Labels

Labels should make it easier to navigate. Click on a label to see posts on a topic.

Slavery - the truth

200 YEARS ON – HOW WAS THE SLAVE TRADE REALLY ABOLISHED?

Two hundred years ago, Britain’s parliament voted to end the brutal slave trade. That was after its empire had been built on the bones of millions of Africans torn from their homes.

NUT Conference will rightly take note of this anniversary in its debates on racism. But teacher trade unionists have to make sure that the real history of the abolition is told.

William Wilberforce, figurehead of the British abolition movement, is portrayed as the liberator of the slaves. But, in this edited article from “The Socialist”, HUGO PIERRE, explains that other mighty forces, especially slave uprisings, were behind the 1807 act.

The slave trade between the west coast of Africa and the Americas over a period of 300 to 400 years was probably one of the most barbaric periods of exploitation in history. The capture and sale of Africans made the traders and their sponsors wealthy; the buyers used the labour of their slaves to make themselves rich.

The accumulation of this wealth played a major part in the development of capitalism in Europe. But the suffering inflicted on the slaves was immense and the legacy of this trade is still with us today.

The plantation owners developed a system of violence to suppress the spirits of their already disorientated and easily identifiable captives and an ideology, racism, to confer on themselves superiority and justification for their actions. It is estimated that the British slave merchants made £12 million in profits (the equivalent of £900 million today)

This human trade was not universally supported in Britain even in the 18th century, but the wealth created powerful advocates for its continuation.

The trade was not without perils for those who took part in it. The captives themselves did not take enslavement lightly. There were many reports of ships being sacked by slaves, in one case capturing a whole ship and throwing the crew overboard.

The slave system practised on the plantations required the formation of local militia to keep it in check and often the use of the Navy to stop serious disturbances. One of the earliest slave revolts in Barbados in 1683 included a written appeal in English for other slaves to unite in rebellion.

In Jamaica hardly a decade went by without a rebellion that often threatened the entire plantation system. On occasions, peace had to be made with the rebels by allowing them to run their own communities. But for the successful overthrow of slavery, the fight-back of the slaves had to be reinforced by other class forces back in the imperial centre.

The mood of the early working class and poor was for radical change. Among them were approximately 10,000 blacks - ex-slaves, servants and runaways. Within a year the launching of a petition coupled with mass meetings in towns and cities to hear the first-hand experience of ex-slaves such as Olaudah Equiano articulated the general concerns of the working masses and poor.

In Manchester 10,000 men (women were not encouraged to sign the petition although they often sought to) signed - over half the adult male population. Despite this, Wilberforce's first motion to parliament was defeated in the commons in 1789. But greater events would intervene. In France underlying tensions between the wealth of this new class of merchants and the monarchy was exploded by the masses with the storming of the Bastille and the beginning of the French Revolution.

In the colonies, the revolution broke the whites into different camps. The French colony of Saint-Domingue (now Haiti) had become the most prosperous of the Caribbean islands. It produced more sugar, coffee and tobacco than any other not just in terms of quantity but also quality.

The free and sometimes wealthy Saint-Dominguans of mixed race (known at the time as mulattoes) took sides and pressed for their rights. The whites unleashed terror and violence against them and the majority population of blacks. But the white splits gave all others the opportunity to grab the banner of liberty.

The 'mulattoes' in particular appealed to the Constituent Assembly in France to be treated as equals with whites at the end of 1789. They still wanted labour on the island and therefore did not call for rights for the blacks. The Assembly was dominated at that time by the right-wing of the revolution, who wanted to gain rights for the new wealthy capitalists but were terrified of the potential of the masses who had stormed the Bastille. After much procrastination only a tiny minority of those of mixed race were granted rights.

But the splits between the ruling classes - royalty and the aristocracy against the new emergent capitalists - as in all revolutions would give confidence to the masses. This was true both for the workers and peasants of France and the blacks in Saint-Domingue, who had the self-belief to press for their demands, but this time to the very end.

By 1791 Saint-Domingue exploded and a class war, which also separated whites, blacks and those of mixed race, began. Very quickly Toussaint L'Ouverture emerged as the leader of the slaves. His army took many different routes and sides to fight for their emancipation.

But revolutionary France was also under attack internationally. In particular British imperialism, which vied for supremacy in the Caribbean with the French, launched war for the colonial possessions of France and in particular Saint-Domingue. Pitt, Britain's Prime Minister, had second thoughts about abolishing the slave trade when he could see the potential for a captured British Saint-Domingue.

With Saint-Domingue effectively split under the control of three forces and facing capture by the British the new governor faced no option but to declare the total abolition of slavery in 1793 and bring Toussaint L'Ouverture's army under his control. The masses in France too had moved to defend their interests and the Assembly in 1794, now controlled by the left-wing Jacobins, abolished slavery.

Revolutionary drama was played out in Saint-Domingue. But the effects of the French Revolution shook the entire French Caribbean: slave revolts took hold in Martinique, Guadeloupe and Tobago. The banner 'Liberty, Fraternity and Equality' inspired the slaves.

In Saint Lucia between 1795 and 1796 the slaves took over the island after expelling the British troops. When the British eventually took control again they made 'peace' by agreeing to form the slave's army into a West African regiment. The Marseillaise was still sung by youth in the villages in the 1930s and 1940s!

The war with France weakened the parliamentary support for abolition. Wilberforce backed Pitt's foreign policy against France and his home policy of repression. During this time he only went through the motions in keeping the abolition debate in parliament.

T

The legacy of the movement is that the masses - black and white - can struggle together for decisive change

he revolution in France had not ended its twists and turns. Ten years after it began, Napoleon Bonaparte came to power. Many of the gains for the sans-culottes were reversed, but the change from a feudal system to a capitalist one remained.

Napoleon re-established slavery, but Toussaint L'Ouverture had predicted the reaction of the slaves of San Domingue as early as 1797 in a letter to the French Directory: "Do they think that men who have been able to enjoy the blessing of liberty will calmly see it snatched away? They supported their chains only so long as they did not know any condition of life more happy than that of slavery. But today when they have left it, if they had a thousand lives they would sacrifice them all rather than be forced into slavery again."

The black masses of Saint-Domingue began an insurrection that would lead to the end of French rule and independence. The colonial jewel of France, which Britain tried to steal, would remain free from slavery.

The radical movement in Britain moved back on to the parliamentary road. By 1806 more radical MPs (although of a capitalist variety) were elected to parliament. British imperialism, without the competition of Saint-Domingue increasingly turned to making its riches in India rather than the Caribbean.

Furthermore the French navy, decimated in Saint-Domingue, no longer posed the same threat to British policy or interests. In the Caribbean, it was clear that the constant threat of revolt would be increased by the continuing import of new slaves from Africa. The Abolition of the Slave Trade Act was passed in 1807 to be implemented by 1808.

Tens of thousands of Africans continued to be captured and traded for decades more. Loopholes in the Act were found and illegal activities, smugglers, foreign fronts for British traders and a host of other devices were used to fulfil the colonists' desire for plantation labour.

But the slave trade and slavery itself was finally abolished in Britain in 1833 by the activity of the working class and the continued uprising and resistance of blacks held as captive labourers.

Today, the ruling class cannot even bear to apologise for the atrocities of slavery for the fear of being caught up in claims for reparations. Slavery's devastating legacy - racist ideology, the destruction of African civilisation and communities, the death or transportation of between 10 and 30 million people, the destruction of black family life in the colonies - has left its mark today.

However, the legacy of the abolition movement is that the masses, particularly the working class and the poor - black and white - can struggle together for decisive change.

Now only the socialist control, distribution and democratic use of the enormous wealth of the world can decisively end their exploitation and division.

Supply Teaching

SUPPLY TEACHING – A HELLISH TASK OR A REWARDING JOB?

Sheila Caffrey (Bristol NUT)

The Labour Party proudly boast that there has been an increase of 36,000 teaching posts in England since 1997, but neglect to mention the thousands of teaching graduates every year who are unable to find jobs and who are forced to either give up their chosen career or try to navigate the increasingly tricky world of supply teaching.

Some teachers choose to leave full-time positions to take up supply work, either due to a change of circumstances in their school or to take advantage of the flexibility that supply work can give. As one of the NQTs who have been forced into supply, I fail to appreciate this flexibility.

W

Only 1/5 of supply teachers actually get their entitlement of PPA time

hat I face is uncertainty of hours, long holidays with no work and no pay, the struggle of dealing with inappropriate behaviour with little or no support from schools, lack of respect from all angles as I am “only supply” and a wage that does not assist me to graduate from my student overdraft.

Increasingly, schools are using agencies for their supply cover, yet these do not have to adhere to the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document and can pay teachers whatever they choose. This is another avenue that the private sector is taking to attempt to invade our education system and make money from both schools and teachers. This money should be available for training and resources instead.

Supply teachers are generally recommended to be paid for a 6.5 hour day. Most supply teachers regularly work 8 hours plus, allowing for the preparation and marking of work. This work should be fully paid as well as an entitlement to at least one break in the day away from the classroom.

There is also obviously no possibility of sick pay or maternity pay, which can make supply financially a very risky business. There is an allowance for holiday pay, however for an NQT who works an average of a 4 day week throughout term time, this works out as a princely sum of about £90 a week through the holidays. Unfortunately, landlords don’t give discounts for low paid months!

Recent research conducted by the General Teaching Council for England found 52% of supply teachers do not feel that their CPD needs have been met. This is especially important for NQTs who are desperately trying to find a full-time position. It should be the responsibility of the Government and councils to provide free training to all teachers, whether supply or not, both during term time and holidays so it is possible for everyone to access it. This training should cover a wide array of subjects from behaviour management to training for changes to legislation and strategies taught in schools.

The introduction of PPA time has eased some of the burden on teachers, however this rarely applies to supply teachers. The GTC believes only 1/5 of supply teachers actually get their entitlement of PPA time, which is grossly unfair. The unpredictable nature of supply teaching means this time is needed to ensure teachers are fully prepared with work for all classes so pupils do not miss out on their education, yet at the moment the majority of supply teachers are expected to do this work unpaid.

Supply teaching can be extremely rewarding and whether a deliberate choice or whether a teacher does it due to other factors, the job should be covered by the same rights and protection that full-time permanent teachers have.

If teachers new to the profession are increasingly to be forced through an induction of supply before being able to find a permanent post, the utmost should be done to ensure they stay in the profession. Otherwise, in a few years Britain is going to face a crisis with fewer and fewer people entering the profession.

The NUT should mount a campaign to recruit more supply teachers, listening to their concerns and then working together with other teachers to put pressure on the government to ensure the retainment of new young teachers in the profession.

Workload

WORKLOAD

THINGS WON’T GET BETTER UNTIL WE TAKE NATIONAL ACTION

Louise Cuffaro (Newham NUT)

The high prioritisation of the workload resolution (in 2006 and again in 2007) reflects the strength of ordinary teachers' feelings that the NUT must urgently and more effectively address this issue.

Excessive requirements for short-term planning, endless meetings and the like are just the tip of the iceberg as far as members in my school are concerned.

L

Highest on the list of hates remains SATs and all its associated initiatives.

ike many school NUT groups, we held a union meeting to discuss the Union’s new workload guidelines and how to implement them. Teachers expressed their growing concern over the numbers of initiatives that have come down to schools over the last few years, increasing our workload and levels of stress.

Highest on the list of hates remains SATs and all its associated initiatives.

There’s the grind of planning, endless revision of maths, literacy and science (largely unrelieved by educational trips, music, art, PE etc until after the actual tests). On top of this is the endless marking and levelling of every piece of maths, science and literacy. Add to this the pressure on our year 6 teachers and
relevant post holders (now with TLRs) to run breakfast, lunchtime or after school
booster classes-and the subsequent increases in planning, marking and
teaching time.

Last but not least, is the amount of time consumed, and the high levels of stress experienced by teachers dealing (often daily) with the behavioural fallout, which is the high price many of the current generation of children are suffering due to SATs.

Most members also expressed frustration at the increased stress and workload surrounding the increased use of technology. We all now have to use the
interactive whiteboards that have been installed. As with all ICT, it's great when it works and you have been fully trained, (which for many of us was inadequate as it amounted to a twilight session at inset) so that you can feel confident and competent. But it messes up your plans and your nerves
when it fails!

More recent initiatives have flowed from the much-publicised government plans to introduce the compulsory teaching of foreign language in Primary schools in the near future.

This term, in the Primary School where I teach, we were told that we need to have a "Language of the Week". Staff managed to get this changed to a Language of the Half Term! We are told the language and then we are expected to look up basic vocabulary and pronunciation on the Internet e.g. counting 1-10, yes, no, hello, goodbye, please, thank you etc. and to incorporate opportunities and activities to use the language throughout the school day and across the curriculum. As with all new initiatives there was inadequate training given (a Monday night inset) and no extra time to plan or prepare resources.

In our inner city, multicultural school we have always used opportunities to share and promote the languages that our pupils speak. This initiative however, takes away our professional judgement and skills on when, how and which languages (based on pupils' languages which may vary from class to class) to share and experience. Instead it has become another stick to beat us with, added to the long list of things management monitor in our planning and practice.

Numerous other NUT groups must have had similar meetings discussing the particular pressures facing their staff. But why haven’t many schools then requested a strike ballot?

It certainly isn’t because teachers aren’t snowed under with workload. Even the Government’s own surveys show that, despite the promises, there have been “no statistically significant changes” in teachers’ working hours.

I

Many delegates will already understand what’s missing from our campaign - and that’s the national strike action that is already Conference policy.

suspect that, like at my school, part of the problem is that the workload pressures often don’t translate easily into the specific headings in the Union guidelines. But the main problem is surely that the Union’s strategy places all the responsibility on individual school groups to pursue a dispute with their own Head and Governors.

Fighting in your school alone is no easy matter. Yes, where members stood firm over TLRs, some significant victories were achieved. But for every school that scored a victory, there were many others where teachers weren’t confident to go for a ballot.

Trying to use the guidelines school by school in itself engenders workload and
stress for reps and members. It may require standing up to a bullying management team. Even where the Head is more reasonable, schools are under such pressure that boosting pupil results and taking on the latest initiative will take priority over maintaining teachers’ ‘work-life balance’.

Many of the fundamental problems like class size, a shortage of administration staff to take on the ‘21 tasks’, and the absence of meaningful ‘leadership and management time’ can only be solved by securing extra funding in any case. That can’t be won just by local action.

That’s why teachers recognise that teacher workload can’t just be solved at school level – it needs a national approach as well.

Annual Conference will have little time to debate these critical issues in any detail. That’s why the main Conference motion on workload is right to call for a meeting of Divisional Secretaries to discuss how the new workload campaign is going so far.

But I think many delegates will already understand what’s missing from our campaign - and that’s the national strike action that is already Conference policy.

The Union’s “Taking the Campaign Forward” Guide for Associations and Divisions rightly reminded us all that “Conference 2006 reaffirmed the … decision of the 2005 Conference to … ballot members on the introduction of new toughened workload guidelines … and, further, to develop a campaign of nationally co-ordinated industrial action to secure the funding needed to meet our demands, including announcing plans for a national strike and putting in all the preparations necessary to win the ballot ”.

What’s changed since 2005 and 2006? Workload certainly hasn’t got better. Teachers are still being driven out by stress and ill-health. So why has the Executive only carried out half of the Union policy? – ignoring the half that puts the responsibility on the national union to give a lead!

School reps and local officers are being ground down by the pressures of trying to keep up with the individual cases created by the intolerable stress and workload teachers face. It’s time we tackled the cause, not the symptom and took the national action proposed by St.Helens & Lewisham (37.1).

National action will send a message that enough is enough and give confidence to and strength to NUT members to pursue further action in their schools as well.

Academies

NEW LABOUR’S SCHOOLS MARKET - DESTROYING COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATION

Martin Powell-Davies (Lewisham NUT)

A DECADE ago, Tony Blair famously announced that “education, education, education” would be his top priority. What followed has been a bitter disappointment for the majority of parents, students and school staff.

New Labour has turned its back on the “comprehensive” ethos that underpinned previous post-war Labour governments’ education policy. Then, the needs of an expanding economy, combined with pressure from the trade union movement, helped open up opportunities for working-class children previously restricted to grammar school pupils. Now the ladder is being pulled up once again.

Some areas are still blighted by open selection at the age of 11. The number of pupils at grammar schools has jumped by 20% since Labour came to power. The retention of “secondary moderns” for children deemed ‘failures’ at 11 in Lincolnshire and Kent meant these two authorities had the highest numbers of schools in the “bottom 100” in the latest GCSE exam league tables.

But the growing inequalities in schooling under New Labour are generally more obscured. Rather than blatantly reintroducing the “11-plus”, they are encouraging a “free market” to take hold, where schools compete with each other for pupils and resources. Such elements of genuine comprehensive education as existed are being fragmented as schools seek a competitive advantage by becoming “specialist” schools, “trust” schools or “Academies”.

Blair and Brown’s neo-liberal advisers theorise that such competition between schools and other public services will ‘drive up standards’. But the real result of marketisation is a growing polarisation between schools at the top and bottom of the league tables and a widening class divide in education. This is evident in England but also in countries like Sweden where similar policies have been pursued.

Despite Brown’s promises, Britain has one dubious claim to being a world leader in education: An international study found that the difference in class sizes between private and state schools is bigger in the UK than in any other developed country.

Lacking real resources and caught in the spotlight of league tables, even schools that have firmly embraced the comprehensive ideal in the past are being driven to find a way to get ahead of others – or risk falling to the bottom of the pile themselves.

While this or that ‘school improvement’ technique can have some effect, there is really only one fundamental factor that determines a school’s league table position – its pupil intake. Schools ‘succeed’ if they manage to attract pupils who are most likely to succeed in the examination hall and who can be easily taught with the minimum of staffing and attention.

T

Schools ‘succeed’ if they manage to attract pupils who are most likely to succeed in the examination hall and who can be easily taught with the minimum of staffing and attention.

PCS opted to combine all the issues they faced into one combined ballot

he key factor remains social class. That is not in any way to accept the reactionary idea that middle-class children are inevitably ‘brighter’ than working-class youngsters. It is simply that relative affluence can offer countless advantages, such as a good diet, decent housing, access to books and the internet, time to read and play together and much more besides.

These class factors would challenge even a genuinely comprehensive system. In Blair and Brown’s capitalist Britain they are a huge barrier to genuine equality. As a 2006 analysis of nearly a million individual pupils’ results by London University academics concluded, “For schools the message is clear. Selecting children who are in high-status neighbourhoods is one of the most effective ways of retaining a high position in the league table”.

New Labour’s privately-sponsored academy schools are able to try and put this advice into practice. They are allowed to set their own admissions criteria, independent of any Local Authority arrangements.

Labour’s national Admissions Code still leaves Academies plenty of leeway to set policies that help them improve their intake at the expense of neighbouring community schools.

Figures also show that permanent exclusion rates at academies often far exceed those of neighbouring schools as the sponsors seek to unload their more challenging pupils. Similarly, the proportion of pupils with special needs has drastically fallen at academies in Walsall and Bristol.

Even so, and despite the massive investment in new infrastructure, the promised examination successes in academies have been, at best, limited. Yet Labour claim that the private sponsors’ influence will improve schools. Whether having lectures in ‘enterprise’ from a carpet millionaire or a curriculum that expounds the particular religious views of your fundamentalist sponsor helps pupils to learn is questionable!

The benefits to the sponsor are far more obvious. In return for a few per cent of the total cost, they are given an expensively rebuilt independent school and public funding to use to impose their particular beliefs on young people. In the case of Bob Edmiston, sponsor of the Grace academy in Solihull, the returns appear to be more concrete. The school has awarded £300,000 of contracts to a company run by … Mr.Edmiston!

In case anyone was under any illusions that he may have a different agenda to Blair, Gordon Brown recently publicly endorsed Labour’s plan to set up 400 academies altogether. And the expansion of “trust schools” allowed for under the latest Education Act is just as serious a threat.

Like academies, trust schools can also set their own admission policies. Both also employ their own staff, a direct threat to undermine unions by fragmenting national pay and conditions arrangements. Unlike most academies, many of the schools now contemplating becoming ‘trusts’ are already high in the league tables. Trusts will inevitably use their new status to consolidate their advantageous position at the expense of neighbouring schools.

Local democracy is also at stake. New Labour’s vision sees councils as “commissioners, not providers” of education. Instead of elected local authorities planning the admissions and funding of local community schools, New Labour’s market policies could give rise to a chaotic system of competing enterprises run by unaccountable sponsors.

There is an urgent need for trade unions and local communities to organise in defence of comprehensive education and to demand the resources that would really allow every child’s needs to be met.

Campaign groups of parents and staff have been mounting local battles across the country against school closures, cuts and academy proposals, sometimes successfully. But a national lead to seriously challenge the government and its Tory allies has been sadly missing.

The National Union of Teachers has produced some well-argued materials opposing New Labour policy but has largely restricted its campaign to parliamentary lobbying. It proved completely ineffectual in opposing the Education Act. NUT General Secretary Steve Sinnott’s misplaced illusions in Gordon Brown will also soon be shattered. The need for parents, students and staff to build their own political voice will become ever clearer.

Just as with other public services such as the NHS, local campaigns need to be brought together in a national campaign. But it is the workplace unions, particularly the NUT, that have the strength and resources to give the campaign a solid basis.

The threat to teachers’ conditions from Labour’s market policies should be reason enough for the unions to take collective industrial action. When our children’s futures are at stake, surely it’s time to act!

THE DIVIDE between schools is acute in a big city like London. With so many schools close to each other, there is growing competition to attract the ‘best’ pupils.

Where the local authority still has control over admissions, some degree of common planning is possible. My borough, Lewisham, operates an “area banding” system. Pupils are placed into five ability bands and each secondary school is then allocated 20% of its intake from each band.

The system ensures a number of genuinely comprehensive community schools still thrive in Lewisham. But it is under increasing pressure from schools that run their own admissions procedures, within and outside the borough.

Most notoriously, the privileged Haberdashers’ Aske’s Hatcham Academy has long used its independent control over admissions to attract able pupils from across Lewisham and beyond. In 2006, it admitted just 7% of its pupils from Lewisham’s lowest band. Far from being ostracised for undermining other local secondaries, Aske’s was allowed to polarise local admissions even further when it was given control of a second academy, Knight’s.

Aske’s’ empire-building hasn’t stopped there. They are bidding to run another academy in Haringey. Lewisham’s New Labour council also plans to give the Hatcham Academy control of a nearby primary to create a 3-18 school.

But for every ‘winner’ there will also be losers. Two community schools have been thrown into real difficulties. Unable to attract many children from the highest ability bands, the schools instead fill with pupils with needs that are much harder to meet. In contrast to Aske’s, one school admitted only 4% of last September’s intake from the highest band, over 40% from the lowest. Many need individual support which the schools simply aren’t resourced to provide.

NUT meetings in both schools have been held to seek to organise and defend staff worn down by the challenges of teaching in such difficult circumstances.

These problems will grow across the country unless Labour’s market policies are challenged. All schools have to be brought under democratic local control so that a commonly agreed comprehensive admissions policy can be applied right across a locality. At the same time, schools have to be funded to provide the qualified staffing and resources to meet every child’s needs.

Testing

EXCESSIVE TESTING

’MAKING GOOD PROGRESS’ = MORE TESTS

Jane Nellist (Coventry NUT)

Every education campaigning organisation, parent group and trade union is shouting out for an end to the SATs because of their destructive nature.

Scotland never had them. Wales and Northern Ireland have ‘seen the light’ and have got rid of them. So why, when the government had the chance to show it was listening to the experts, is it now consulting and introducing a pilot scheme that will not only introduce more tests for Key Stages 2 and 3 but is also planning on paying schools extra if they reach their targets?!

T

What we will end up with is a trip in the Tardis to the Victorian era with payment by results not just for schools but for individual teachers as well.

his ‘extra’ “progression premium” will be worth 5% of their pupil allocation and with no new money it is likely to mean less for some and more for others. With huge concerns about the Comprehensive Spending plans to come next year, this could mean real cuts for some schools.

The tests are supposed to be aimed at measuring progress where each pupil is supposed to achieve two levels of progress within each key stage no matter where they start from. The biggest problem is that the whole system of the National Curriculum was flawed from the very start when it was introduced by the Tories.

What we will end up with is a trip in the Tardis to the Victorian era with payment by results not just for schools but for individual teachers as well. Remember, the NUT was founded on the fight against this unworkable system over 100 years ago!

It is truly unbelievable that with all the educational research that the DfES has available to them that they are even thinking about piloting this new system from September along these lines in 10 Local Authorities.

For a start off, there are no plans to scrap the end of Key Stage SATs so these new tests, which will be additional and will be held twice a year in each of the year groups in KS 2 and 3, will actually mean potentially 28 more tests in English and maths of an hour each. Children in England are already some of the most tested pupils in the world.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that teachers will have to put their pupils through the tests every time but you can imagine can’t you, especially in those schools on the borderline, there will be an encouragement by the Head to put as many pupils through the tests just in case they get it – especially if money is at stake.

Inevitably these changes will mean even more narrowing of the curriculum and more ‘teaching to the test’. Far from informing teachers about pupil’s progress to allow them to adapt teaching to meet their needs, they will be absolutely useless. It doesn’t square with other government strategies especially the ‘Excellence and Enjoyment’ document for Primary schools and the ‘Every Child Matters’ agenda. Young people will yet again be sacrificed on the government’s bonfire of targets, testing and tables.

What has been promised by the government is that all tests will be externally set and marked. All children failing to meet these targets will also be entitled to 10 hours of individual tutoring but, again, no plans for any extra funding. No-one can doubt the value of 1:1 support with a qualified teacher for those pupils who need extra support but this needs to be funded properly with a clear strategy of how this will be delivered. For example, it is not clear when this tutoring will take place, or by whom.

Professor David Hargreaves, former chief executive of the QCA summed it up by accusing ministers of a “continuing obsession with the short term”, “a desperate determination to make discredited policies work” and “wilful blindness to anything outside the Government’s own narrow preoccupations”.

If we are serious about ending this obsessive compulsive disorder of testing and league tables on the part of the government, which is damaging not enhancing education, then all the trade unions must boycott these tests and force the government to listen to reason.

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

Performance Pay

PERFORMANCE PAY

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT – A NATIONAL ISSUE DEMANDS NATIONAL ACTION !

Martin Powell-Davies (Lewisham NUT)

T HE NEW REGULATIONS being introduced this year are not just “more of the same”. They are a serious escalation of a performance pay and monitoring regime which has already done so much harm in schools.

P

The 2007 STRB report recommended that pay progression is linked to performance management for main scale teachers too.

erformance management and the pay ‘threshold’ were always intended to be the mechanism to force performance-related pay on teachers. When they were first introduced, Socialist Party Teachers warned how they would be used to bully teachers into taking on even more work for fear of not getting a pay increase, and how bullying managers could use them to divide and demoralise staff. With others, we helped to initiate “School Teachers Opposed to Performance Pay”. While our union leaders failed to act, STOPP organised a national demo and rally in London in 2000.

Without industrial action, our campaign could not prevent performance pay being introduced. But it did help persuade New Labour to tread more carefully. To start with, nearly every teacher crossed the threshold. But, every year, the noose has been tightening. More teachers are being told their performance isn’t good enough to make the next step up the Upper Pay Scale – especially from U2 to U3.

But New Labour and their advisers think schools are still being too generous! Under their new performance management regulations, schools will be expected to set teachers more ‘challenging’ objectives and make more ‘robust’ pay decisions. OFSTED and the new School Improvement Partners will be used to make sure Heads are doing what the Government expects of them.

Line managers, rather than Heads, will be expected to do the dirty work. At the end of each performance management review meeting, they will have to say whether they think members of their team should be allowed to progress up the pay spine or not. Instead of any genuine discussion about teaching and learning, these meetings will now be dominated by pay. Teamwork and morale, so vital to a successful school, will be undermined.

It looked like these threats would only apply to Upper Pay Spine teachers at first, but the 2007 School Teachers’ Review Body report recommended that pay progression is linked to performance management for main scale teachers as well. This will apparently help “teachers to prepare for threshold assessment ” (!) and schools to “distinguish more effectively between unsatisfactory performance meriting … withholding of pay progression and serious underperformance meriting capability procedures ”.

The threat of capability procedures is not an empty one either. The RIG advice (5.38) states that “if serious weaknesses are identified … performance management should cease and the school’s capability procedure be substituted”. Heads have been specifically advised at training sessions that they should consider taking such an approach with UPS3 teachers that are no longer making the grade. This alone - along with the pressure on ‘reviewers’ to be firm with ‘reviewees’ -answers those who argue that UPS3 teachers won’t care about these changes.

There are other threats that should have been given more publicity. For example, Regulation 16 allows any reviewer with concerns to call a ‘revision meeting’ and set new targets mid-cycle. Of course, neither the law, nor the model RIG policy, set any limit on the number of targets to be set.

Even where NUT groups can secure our policy of a maximum of three objectives, the problem remains of what those objectives actually say. The NUT guidelines released last year correctly recommended that “objectives should not contain commitments to achieve certain percentages of test or examination results”. Unfortunately, the same statement appears to be missing from the latest NUT model policy for schools.

F

To show … that we are engaged in a serious fight, local approaches must be combined with national action.

ailure to show sufficient “pupil progress” is already the commonest cause of rejection of pay progression. In New Labour’s league-table dominated system of competing schools, this will be even more common in future. Unless we organise an urgent fightback, every teacher faces “payment by results”. Staff will end up opting to work where results are easier to get, adding to the growing polarisation between schools.

Performance management isn’t just about pay, it’s also about control. It is bound up with the incessant nit-picking observations that so demoralise and stress teachers. How can such observation be “supportive and developmental” when it’s linked to pay?

The latest blow is the revelation in the latest “NUT News” that any limit on ‘drop-in’ classroom observations has been dropped from the original draft RIG model policy. Teachers could apparently face a visit from a manager at any time – with the prospect of a ‘revision meeting’ being called if they are unhappy with what they see.

Of course the RIG unions will do nothing to advertise these dangers. The ATL’s advice to its school reps states that “local NUT representatives will not necessarily have the same information and understanding of the proposals that representatives of the social partnership will have.” We’d hope not! But has the NUT actually done enough to explain to teachers what is really at stake?

The Executive’s amendment (15.1) accepts the danger of performance pay applying even to main scale staff but reassures us with the thought that the Secretary of State didn’t make any formal change to their pay arrangements – for now ! For them, any consideration of national action is left for when “additional” measures are introduced. By then the new regulations will be in place.

Cambridgeshire’s amendment, reflecting the views of some in both the Socialist Teachers Alliance and the CDFU, calls for school and Division action to be supported where unacceptable policies are introduced or pay progression unacceptably denied. However, consideration of national action is postponed until “there is evidence of general support for such a strategy amongst members”.

But this is really an excuse for continued delay. PRP seeks to divide and isolate teachers. It is best fought by collective action. Of course, as on workload, we must encourage members to take local action. But, to show teachers, and the Government, that we are engaged in a serious fight, local approaches must be combined with national action.

The strategy of relying on individual school reps and Division officers to fight local battles alone will not succeed. As on TLRs, we may win some local victories, but many members lack the confidence to ‘go it alone’ in fighting battles that they rightly recognise are part of a national issue. But, if the Union led from the front and held a ballot for national action over performance pay and the workload driven by it, members would give support. That was certainly what the 96% YES vote in our indicative ballot of Lewisham NUT members demonstrated. That’s why we hope our amendment 15.3 will be reached, and passed, by Conference. No more excuses, give a lead, take action!

Defending Reps

SUPPORT FOR LOCAL OFFICERS

DEFENDING REPS – COLLECTIVE ACTION TO DEFEAT MANAGEMENT BULLIES

Derek McMillan (West Sussex NUT)

Last year’S NUT COnference agreed that “bullying is best

challenged by a collective and organised response”.

P

The union rep at a school “somewhere in Sussex” was targeted for redundancy by the head teacher.

utting this policy into practice is going to be vital if the Union is going to succeed in building school-based action – particularly where that leaves the school NUT representative vulnerable to attacks from a bullying management.

Successful trade union organisation has always depended on, in each workplace, a courageous rep that enjoys the support of his or her colleagues and his or her union. Employers have always known that if they can break the rep, they may well have broken the union.

The traditional ways for Headteachers to bully a rep through spurious capability procedures and changes in the timetable to induce more stressful working conditions are being augmented with intensified performance management regulations which offer ever more ways to put an assertive rep in their place.

The union rep at a school “somewhere in Sussex” was targeted for redundancy by the head teacher. There were a lot of issues which had arisen at the school and the union reps of all three unions were at the centre of the demands arising from the staff involving allegations of bullying by the head. The regional office intervened and all three unions held a meeting to agree a form of words to present to the governors.

Teachers had been forbidden by the head to talk to governors. Since the NUT rep was married to a governor this didn’t make things straightforward!

There was a petition signed by all of the staff except senior management who were forbidden to sign it – but one of them did anyway.

The meeting also agreed a proposal from to hold a ballot the following week - when OFSTED would be on the premises and the eyes of the local press focussed on the school.

The head decided that discretion was the better part of valour and perhaps the financial circumstances of the school were not all that bad and, as the NUT had suggested at the outset, the reserves could take the strain.

The net result was that not only was the rep’s job saved – for which he is eternally grateful – but the head was then unable to make anybody else redundant either. The NUT remains the largest union in the school to this day.

Successful trade unions have always known that the best response to attempts to intimidate their workplace reps is collective industrial action. The St.Helens / West Sussex amendment (52.1) gives 2007 NUT Conference the chance to make sure that this approach becomes the clear policy of the Union.

Professional Unity

WORKING WITH THE NASUWT – LESSONS FROM TLR ACTION IN ST.HELENS

Robin Pye (St.Helens NUT)

Two schools in St. Helens conducted formal strike ballots during the TLR campaign.

T

Throughout the strike, it was the strikers themselves, who insisted on unity in action. As the NASUWT rep at the school often remarked, “Really, we should all be in one union”.

he first school was the secondary school with the largest NUT membership in the borough. During the course of the dispute the membership became even bigger with several teachers leaving the NASUWT to join the NUT and nearly all the NQT’s joining as well. The dispute ended in victory for the union with strike action being averted at the last minute as all our demands were met.

The second school was little Holy Spirit Catholic Primary School where teachers were evenly divided between the NUT and NASUWT. Members of both unions asked their local secretaries whether they could be balloted for strike action over a proposed TLR structure which would scrap three permanent MA’s and two temporary ones and replace them with two TLR’s that anybody on the staff could apply for.

The NASUWT had maintained locally that the TLR system would mean that all subject co-ordinators would now be paid additional allowances. However, at Holy Spirit, teachers would be expected to continue to co-ordinate subjects without any additional pay. They argued that the national ‘agreement’ was not being implemented properly. So they balloted their members as the NUT balloted its members because we were being faced with a salary cut.

Teachers took a total of ten days’ joint industrial action. The fact that we were in two separate unions threw up all sorts of practical difficulties during the dispute.

The employer was clearly encouraged to think that the strike would never take off because of the confused mixed messages given out by two unions with very different national agendas.

It became very difficult to agree tactics during the dispute. The NUT sought to agree everything at a strike committee made up of all the strikers and local officers. However, NASUWT regional and national officials would routinely try and overturn decisions made by the strike committee, without any attempt to co-ordinate at a regional or national level with the NUT.

Although local officers found it easy to agree joint statements to the press and joint leaflets to be distributed to parents on the picket line, the NASUWT regional and national officials insisted on producing their own leaflets and making their own statements to the press which ignored the role of the NUT.

Throughout the strike, it was the strikers themselves, who insisted on unity in action. As the NASUWT rep at the school often remarked, “Really, we should all be in one union”.

The dispute ended with two clear victories; slimmed down job descriptions for teachers not in receipt of TLR payments and half a day non-contact time on top of PPA time for TLR postholders.

Crucially, unlike most other local primary schools, teachers at Holy Spirit not in receipt of TLRs will no longer have to co-ordinate subjects. They will not be accountable for the teaching of pupils other than their own, they will not have to monitor pupils’ work from other classes, write action plans or internal or external review documents. This victory is already being used, alongside the national workload campaign, to push for similar improvements in other primary schools in St. Helens. Unfortunately, there will still be a net reduction in the number of teachers receiving additional allowances. Whereas last year five teachers were paid MAs, under the new structure, only two will be paid TLRs.

A lack of support from the NASUWT was crucial in undermining the NUT’s ability to negotiate a better settlement in this respect. Jerry Bartlett, NASUWT Deputy General Secretary, who led the negotiations for his union, told governors that ‘NASUWT has no problem with teachers losing salary as part of the transition to the new structure’ and ‘the system of management allowances did not work’.

Taking the positives out of the strike, it is clear that neither union would have won anything for its members if they had not worked together with the other union. The insistence of members of both unions that the unions work together was absolutely correct. It is also clear that if the two unions had worked more closely together, they would have won much more for members.

Once you have two unions working closely together and achieving much more for their members, the logical and obvious question, ‘Why not become one big union?’ is bound to follow.

The present leadership of the NASUWT has no interest in professional unity. During the Holy Spirit dispute, they went to extraordinary lengths to maintain their separateness from the NUT even when their own members and the logic of the position demanded the opposite approach. The pressure for professional unity within the NASUWT will come from elsewhere, from activists and members who can see what the benefits of one union for all teachers will bring on the ground.

To undermine the policy of social partnership which provides the cover for recent attacks on teachers’ terms and conditions, we need to reach out to and encourage those elements in the NASUWT who are already deeply unhappy with the deals their leadership is negotiating on their behalf. It is these NASUWT members that need to be won over to the idea of one democratic union taking action for teachers.

That is why the NUT call for one union for all teachers will only ever be accepted if it is combined with a willingness to take action on behalf of teachers. It is when they are taking action that teachers stop regarding professional unity as a nice theoretical idea and start thinking of it as an essential prerequisite for victory in the workplace and nationally.

When the present leadership of the NASUWT defend their policy of social partnership, they have two main arguments. Firstly, they point to all the benefits of the workforce remodelling agenda they can find; PPA time, the list of 24 tasks, limits to cover etc. etc. Secondly, they imply that all the bad things; tighter performance pay regulations, teachers losing management allowances, classes being taught by non-teachers etc. are all things that would have happened anyway. Thus, so their argument goes, we should all be grateful for the NASUWT leadership for the way in which they have negotiated improvements that would never have been achieved if the NASUWT had stayed out of talks with the government, as the NUT did.

The great big ‘What if?’ question which they do not want to be asked is, ‘What would have happened if the teaching unions had stayed united in opposition to government attacks on teachers’ pay and conditions and threatened action to support an agreed national negotiation position?

Keeping teachers divided in separate unions and the policy of social partnership with all its concomitant attacks on teachers’ pay and conditions go together, well, like peas and carrots. Once you have decided that remaining a separate union and refusing to work closely with the larger union for fear of being swallowed up by them is the keystone of your policy, social partnership becomes your only option.

Similarly, the call for one union for all teachers, really only makes any sense for teachers if it is combined with a vision for how a larger union will use its strength to negotiate a better deal for teachers backed up by a stronger and more credible strike threat.

M

‘One union for all teachers’ suddenly makes a lot more sense when unions take collective action

ost teachers will agree th