century and makes the international agreement that is necessary to reverse global warming very unlikely. The 500 multi-national companies that dominate the world economy resist fiercely anything that could threaten their profits in the short term, even to a small extent, and look to their ‘home’ countries to assist them in doing this. This is particularly true of US corporations, because America accounts for 25% of all greenhouse gas output and its firms would stand to lose by far the most from any effective action to reduce global warming that ‘made the polluter pay’.

Another objection the US multinationals always raise with regard to action on global warming is the position of China. China along with all other ex-colonial and third world countries was not expected to participate in the Kyoto process in the early 1990s because their output (particularly per head) of pollutants was very small compared to the imperialist countries. Now, however, the situation has changed in China, which has the second largest environmental footprint after the USA. The USA insists that any future agreements on global warming must include China, which is emerging as a major strategic rival, whereas the Chinese regime, quite understandably, responds by pointing out that the current problem was caused almost entirely by the imperialist countries, and China should not be penalised as a result.

The opposition by the US multinationals to giving what they will characterise as a free-ride to their main emerging strategic rival will be a major obstacle to reaching any worthwhile agreement on global warming. The US bosses also realise that even if the Chinese government does sign up to an international agreement to cut greenhouse gases, its ability to make it stick is limited. The wild-west nature of the development of capitalism in China means that local bureaucrats and capitalists operate independently of the central government in many areas and ignore inconvenient laws passed in Beijing.

Like the situation Cameron or a New Labour prime minister will face here, when the heat is really on, a future US president will almost certainly opt for the ‘lesser evil’ of nuclear power as a way out of the dilemma.

If the true long-term costs of nuclear power are included, including storing ever increasing amounts of waste for tens of thousands of years, decommissioning power stations, creating a fund to deal with the effects of a Chernobyl-type disaster in the future, etc, sustainable energy sources become comparatively less expensive. However, the long-term costs of nuclear power will be effectively ignored by capitalist governments, so that the profits of the multi-national firms that really control the political agenda will be affected to the minimum extent. Only by eliminating the power of these companies can a sustainable alternative to the nightmare scenario of environmental disaster caused by a nuclear accident or global warming become a reality.

This will require the dismantling of the capitalist system on an international scale, based as it is on the relentless, short-term, destructive pursuit of profit, and its replacement by a democratically planned socialist economy. In such a society the genuine international co-operation that is necessary to tackle global warming will be possible for the first time, something that is ultimately impossible under the capitalist profit system.

This is an edited version of an article by Pete Dickenson in the January 2007 issue of ‘Socialism Today’, the monthly magazine of the Socialist Party. Pete has written a pamphlet, “Planning Green Growth”, as a socialist contribution to the debate on environmental sustainability.

For further information visit: www.socialistworld.net & www.socialismtoday.org