NEWS FOCUS SecEd: On Your Side


Strike action is in the air this Easter


AcAdemiesAnd free schools, the erosion of the national pay and conditions framework, the threat of redundancies, the destruction of public sector pensions, and the cuts in funding to schools and school buildings – it is easy to see why the education unions are angry. And their wrath will be felt this easter as the annual conferences of four of the biggest unions – nAsUWT, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), the national Union of Teachers (nUT), and the national Association of Head Teachers (nAHT) – take place. in this issue we focus on some of the motions that the


Pete


Henshaw Editor SecEd


members of the three teaching unions will be debating – see pages 1 and 4 (as we went to press, the nAHT had not yet published its motions). it is indicative of the current climate that these motions contain numerous references to industrial action or fighting using “all necessary means”. education ministermichael Gove may think he has


had a rough ride so far, but his challenges have not even begun, as he will soon realise when he faces his first easter conference season as the man in charge. i realise that the motions before these conferences are


still to be debated and could be rejected or amended by the unions’ members. And i realise that talk of industrial action is always to be found at union conferences as they seek to pressure government. However, as our front page shows, when it comes to pensions, the signals from teachers and leaders are clear – they are angry and prepared to strike. The pension motions at the nUT and nAsUWT are


both very strongly worded, referencing potential industrial action. And this week we learnt that at ATL, while the motion on the agenda as it stands does not reference strike action, an emergency motion is expected to be drafted that will ask members whether they are willing to strike. This will come after ATL this week presented the chancellor with a petition signed by 15,000 members rejecting further changes to their pensions. And it is not just the teachers. i mentioned in a recent


editorial (A shocking assault on your pensions, SecEd 278, march 17, 2011) that surveys of members by both the nAHT and the Association of school and college Leaders, which held its annual conference last month, showed that, in both cases, more than 60 per cent would consider industrial action. indeed, on our front page this week, nAHT general secretary Russell Hobby told SecEd that industrial action is a “realistic possibility”. it is interesting that the nAsUWT motion cites joint


industrial action between the unions as “inevitable” unless the plans for pensions change, the nUT motion calls for “co-ordinated negotiation, campaign and action” between public sector unions, and the general secretaries of both ATL and nAHT have also spoken to SecEd about joint action. it seems this government has managed not only to anger a profession, but to unite the education unions against them – quite a feat. But even leaving pensions aside, as i read some of the


other motions up for debate by the three teaching unions, a good number of them reference strike action. These include on pay and conditions and the two-year public sector pay freeze, as well as academies and now free schools. But elsewhere you also have issues as diverse as dilapidated buildings, workload, stress, and even the use of new media to monitor teachers all referencing industrial action. i’ll emphasise again. i am fully aware that the “s”


word is common parlance in frank discussions at union conferences, but i can’t help feel that there is something in the air this easter. With unions opposing many government policies, feeling angry at what they see as a lack of consultation, feeling snubbed by the scrapping of the social partnership under which they met regularly with government, and clearly united over pensions, it seems likely that large-scale, national strike action is inevitable. i hopemr Gove listens this easter, because if he doesn’t, there could – and probably will – be trouble ahead.


• Pete Henshaw is publisher and editor of seced. Email editor@sec-ed.co.uk or visit www.sec-ed.co.uk. Follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/SecEd_Education


www.sec-ed.com Education election


With the Scottish Parliamentary elections taking place on May 5, head Alex Wood reports on the recent education debate, which was


THe scoTTisH Parliament elections are on may 5. The first debate on education took place recently in the national Gallery in edinburgh. mike Russell, snP cabinet


not as illuminating as he perhaps had hoped The convention of scottish


secretary for education, and the education spokespersons for the other four Parliamentary parties (Labour’s des mcnulty, the Lib- dems’margaret smith, the Greens’ Robin Harper, and Liz smith for the conservatives) answered questions. despite remarkable consensus


among the parties on most issues, the devil was in the detail. The first question was about


cuts: “How can schools and local authorities carry out cuts without significant reorganisation or falling standards?” Labour’s des mcnulty wanted


more spent on education and more autonomy for schools. margaret smith summed up the view of four of the five parties by calling for creativity and imagination to make the best of difficult times. she also suggested however


that resources had been poorly used over the last few years when “lots of money” has been poured into education but that these resources “haven’t solved things”. Tory spokesperson Liz smith


echoed that. There had been a doubling of expenditure in scottish schools since devolution but there had nonetheless been “significant failures in attainment”. mike Russell seemed to bridge


the Labour and Tory positions, stating that the “big debate is the relationship between attainment and autonomy”. He also repeated the truism


that change is always difficult but suggested that that it was hard to discuss change openly in the run-up to an election. several in the audience thought that open discussion was the exact purpose of such a pre-election debate.


Local Authorities recently proposed to alter teachers’ conditions of service. Peter Wright of the scottish secondary Teachers’ Association asked if these proposals would seriously damage scottish education. Liz smith for the Tories


suggested that the answer lay in part with the local authorities and that 32 councils running 32 different education services was the wrong mechanism in a small country. mike Russell defended the


snP government’s resources input to scottish schools. The pressure for the cuts flowed from scotland having no tax raising power and operating on the basis of a fixed Westminster block grant. He left himself wide open to the


counter-blast fromdesmcnulty that the scottish government’s council tax freeze was having precisely the same effect on the councils. Robin Harper of the Greens alone supported the industrial action now being considered by scottish teachers’ unions. There was little division


among the speakers on the content of education. A question strongly critical of curriculum for excellence, the scottish government’s flagship policy (one introduced by the previous Labour administration but maintained by the snP) was rebuffed by the entire platform. Liz smith suggested that


curriculum for excellence carried too much bureaucratic paperwork but was supportive of the general approach, as were the other speakers, Russell and Harper enthusiastically so. From the floor, however, Larry


Flannigan of the educational institute for scotland, stated that curriculum for excellence rested on the goodwill of teachers and that the present attacks on jobs


IN RESPONSE…


Teachers expressed anger this week after deputy prime minister Nick Clegg published a report on social mobility in Britain. Teaching unions were


unimpressed that after cuts to the Educational Maintenance Allowance and Sure Start children’s centres, as well as the hike in university tuition fees, Mr Clegg had unveiled a strategy for social mobility. Part of the report said


that internships should be advertised, open to all and not gained through a family’s contacts or networks. The report, Opening doors, Breaking Barriers, also said that interns should be paid at least the minimum wage. Mr Clegg also wants to see


more opportunities based on ability and for an equal chance regardless of your background. The report pointed out


SecEd


that while seven per cent of the population attends independent schools, these pupils go on to make up more than half of those in the top- level professions, including


High Court judges and CEOs of FTSE 100 companies. Elsewhere it emphasised that more than 70,000 16-year olds in England are not in education, employment or training.


Nick Clegg: “in Britain today, life chances are narrowed for too many by the circumstances of their birth: the home they’re born into, the neighbourhood they grow up in or the jobs their parents do. Patterns of inequality are imprinted from one generation to the next. The true test of fairness is the


distribution of opportunities. That is why improving social mobility is the principal goal of the coalition government’s social policy. By definition this is a long-


term undertaking. There is no magic wand we can wave to see immediate effects. nor is there a single moment, or particular age, when the cycles of disadvantage can be broken for everyone. The opportunity gap has to be addressed at every stage in the life cycle, from the Foundation Years through to the world of work. And


government cannot do it alone. employers, parents, communities and voluntary organisations all have a part to play.”


Martin Johnson, deputy general secretary, Association of Teachers and Lecturers: “instead of cutting funding for sure start centres, cutting educationalmaintenance Allowances, raising tuition fees, and making it harder for local authorities to provide support services for disadvantaged children, the government should be tackling the multiple causes of deprivation and barriers to attainment that lock people into a cycle of poverty. Teachers are already telling


us that students from poorer families are questioning the point of staying in education when they will be faced with huge student debts and underemployment and unemployment is so high among graduates. if the government is really serious about improving everyone’s opportunities it needs to think again and reverse policies which will damage many young people’s life chances.”


Christine Blower, general secretary, National Union of Teachers: “The government needs to recognise that these aspirations for social mobility mean nothing without the money to implement them. Axing local authority budgets, which leads to reduced public services and social provision, takes away the very means by which adults and children can maximise their potential in life. There is nothing fair in such an agenda”.


Susan Anderson, CBI director for education and skills: “Taking an internship can be a great way for young people to gain workplace experience and develop vital employability skills, such as customer awareness and team-working. internships should always be openly advertised so that everyone has a fair chance of getting a placement. interns who are working must be paid the national minimum wage.”


• See page 12, Union address, and page 15, Taking the lead.


Race to Holyrood: Education is a key election battleground


and conditions was evaporating that goodwill. A question on the reduction


of compulsory assessments, particularly in the primary sector, saw des mcnulty reiterate Labour’s conversion to parental choice with a plea for more accurate objective testing to support parents’ judgements about the schools to which they send their children. The conservatives and Liberals also endorsed a greater emphasis on assessment. mike Russell struck a slightly


more sceptical note, pointing out that the most successful european school system, in Finland, has the lowest levels of external assessment. A question on cPd for teachers


again started debate on the local government structure. Robin Harper suggested moving to either fewer councils or joint boards, effectively amalgamating the education services of several local councils which might however


continue to operate other services autonomously. The last question centred on


the proposed amalgamation of Her majesty’s inspectors in scotland with the national curriculum organisation, Learning & Teaching scotland. The Tories and snP endorsed the proposal. The Liberals thought there was insufficient clarity and Labour could not see why it was being pushed through so quickly. As a starter for the election


campaign proper, the debate illustrated the lack of serious discussion or disagreement on the big issues in scottish education. only the budgetary cuts generated passion, although all four of the big parties are wary of being drawn into a serious discussion since they are all committed to their implementation.


SecEd


• Alex Wood is head of Wester Hailes Education Centre in Edinburgh.


6


SecEd • April 14 2011


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16