In a great example of professional unity in action, I was invited to speak tonight at a meeting hosted jointly by the NAHT, NASUWT, NUT and ATL to organise against the threat of forced academisation of all of the remaining maintained schools across the London Borough of Bromley.
The Tory-dominated Council wants to persuade and/or bully all of its schools into becoming Academies by 2015. In response, teaching unions are organising to oppose this threat, expose the real agenda behind the proposal and support schools to withstand the pressures being put on them to be absorbed into Multi-Academy Trusts.
Rob Kelsall of the NAHT explained their opposition to forced academisation. He described the 'relentless bullying' that some Heads faced from DfE brokers and how they were working to equip Heads and Governors with the knowledge and confidence to resist it (See for example: http://www.naht.org.uk/welcome/news-and-media/magazines/leadership-focus/leadership-focus-63-march-2014/).
I explained how, as a Bromley teacher 25 years ago, I had been a member of Bromley NUT campaigning against schools taking on 'Grant-Maintained Status'. As we warned then, it was one of the first steps along the path to what we see now - an attempt to completely dismantle Local Authority schooling. Parents and Governors were promised that this marketisation of schools would 'raise standards'. In fact, all the evidence shows that academies have not achieved better results than maintained schools - but have accelerated increasing polarisation within and between schools. They have also helped Government to cut Local Authority support for schools, especially in an underfunded borough like Bromley.
Rob explained that whenever the Governing Body that he was a member of discussed academy status, they consistently concluded that conversion was not in the interest of the school and its students. I explained that it was the same argument that I had been making - alongside GMB and ATL colleagues - at a meeting the previous evening in Lewisham (see http://electmartin1.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/academies-why-governors-should-say-no.html).
Dominic Byrne, also from the NUT Executive, also explained to the meeting about the ongoing campaign to defend Warren Comprehensive School from forced academisation. The campaign had been strongly backed by local parents and unions - and by the local Council who were maintaining their legal battle against Gove's plans.
The threat of academisation can - and must - be resisted or we will see locally accountable schools, working for the benefit of local communities, entirely replaced by chains of academies, run primarily for the benefit of their sponsoring edu-businesses.
Unfortunately, as is being seen in Birmingham, Ofsted is being increasingly used as a political tool to push schools into 'categories' that make them vulnerable to that threat. Unions must work together to expose this blatant attempt to force through the privatisation of education - as they were tonight in Bromley.
Showing posts with label Professional Unity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Professional Unity. Show all posts
Wednesday, 4 June 2014
Saturday, 22 March 2014
The NASUWT, March 26 and Professional Unity
For the last year and more, the NUT has been attempting to build strike action in conjunction with the NASUWT, and rightly so. However, the March 26 strike is having to go ahead without their participation and, regrettably, future national action may have to go ahead without them as well.
It is obvious that a co-ordinated strike between the two largest teaching unions will have a more powerful effect than one acting alone. It is also clearly in the interests of public sector workers, whatever their union, that we act in unison to defeat the attacks on colleagues, and the services we support, that are being inflicted by this Government. Indeed, that's why I continue to also argue for wider co-ordinated action with other TUC unions as well, not just the NASUWT.
However, I believe that events have, regrettably, confirmed the fears that myself and others in LANAC have been voicing from the start of the attempts to develop joint action. While the benefits of joint action have been clear, the dangers of allowing the NASUWT leadership to set the agenda for the NUT have also been very clear too.
There have always been reasons to doubt the attitude of some of the NASUWT leadership towards genuine partnership working. In 2011, they failed to take part in the June national pensions strike, only joining the next national action in November.
At the September 2012 TUC, when most unions backed the call for Congress to investigate the 'practicalities of a general strike', the NASUWT were one of the few unions to speak against.
Even throughout our joint 'action-short-of-strike-action', the NASUWT often seemed to put obstacles in the way of genuine joint working in schools, particularly frowning on joint meetings between NUT and NASUWT members in schools.
Eventually, regional strikes with the NASUWT were agreed in 2013 but the promise of a further joint national strike in November was broken - as was the later commitment to joint action before February 13 2014. Instead, and I suspect largely driven by the NASUWT, false claims were made that the prospect of 'genuine negotiations' had been won with Michael Gove. They hadn't.
The talks that are taking place remain limited to discussions about the 'implementation' of Government policy. That's why the NUT are now correctly going on strike on March 26. (For the latest on the 'talks' and the rejection of "many of the most significant points put forward by the unions on implementation of policy" see http://www.teachers.org.uk/node/20918 )
The decision to call a strike without the NASUWT will inevitably strain the relationship between the tops of the two unions. However, at a school level, things are different. There, where all teachers are faced with the same pressures of performance-related pay, worsening pensions and intolerable workload, many NASUWT members are asking why their Union has backed away from national action. It is that common experience at school level which is the key to building genuine professional unity.
Instead of allowing any 'divide-and-rule', NUT and NASUWT members should try and meet jointly wherever possible to discuss the pressures they face and how to combat them, both through local and national action. Those joint meetings will rightly add to the pressure for joint action. However, if the NASUWT leadership continues to hold back from action, then the NUT will have no option but to proceed with further action next term without them. In those circumstances, notwithstanding long-standing loyalties to a particular union, even more teachers will start to reconsider which union best represents their interests.
Sadly, the immediate response of the NASUWT to the NUT's announcement of a national strike was to announce a 'free membership' offer, to which the NUT has responded in kind. So, far from building genuine unity, it seems that, for now, the long-standing battle for membership between the NASUWT and NUT will continue.
Classroom teachers can't afford the luxury of union leaders playing membership games ahead of the interests of the profession as a whole. That's why there will be continued demands for joint action and genuine 'professional unity' between teachers - as voiced at the recent 'Unity' Conference.
That Conference called for further events to be organised to continue to argue for a united union for teachers (or even for all school staff). However, it is clear that, as things stand, the NASUWT leadership will not support any such move. However, the interests of teachers as a whole are more important than the interests of union leaders. If that also means the NUT continuing to have to act independently of the NASUWT, then so be it.
It is obvious that a co-ordinated strike between the two largest teaching unions will have a more powerful effect than one acting alone. It is also clearly in the interests of public sector workers, whatever their union, that we act in unison to defeat the attacks on colleagues, and the services we support, that are being inflicted by this Government. Indeed, that's why I continue to also argue for wider co-ordinated action with other TUC unions as well, not just the NASUWT.
However, I believe that events have, regrettably, confirmed the fears that myself and others in LANAC have been voicing from the start of the attempts to develop joint action. While the benefits of joint action have been clear, the dangers of allowing the NASUWT leadership to set the agenda for the NUT have also been very clear too.
There have always been reasons to doubt the attitude of some of the NASUWT leadership towards genuine partnership working. In 2011, they failed to take part in the June national pensions strike, only joining the next national action in November.
At the September 2012 TUC, when most unions backed the call for Congress to investigate the 'practicalities of a general strike', the NASUWT were one of the few unions to speak against.
Even throughout our joint 'action-short-of-strike-action', the NASUWT often seemed to put obstacles in the way of genuine joint working in schools, particularly frowning on joint meetings between NUT and NASUWT members in schools.
 |
| A commitment to action before Feb 13 |
 |
| ... disappears from the NASUWT website |
The talks that are taking place remain limited to discussions about the 'implementation' of Government policy. That's why the NUT are now correctly going on strike on March 26. (For the latest on the 'talks' and the rejection of "many of the most significant points put forward by the unions on implementation of policy" see http://www.teachers.org.uk/node/20918 )
The decision to call a strike without the NASUWT will inevitably strain the relationship between the tops of the two unions. However, at a school level, things are different. There, where all teachers are faced with the same pressures of performance-related pay, worsening pensions and intolerable workload, many NASUWT members are asking why their Union has backed away from national action. It is that common experience at school level which is the key to building genuine professional unity.
Instead of allowing any 'divide-and-rule', NUT and NASUWT members should try and meet jointly wherever possible to discuss the pressures they face and how to combat them, both through local and national action. Those joint meetings will rightly add to the pressure for joint action. However, if the NASUWT leadership continues to hold back from action, then the NUT will have no option but to proceed with further action next term without them. In those circumstances, notwithstanding long-standing loyalties to a particular union, even more teachers will start to reconsider which union best represents their interests.
Sadly, the immediate response of the NASUWT to the NUT's announcement of a national strike was to announce a 'free membership' offer, to which the NUT has responded in kind. So, far from building genuine unity, it seems that, for now, the long-standing battle for membership between the NASUWT and NUT will continue.
Classroom teachers can't afford the luxury of union leaders playing membership games ahead of the interests of the profession as a whole. That's why there will be continued demands for joint action and genuine 'professional unity' between teachers - as voiced at the recent 'Unity' Conference.
That Conference called for further events to be organised to continue to argue for a united union for teachers (or even for all school staff). However, it is clear that, as things stand, the NASUWT leadership will not support any such move. However, the interests of teachers as a whole are more important than the interests of union leaders. If that also means the NUT continuing to have to act independently of the NASUWT, then so be it.
Saturday, 1 March 2014
United action can make us stronger
At the instigation of the NUT, but with the involvement of most of the teacher unions, a packed Professional Unity Conference met today in London.
As Christine Blower, NUT GS, described it, today was not more than a 'tentative step' towards 'one union for all teachers' but nevertheless it was significant that so many colleagues from so many different backgrounds and traditions were represented.
Messages of support to the event were given from NAHT and ASCL and opening speeches given by speakers from the NUT, ATL and UCAC as well as from OAJ, the union representing 95% of Finnish teachers.
Some individual UCU and NASUWT members were in attendance. However, regrettably but perhaps predictably given their present stance on joint national strike action, the NASUWT was not officially represented.
In part, the pressures on facility time, the costs of competing for membership and providing separate support and resources for members mean that, as with other parts of the trade union movement, teaching unions know that they need to speak together. However, that's not the critical issue for classroom teachers.
For colleagues battling against common attacks on pay, pensions, conditions and state education, building united action is vital to build collective strength against a common enemy. That is even more the case in the increasingly atomised education system in which we work.
Both the messages from the NAHT and ASCL made clear that they were more sceptical of a single union but wanted to find ways of unions speaking together with a common voice as much as possible.
Mary Bousted, ATL GS, speaking by video, rightly suggested that in principle we would be "better together" but warned that any such move would have to be carefully prepared. Mary made clear that the ATL would be looking towards a new union with a new rule-book and constitution.
Those details will, indeed, be critical. 'Unity is strength' has long been a watchword of the trade union movement. But that strength needs to be used. Building a larger union that doesn't have collective action at its core would be a waste of that potential strength.
Any rulebook needs to make sure that a new Union has democratic and inclusive structures that ensure that the discontent and concerns of classroom teachers drive decisions. I would be confident that a union rooted in its members in this way would be a union that would also stand for bold collective action and campaigning to defend teachers and education.
Howard Stevenson reminded the Conference that teachers first became organised to oppose payment by results and to win national collective bargaining. Far from 'opposing change' as politicians sometimes claim, Howard pointed out that teachers helped implement tremendous progressive change in the 60s and 70s. However, when Governments switched to policies that sought to reverse that progressive change, the division between teacher unions made it harder to oppose that 'pushback'.
Howard called for more organisation at workplace level, fighting on professional concerns as well as on pay and conditions. The conclusion he drew was, to build that collective voice, teacher unions must work together. He pointed to DfE research that pointed out that 97% of teachers were unionised - a huge potential barrier to those who want to dismantle comprehensive education - but divided across multiple unions.
The discussion showed that, while today might only have been billed as a 'tentative' step, teachers want concrete steps towards unity to be taken speedily.
The workshop feedback produced a series of suggested initiatives including follow-up regional meetings to promote professional unity amongst teachers, cross-union joint reps' training and regular local meetings of reps and local officers to work on united action and campaigns.
Joint meetings in schools, discussing the common problems we face, and the action needed to confront them, will be vital to build that unity at school level.
As Christine Blower, NUT GS, described it, today was not more than a 'tentative step' towards 'one union for all teachers' but nevertheless it was significant that so many colleagues from so many different backgrounds and traditions were represented.
Messages of support to the event were given from NAHT and ASCL and opening speeches given by speakers from the NUT, ATL and UCAC as well as from OAJ, the union representing 95% of Finnish teachers.
Some individual UCU and NASUWT members were in attendance. However, regrettably but perhaps predictably given their present stance on joint national strike action, the NASUWT was not officially represented.
In part, the pressures on facility time, the costs of competing for membership and providing separate support and resources for members mean that, as with other parts of the trade union movement, teaching unions know that they need to speak together. However, that's not the critical issue for classroom teachers.
For colleagues battling against common attacks on pay, pensions, conditions and state education, building united action is vital to build collective strength against a common enemy. That is even more the case in the increasingly atomised education system in which we work.
Both the messages from the NAHT and ASCL made clear that they were more sceptical of a single union but wanted to find ways of unions speaking together with a common voice as much as possible.
Mary Bousted, ATL GS, speaking by video, rightly suggested that in principle we would be "better together" but warned that any such move would have to be carefully prepared. Mary made clear that the ATL would be looking towards a new union with a new rule-book and constitution.
Those details will, indeed, be critical. 'Unity is strength' has long been a watchword of the trade union movement. But that strength needs to be used. Building a larger union that doesn't have collective action at its core would be a waste of that potential strength.
Any rulebook needs to make sure that a new Union has democratic and inclusive structures that ensure that the discontent and concerns of classroom teachers drive decisions. I would be confident that a union rooted in its members in this way would be a union that would also stand for bold collective action and campaigning to defend teachers and education.
Howard Stevenson reminded the Conference that teachers first became organised to oppose payment by results and to win national collective bargaining. Far from 'opposing change' as politicians sometimes claim, Howard pointed out that teachers helped implement tremendous progressive change in the 60s and 70s. However, when Governments switched to policies that sought to reverse that progressive change, the division between teacher unions made it harder to oppose that 'pushback'.
Howard called for more organisation at workplace level, fighting on professional concerns as well as on pay and conditions. The conclusion he drew was, to build that collective voice, teacher unions must work together. He pointed to DfE research that pointed out that 97% of teachers were unionised - a huge potential barrier to those who want to dismantle comprehensive education - but divided across multiple unions.
The discussion showed that, while today might only have been billed as a 'tentative' step, teachers want concrete steps towards unity to be taken speedily.
The workshop feedback produced a series of suggested initiatives including follow-up regional meetings to promote professional unity amongst teachers, cross-union joint reps' training and regular local meetings of reps and local officers to work on united action and campaigns.
Joint meetings in schools, discussing the common problems we face, and the action needed to confront them, will be vital to build that unity at school level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)