My pledge as a workers' MP for Chorley - cut the working week with no loss of pay

Chorley voters have been writing to me to ask that I pledge support for issues that are of particular concern to them. So that they are on the record for all voters, I am posting my response on some of the key issues here on my blog. This reply is to an email from the '4 Day Week Campaign":

The Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition's Core Policy platform, on which all TUSC candidates are standing, includes the following policy on Employment and Trade Union Rights: Scrap zero hour contracts.  Guaranteed hours and full employment rights for all, including migrant workers, from day one of employment; including trade union rates of pay and sickness pay, and sickness, parental and holiday rights.  Cut the working week to 32 hours with no loss of pay.

I am therefore very happy to sign your pledge "to campaign for and support legislation that will enable the transition to a four-day, 32-hour working week with no loss of pay". This is fully in line with the position of TUSC, and also of my party, the Socialist Party, one of the constituent parts of the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, for which I am standing as General Election candidate for Chorley on July 4th.

As a teacher trade unionist, I have long campaigned for at least 20% non-contact time and a fixed limit for overall working hours to address the relentless workload that has driven so many teachers out of the profession for so long.

I can recall that it was not so many decades ago when science and current affairs programmes discussed how technology was going to enable the working week to be hugely shortened. Instead, we now live in a society where hours, and the intensity of those hours, have hugely worsened and many low-paid workers work more than one job in order to pay their bills. 

As the Socialist Party states in its "What We Stand For" pamphlet: 
"One hundred years ago the trade union movement was fighting for a living wage and a maximum working day of eight hours. Today the battle has to be fought again. The average working week in Britain is 41 hours, with 12% of workers slaving for more than 50 hours a week to make ends meet. Meanwhile others, including many young people, are left unemployed or trying to survive on just a few hours work. The Socialist Party stands for sharing out the work – with a maximum working week of 32 hours with no loss of pay – so that everyone has the right to full-time work on a living wage, but no one should slave every hour to make enough to live on. This – combined with a major programme of increased public services – could eliminate unemployment and underemployment".

The question, of course, is how to win the demand? I wish your '4 Day Week' campaign well in convincing more employers - like those listed on your website - to see the benefits of cutting hours without loss of pay in terms of higher productivity and reduced staff turnover. However, I fear that the drive to maximise profit will mean that the majority of employers - and governments that represent those big business interests - will continue to try and increase exploitation through making employees work longer hours for less pay. 

As a trade unionist and socialist, I believe the answer lies with organising trade union action aimed at winning your demand but also, to make such a policy permanent, building a socialist society run for the billions, instead of the billionaires. Under such a society, a plan for sharing out work for the good of all could be democratically agreed and applied in a way that will never be done under crisis-ridden capitalism.

I hope that explains the basis on which I have signed your pledge and why, if elected, I would be happy to work with you on helping to make the demand become a reality. 

Martin Powell-Davies
Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition Candidate for Chorley

'Recovery Commissioner' resigns - demand the funding our schools and colleges need

So, having commissioned Sir Kevan Collins to report on the investment needed to (in their words) "catch-up" after the pandemic, the Treasury have refused to foot the bill of £15bn, instead stumping up less than 10% of what was asked for. That's just £6,000 a year for an average primary school.

In response, Collins has resigned, saying "I do not believe it is credible that a successful recovery can be achieved with a programme of support of this size".

On this, Collins is of course absolutely correct. But it isn't just the funding for 'recovery' that is woefully inadequate. As the NEU and the School Cuts campaign have been arguing for years, education as a whole needs permanent and ongoing investment to make sure the staffing is in place to make sure all needs are met and our large class sizes are reduced.

Expert analysis shows that schools and colleges have suffered from years of real-term spending cuts. Many schools have been announcing further job cuts for the end of this academic year, with support staff posts particularly vulnerable. The pandemic has also hit the Early Years sector particularly hard whilst the critical underfunding of SEND budgets has only got worse. 

Is an extended school day the best use of increased funds?

Given our long-standing campaign for increased education spending, it is laughable that Tory Minister Nadhim Zahawi  has tried to blame teaching unions for Collins' resignation! Zahawi complains that unions "resisted the idea of extending the school day in the first place". But there's no contradiction between questioning the extension of the school day and demanding proper investment in quality education.

Making tired children sit in class, or with tutors, for even longer days of "catch-up cramming" isn't what's needed. It could even do more harm than good by driving out any love of learning. 

And, in practice, the pressure to staff an extra half an hour or so on the day would be on existing teachers and support staff. But, (as discussed separately), we are already at breaking point with our existing workload. Proper investment in additional staffing is vitally needed, not cheap-rate tutoring schemes - and that would be best primarily spent on support within the existing school day, rather than in extending it.

First and foremost, class sizes need to be cut. The UK has some of the largest numbers in school classes globally, especially in primary schools:

https://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm/

Cutting class sizes would ensure pupils had more individual attention, and would also reduce teacher workload as well. 

Reducing class sizes and increasing in-class support also ensures that children receive support alongside their peers, rather than being withdrawn from them. This is significant because, rather than mistakenly emphasising so-called 'lost learning' against the demands of a fixed curriculum, the main need for "catch-up" for children who have suffered most in the pandemic is their social skills and general well-being. That's because they have had less opportunity to be able to play and interact with their peers.

So, while some additional high quality individual or small group tutoring might be needed, maximising learning within the whole-class setting has important advantages for learning in a wider sense. There's also a need for schools to be able to provide greater pastoral support, with additional mentors and counsellors as well, particularly to support mental health.

These are decisions that schools should be given the flexibility to decide as best meets their circumstances  but, above all, with the funding necessary to be able to meet those needs.

No to schools operating longer 'exam factory' shifts

If schools are going to offer extended sessions, then they should not be focussed on formal learning but instead offer after-school opportunities for children to interact and play with their peers in a different way. After-school sessions should concentrate on activities such as sport, drama, art and music that many families cannot afford to pay for their children to participate in. Staffing should be recruited additionally, rather than increasing existing staff workload further.

Sadly, Williamson and the Treasury's actions over the last 24 hours confirm that they aren't interested in genuinely investing in the future. Instead they are looking to get by on the cheap by trying to force overworked staff and stressed students to simply work for longer. Together, parents, staff and students must say no - and unions prepare action to oppose any attempt to impose a further worsening of conditions.

Indeed, we should go further and demand the additional investment our schools and colleges need and a new National Contract for all staff that includes trade-union negotiated class size and staffing policies that makes sure there is sufficient staffing in place to meet needs - as well as limiting workload.

Prepare action to oppose a damaging increase to the school day

On BBC news this morning, hapless Education Secretary Gavin Williamson confirmed what was already clear to most educators - that he is "enthusiastic" about a permanent extension to the school day. This is a threat that must be taken seriously by the NEU, with plans being made now to oppose it with action if the Tories press ahead with this damaging proposal.

Child-care before genuine education

The Government determination to open schools as fully as possible over the last year, despite their role in transmitting Covid, has already made clear that Ministers, and their big business backers, see schooling as a child-care service as much as an educational one.

Of course, even the education they force on young people and schools is a narrow, 'exam factory' education dominated by high-stakes testing and league tables used to grade students, staff and schools in their corporate vision of an education marketplace. What parents and educators must demand is an end to the exam factory schooling, not making the production-line run for an even longer shift every day!

Williamson's comments came during an interview about the announcement of an extra £1.4 billion for what has been described as 'catch-up' tutoring. Of course, what many children needed to 'catch-up' on above all was a chance to play and interact with peers again, with a focus on their broader well-being and mental health, rather than just additional lesson content. However, even to meet that narrower goal, £1.4 billion works out at about £50 per pupil per year - far less than required to provide sufficient additional staffing, one-to-one and small group support (see update below).

But, instead of proper investment in education, this austerity-minded Government thinks it can do better, for cheaper, by simply extending the school day. In their minds, that means getting more for less out of their workforce and more time to 'fill' children with facts. It is also a regime designed to instil the mentality that they - and their parents - need to spend more time at work, and less time together.

The school day in England is already longer than the global average

Educationally, extending the school day won't help students learn. They, just like the staff teaching them, are exhausted enough at the end of the existing school day, let alone an extended one. Concentration will not be maintained. 

I explained in March in a first post responding to Williamson's suggestion of longer schooling that pupils in England already spend longer in school than the global average. 

OECD (2014): How much time do students spend in the classroom?

Excessive hours are already driving out too many school staff

School staff, of course, already work far too long as well. As budgets tighten further and posts are cut, remaining support staff are being bullied into taking on roles outside their job description and working additional unpaid overtime.  As for teachers, even the Government's own figures show that they are already working over a 50 hour week. 

Send a clear warning - we'll take action if you press ahead 

The time at the end of the existing school day, (when ignorant Ministers like Williamson might think teachers are just heading home), is of course time when teachers are desperately trying to 'catch-up' on at least some of their planning and marking. If they now have to continue teaching for longer, that work will now take up even more of their evening and weekends than it does now.

Excessive workload is already the main reason why so many teachers leave the profession - a staggering third of new entrants within the first five years in the job. These plans will drive even more out of teaching - unless we organise to make sure the Tories' plans are dropped and, instead, action taken to reduce, not increase, workload.

Under current contracts with 1265 hours of 'directed time', school employers could not enforce a longer working day. However, the pressure on staff to do so, including the pressure from performance pay, will still be exerted in some schools. School groups will need to organise firmly to make sure workload isn't increased yet further through 'divide-and-rule' amongst staff. 

If Williamson and Johnson press further with trying to impose additional working hours, such an attack could not be fought school-by-school alone. That's why all teacher unions must make firmly clear that any attempt to impose changed contracts will be strongly fought together.

What I posted in March is even more the case today - "Unions need to boldly respond with a clear warning that, if the Government tries to enforce worse conditions, we will organise national action to defend staff and education".

Read more on martin4dgs.co.uk

UPDATE: 'Recovery Commissioner' resigns - also posted separately here

So, having commissioned Sir Kevan Collins to report on the investment needed to (in their words) "catch-up" after the pandemic, the Treasury have refused to foot the bill of £15bn, instead stumping up less than 10% of what was asked for. That's just £6,000 a year for an average primary school.

In response, Collins has resigned, saying "I do not believe it is credible that a successful recovery can be achieved with a programme of support of this size".

On this, Collins is of course absolutely correct. But it isn't just the funding for 'recovery' that is woefully inadequate. As the NEU and the School Cuts campaign have been arguing for years, education as a whole needs permanent and ongoing investment to make sure the staffing is in place to make sure all needs are met and our large class sizes are reduced.

Expert analysis shows that schools and colleges have suffered from years of real-term spending cuts. Many schools have been announcing further job cuts for the end of this academic year, with support staff posts particularly vulnerable. The pandemic has also hit the Early Years sector particularly hard whilst the critical underfunding of SEND budgets has only got worse. 

Is an extended school day the best use of increased funds?

Given our long-standing campaign for increased education spending, it is laughable that Tory Minister Nadhim Zahawi has tried to blame teaching unions for Collins' resignation! Zahawi complains that unions "resisted the idea of extending the school day in the first place". But there's no contradiction between questioning the extension of the school day and demanding proper investment in quality education.

Making tired children sit in class, or with tutors, for even longer days of "catch-up cramming" isn't what's needed. It could even do more harm than good by driving out any love of learning. 

And, in practice, the pressure to staff an extra half an hour or so on the day would be on existing teachers and support staff. But, (as discussed above), we are already at breaking point with our existing workload. Proper investment in additional staffing is vitally needed, not cheap-rate tutoring schemes - and that would be best primarily spent on support within the existing school day, rather than in extending it.

First and foremost, class sizes need to be cut. The UK has some of the largest numbers in school classes globally, especially in primary schools:

https://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm/

Cutting class sizes would ensure pupils had more individual attention, and would also reduce teacher workload as well. 

Reducing class sizes and increasing in-class support also ensures that children receive support alongside their peers, rather than being withdrawn from them. This is significant because, rather than mistakenly emphasising so-called 'lost learning' against the demands of a fixed curriculum, the main need for "catch-up" for children who have suffered most in the pandemic is their social skills and general well-being. That's because they have had less opportunity to be able to play and interact with their peers.

So, while some additional high quality individual or small group tutoring might also be needed, maximising learning within the whole-class setting has important advantages for learning in a wider sense. There's also a need for schools to be able to provide greater pastoral support, with additional mentors and counsellors as well, particularly to support mental health.

These are decisions that schools should be given the flexibility to decide as best meets their circumstances  but, above all, with the funding necessary to be able to meet those needs.

No to schools operating longer 'exam factory' shifts

If schools are going to offer extended sessions, then they should not be focussed on formal learning but instead offer after-school opportunities for children to interact and play with their peers in a different way. After-school sessions should concentrate on activities such as sport, drama, art and music that many families cannot afford to pay for their children to participate in. Staffing should be recruited additionally, rather than increasing existing staff workload further.

Sadly, Williamson and the Treasury's actions over the last 24 hours confirm that they aren't interested in genuinely investing in the future. Instead they are looking to get by on the cheap by trying to force overworked staff and stressed students to simply work for longer. Together, parents, staff and students must say no - and unions prepare action to oppose any attempt to impose a further worsening of conditions.

Indeed, we should go further and demand the additional investment our schools and colleges need and a new National Contract for all staff that includes trade-union negotiated class size and staffing policies that makes sure there is sufficient staffing in place to meet needs - as well as limiting workload.

We need a different strategy to really tackle workload

Download this post as a Martin4DGS leaflet from here: https://bit.ly/3sZjTZs

Excessive workload has long been the greatest concern for most NEU members. It’s the main reason why so many teachers leave the profession altogether every year, unable to put up any longer with 50+ hour weeks, lost weekends and evenings and the constant pressure from unreasonable demands and targets.

To make a difference to members’ lives, and to education overall, workload must therefore be central to the Union’s organising and negotiating strategy. A co-ordinated emphasis this term on working hours is a good place to start. However, a focus on teachers’ ‘Directed Time’ will only make quite limited gains. If we really want to tackle workload, a much wider strategy is needed. 

A Directed Time campaign alone can only make limited gains

The Union is calling for all reps this term to bargain in their workplace to ensure a 1265 hours Directed Time calendar is in place for next year. To be precise, what’s really needed is a 1265-hour time budget plus a calendar which shows how directed meetings and events are set out over the year ahead. That way reps can also argue for the policy that used to be enforced by the legacy NUT ‘action short of strike action’ of “meetings outside session times should be held on average no more than once a week”.

As the Directed Time budget examples in the Union’s materials show, insisting on a maximum of 1265 directed hours can help ensure that staff meetings are limited to one a week, parents’ evenings limited in duration, and pupil supervision limited to the start and end of sessions, not over lunch break. It could also protect against the minority of schools trying to operate extended school days. But, while all organising gains are welcome, a focus on Directed Hours will not tackle the main workload burden. To do that, we must set the bar much higher.

Teachers’ existing contracts are too weak to enforce a limit on overall workload

Reps are being asked to use paragraphs 51 and 52 of most teachers’ national conditions - the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document – as a bargaining tool. However, any rep, or any employer, reading those contractual conditions will soon come across the sting in the tail, paragraph 51.7:

51.7 “In addition to [directed hours] a teacher must work such reasonable additional hours as may be necessary to enable the effective discharge of the teacher’s professional duties, including in particular planning and preparing courses and lessons; and assessing, monitoring, recording and reporting on the learning needs, progress and achievements of assigned pupils”.

In other words, beyond the word ‘reasonable’, limited PPA rights, and a reference in 52.4 to the need for a ‘satisfactory’ work/life balance, the STPCD sets no enforceable limit on the kind of work that mainly keeps teachers in school until late - and eats up their evenings and weekends too. Planning, preparation, assessment, grading, marking, recording, and reporting all lie outside ‘directed time’. 

In short, the STPCD teachers’ contractual conditions are just too weak to be used as an effective bargaining tool. We will not solve the burden of teacher workload unless we mount a bargaining and negotiating strategy which seeks to puts a limit on overall working hours, not just directed time.

2021 Conference and Workload Charters

2021 NEU Annual Conference policy noted the disgraceful facts that: 

• Teachers continue to work more hours per week than the Working Time Regulations maximum of 48 hours, with one study finding that 1 in 4 teachers works more than 60 hours a week;

• Higher class sizes and job losses, driven by school budget cuts, have further worsened workload for all staff. 

• Support staff workload is also deteriorating with a “job creep” of additional demands being imposed on them on top of their existing duties.

• The government’s workplace reviews of planning, marking and data policies have made little, if any, significant impact;

• Excessive workload is the key contributor to significant rates of mental health issues among teachers and support staff, as well as the crisis in teacher recruitment and retention where one third of newly qualified teachers leave the profession within five years.

So, what needs to be done beyond bargaining for Directed Time? Conference agreed that the Union must “re-launch workload as a priority campaign for the Union” and also that the Union should “disseminate Workload charters currently in use and carry out an analysis into their effectiveness at reducing workload”. 

Workload Charters, such as those negotiated with Local Authorities in Nottingham and Coventry, seek to put in place stronger workload limits than exist in the STPCD. For example, the Coventry charter calls for a review of planning, marking and data policies that then ensure that “for teachers, the workload requirements of all policies should be reasonably deliverable within an additional ten hours per week”. On top of directed hours, this could cut overall working time to closer to 40 hours.

Yes, the effectiveness of existing Charters, including how workplace organisation has helped ensure working hours have been limited in practice, needs to be reviewed. But this Conference policy, looking at an overall limit on working time, not just Directed Time, needs to be put into practice.

Win a new National Contract for all educators

There was one more key motion tabled on the Conference agenda that was sadly not reached. A motion that I had drafted, and I was due to propose before debating time ran out, set out a strategy to win a new National Contract for all staff. 

I believe that a campaign for such a National Contract is the best way to win on workload – as well as on pay and conditions generally. Such a contract must also include agreed common national pay scales and an end to performance-related pay. But ending PRP is also a workload demand too. The threat of withholding pay progression, often based on imposed test and exam targets, is too often used to bully staff into working excessive hours.

Winning a new National Contract for all would mean that we no longer have to rely on the weak provisions in the STPCD for teachers. It would also overcome the fragmentation in national conditions for all staff brought about by academisation and increasing school-by-school discretion.

To end excessive teacher workload, I propose that our National Contract demands should include:

• A minimum 20% planning, preparation, and assessment time for all within the timetabled week.

• A minimum additional 10% release time for staff with additional duties e.g. subject leadership.

• A maximum limit on working hours over 195 working days.

• Trade-union negotiated policies that ensure teachers can complete their planning, preparation and assessment and other responsibilities within this limit.

But to make this possible, and to prevent workload just being transferred to other colleagues instead, we must also demand sufficient staffing to meet needs. By implication, we also need an end to the high stakes testing and accountability regime that lies behind so many of the demands on schools. We would also need a trade-union negotiated class size and staffing policy and negotiating structures between elected reps and management to be set up with every school and employer, backed up by strong NEU organisation, to ensure that the Contract is being fully complied with.

Don’t delay – implement a strategy to win

I believe that such a strategy could lift the sights of every educator, every NEU rep and Local Officer. It could bring the whole Union together around a campaign that would really make a difference to every NEU member. It would also allow us to explain to parents and the public our different vision to the current ‘exam factory’ curriculum – properly funded and without constant staff turnover.

Yes, as my proposed Conference Motion also stated, such a unified national campaign would also need unified national action to win it, including preparation for a national ballot for strike action. Ballots could also be counted by employer so that, alongside national negotiations, the Union can also pursue ‘disaggregated’ action to make gains on an employer-by-employer basis too.

Yes, any ballot also needs careful prior preparation - taking the campaign out to every member, using what we have learned from using online methods like Zoom, as well as the physical meetings and rallies. It also requires the ‘technical’ preparations of making sure we are ‘ballot ready’ to meet the legally imposed thresholds, with correct home addresses and mechanisms in place for reps to check members are returning their formal votes postally in as high a turnout as possible.

But it is not enough to simply call for a ‘National Contract’ as a slogan – then put off building for it to some unknown time in the future. That will leave more exhausted members quitting the job. It means continuing to expect individual reps to try and make the most of an unacceptably weak set of conditions, when what we need is for the Union to give a national lead and start organising across the whole Union for a National Contract for all. 

The newly elected National Executive should start giving that lead by agreeing the Motion that was never reached at NEU Conference, and start work without delay on preparing to win a new National Contract for all staff. 

That’s what I would be calling for, and organising for, as new Deputy General Secretary of the NEU.

Why we need a National Contract for Education

NEU Conference 2021 has had to take place via Zoom, with delegates sitting at their own homes. Such a Conference has obviously not been without its glitches and idiosyncrasies but, in the end, managed to debate and agree a wide range of policy.

Disappointingly, one of the few motions that was never reached was a motion that I had hoped to propose on a “National Contract for Education”. Conference voted to close the debate before it was heard, even though there would have been time to debate it, and still leave time for another important unfinished motion on Pride in Our Union.

However, while the debate was not had at Annual Conference, it’s certainly a proposal that I want to continue to raise for discussion during the campaign for Deputy General Secretary. 

As usual, our Annual Conference has agreed many good demands but the question for delegates as we draw Conference to a close is always the same – now, how do we achieve them? How can we defend pay, jobs and conditions? How can we get rid of SATs, Ofsted and League Tables for good - and build a curriculum based on equality and the real needs of children and our communities? 

The last year of the pandemic has shown that lobbying alone will not succeed, especially now that the Labour Party front bench can no longer be relied on to support NEU policy as under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. The successful use of Section 44 showed in January how we can win - by giving a clear national lead, calling on members to act together union-wide.

The Motion on the National Contract would have come at the end of a series of motions around pay, workload and conditions – but it was the motion that could have brought those together in one national strategy.

Because, while we can – and will – continue to win some gains at a school level, issues that affect every educator will need to be tackled by acting across employers – and across the whole Union. How do we do that?

We all know the organising watchwords we use when we train our reps – that our demands need to be “deeply felt and widely felt” if we are going to be able to act collectively. Now for some educators, their key grievance will be workload, for others pay, for others job losses and the lack of support for students. A campaign for a new ‘National Contract’ for all can bring together those key grievances into one unified campaign – and form the basis for such a unified national campaign of action. 

The motion suggests a series of demands:

Firstly, to “Pay school staff properly” – linking the demands we agreed elsewhere in Conference, for significant pay awards for both teaching and support staff and for guaranteed pay progression, not PRP. The Contract must also include trade-union negotiated common pay scales – together with additional London and Fringe allowances – to replace the increasingly fractured pay scales across different employers.

Secondly “An end to excessive teacher workload” – to stop the burden of 50 hour working weeks and unpaid overtime driving staff out of the job through overwork. The Contract should add the long-standing demand for a minimum 20% PPA – plus additional time for those with additional responsibilities – so staff have time to prepare in the school day, not in their evenings, weekends and holidays. The contract must set a real limit to working hours. That doesn’t just mean limiting teachers’ “directed time” but an end to the open-ended wording in the STPCD that also asks for the “additional hours as may be necessary to enable the effective discharge of the teacher’s professional duties”.  

Thirdly “Sufficient Staff to meet needs” - a limit on hours will only be feasible if it is combined with expectations of work that can be achieved within that limit – for teachers and support staff. That means a Contract that also sets out a requirement for trade union negotiated policies, not least on assessment and planning. It also means making sure employers have class size limits and staffing structures that provide the support needed for students, rather than just having to fit to an inadequate school budget.

Fourthly, “Collective Bargaining and Accountability”- having used our workplace strength together to win national demands, then, in turn, we need to use that national strength to insist that every workplace, and every employer, has its own negotiating structures to resolve how our national contractual rights are applied locally, and to negotiate the individual issues that can arise in a particular sector or school.

Where we have national recognition, we should use the opportunity given to us already via the Review Body process to call for these demands as part of an overhaul of the STPCD – while also seeking direct negotiations and collective bargaining for all our members.

Of course, those overtures will be rejected by this hard-nosed Government – unless they are backed up by the threat of national action that would be required to win a national contract. 

As the Motion proposed, however, ballots could also be counted by employer so that, alongside national negotiations, the Union can also pursue disaggregated action to make gains on an employer-by-employer basis.

Clearly, union-wide action needs careful preparation. That includes the ‘technical’ preparations of making sure we are ‘ballot ready’ to meet the legally imposed thresholds, with correct home addresses and setting up mechanisms for reps to check we are getting the vote back postally in as high a turnout as possible.

It needs the campaign preparation - taking the campaign out to every member, using what we have learned from using online methods like Zoom, as well as the physical meetings and rallies.

It also need taking out more widely to parents – to explain why a National Contract for staff is also a National Contract for Education – to stop the constant staff turnover, to limit class sizes and insist on sufficient staffing to improve the learning conditions for young people

But above all, pursuing this approach means we move from lowering members’ confidence by emphasising the barriers in our way – and instead start to raise members’ confidence by emphasising what needs to be done  – and then works out soberly but with determination, how we’re going to do it.

The full wording of Motion 14 - including amendment 14.1 which, as proposer, I was accepting - can be found here.

Williamson's longer school opening plans must be firmly opposed

THIS CALLOUS GOVERNMENT has made clear that its “thank you” to essential workers will be a further attack on our pay and conditions. 

European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2018

For NHS staff, their ‘reward’ has been a derisory 1% pay award. For school staff, Education Secretary Gavin Williamson is suggesting schools need to operate with longer days and shorter holidays. 

This proposal is nothing to do with helping children. The Tories’ continued school cuts, alongside their reckless rush to full school opening, show that they regard schools primarily as a childcare service, not an educational one. 

Extending hours will not improve education

Extending hours will not improve education. Children, even more than adults, get tired. Concentration will not be maintained. 

As it is, pupils in England already spend longer in school than the global average. They also get shorter summer holidays too. 

OECD (2014): How much time do students spend in the classroom?

Compare England with Finland, consistently regarded as one of the highest achieving education systems:

Hours of compulsory general education over 9 years (equivalent to Key Stages 1-3):
Finland: 6327 hours	England: 7904 hours
Length of school year:
Finland: 187 days	England:  190 days
Length of summer holidays:
Finland: 10-11 weeks	England: 6 weeks

Instead of even more time enduring the “exam factory” conditions imposed on our schools by League Tables and Ofsted, school students after the pandemic need a ‘recovery curriculum’ that prioritises their well-being.

For their social development, children need leisure time and parents need time with their children. That means better pay and shorter hours, not the other way around. Youth and play services should be funded to provide additional support - but these have been slashed by Local Authority cuts.

School staff workload is already driving them out

The Government knows that over 20% of new teachers already leave the profession within their first two years of teaching. That rises to 33% within the first five years. If the Government succeed in imposing even greater working hours, staff turnover will increase even further, damaging education.

Government figures also show that teachers are already working over 50 hours a week. Support staff are also pressurised into unpaid overtime too. Instead of conditions being made worse, they need to be improved. That’s why one of the ten key points in my DGS campaign is for a National Contract for all school staff that sets a genuine limit on overall working hours, not just teachers’ ‘directed time’.

Organise national action to defend staff and education

Under current contracts, school employers could not enforce a longer working day or year. Any move by Ministers to try and impose changed contracts must be firmly rejected.

Such an attack could not be fought school-by-school. Unions need to boldly respond with a clear warning that, if the Government tries to enforce worse conditions, we will organise national action to defend staff and education.

I've also turned this post into a short campaign video. Please share with your colleagues via this YouTube link:

How do we limit excessive workload in schools?

School staff will start 2020 fearing yet more attacks on education from a Johnson Government. The Tories have already shown us that they can’t be trusted – certainly not on school funding, nor on teacher workload.

Despite all their promises, staff cuts continue, leaving even more student needs unmet and further increasing the workload of remaining staff. It’s a scandal that 10% of teachers are leaving the profession every year – but it also exposes the failure of education unions to take advantage of the shortage of experienced staff to organise to win real gains for members.

It’s good that a debate is opening up in the NEU about what needs to change. Yes, unions need to refocus on building strength in the workplace, organising and recruiting reps and winning victories.

Battles will have to be fought against further academisation and to oppose more job cuts. Staff should call on schools to refuse to cut posts but instead join unions in demanding that politicians deliver on their funding promises. Well organised school groups and branches can also negotiate for policies that reduce workload and disapply performance pay. However, real gains that cover all our members require national action.

Lessons can be learned from the two national indicative ballots held by the NEU over the last year – and how other unions have reached ballot thresholds successfully. Absolutely the wrong conclusion to draw would be that a national ballot can’t be won. The depth of the crisis in schools - for both staff and the students we teach - is too great for unions to just pursue local battles alone.

Yes, the right preparation is required but, as US teachers have shown, a clear and unifying set of demands is also vital. A National Contract for Education provides that.

So, let’s build in schools but make clear from the start that we are building for national action to win contractual conditions binding on all employers that guarantee better pay and conditions for staff – and better learning conditions for school students.

A draft National Contract for debate at NEU Conference
Six NEU Districts have put forward a motion for 2020 NEU Conference calling on the Executive to commence negotiations with the Government around the following demands:
Pay school staff properly
i. A pay rise of 10% for all school staff;
ii. Guaranteed pay progression. End performance-related pay;
iii. Trade-union negotiated pay scales for all points plus additional London and Fringe allowances that properly meet the additional cost of living.
An end to excessive teacher workload
iv. A minimum 20% planning, preparation and assessment time for all within the timetabled week;
v. A maximum working week, with a legal limit to working hours over 195 days of directed time;
vi. Trade-union negotiated policies that ensure teachers can complete their planning, preparation and assessment and other responsibilities within this limit.
Sufficient staffing to meet needs
vii. A trade-union negotiated class size and staffing policy.
Collective bargaining and accountability
viii. Trade union negotiating structures between elected reps and management to be set up with every school and employer.

Organise to win
Trade union attempts to appeal to successive Tory Education Ministers to ‘see sense’ and act on workload have failed to deliver meaningful change for most members. A campaign for a National Contract for Education can change that.

Government promises have inevitably proved to be empty because the Tories are wedded to austerity. That means imposing funding cuts and using Ofsted, ‘support plans’, performance pay and all the rest of the accountability regime to bully remaining staff to do more work for less pay. It’s been made worse by academisation and the fragmentation that allows different schools and employers to apply different policies on pay and also on key workload drivers like marking.  

Union negotiators have also failed to seriously challenge a Pay and Conditions Document that gives employers such free rein, particularly the open-ended requirement on teachers to “work such reasonable additional hours as may be necessary to enable the effective discharge of the teacher’s professional duties”.

We need a new Contract for Education that replaces that clause with a clear limit on weekly working hours. In other words, not just the 32½ hours of ‘directed’ duties a week but limiting all the work expected on top of that in preparing and assessing – which for many teachers is another 30 hours!

For now, many teachers feel they have no choice but to work long hours in order to be ready for their classes and to meet management demands. So a contractual limit is not sufficient alone. A national contract must also include a minimum 20% PPA time for all and trade union negotiation structures that ensure that all policies are adjusted so that the work can be done in the time available. Then, teachers could finally get back their evenings and weekends!

There is scope to try and win elements of an improved Contract through campaigns aimed at individual employers too. Some Headteachers and employers, in order to act on teacher retention, have already introduced improvements such as the ‘Workload Charters’ in Nottingham and Coventry. But national change is needed to solve a national crisis.

The NEU should replicate some of the work carried out by US unions in building awareness and pressure from below in advance of annual contract negotiations. In our case, the call for a New Contract should be placed on the Review Body, Government and all employers.

NEU members should also make clear that they expect their Executive members to give such a lead – or to stand aside for those who will.

I'll be a leading a workshop discussion on a National Contract for Education at this event, hosted by the Education Solidarity Network, on Saturday 11th January. Book your free place here.

Get organised to turn workload pledges into reality in your school

“I want teachers to spend their working hours doing what’s right for children and to reduce the amount of time spent on unnecessary tasks”
Damian Hinds, Education Secretary

“I am committed to tackling workload, and supporting everyone in education to do the same”
Amanda Spielman, Ofsted Chief Inspector

Download this article as a newsletter here 
 

  

Let’s turn promises into reality

How did you feel when you heard that Ofsted and the DfE have released a video promising that they want to tackle teacher workload? 

Relief? - that the government finally realises they have to act on workload if they are going to stop the recruitment and retention crisis?
Cynicism? - that this is just another headline-grabbing announcement that will be ignored by your School Management Team?
Anger? - that they won’t act on the testing, league tables, budget cuts and performance pay that lie behind so much teacher workload?

All three of those reactions are justified but, as union members, our response has to be:

Determination! - that the government is under pressure and now we have to organise in our schools to turn promises into reality.

Organise in your school 

This video gives school staff a real opportunity to demand change on workload. However, the accountability regime that weighs down on schools could too easily mean that it changes nothing. The main factor that will decide is US! If NEU members organise, you can win change in your school. 

Here’s how Kevin Courtney, NEU Joint General Secretary, has suggested you can do it:

“Ofsted’s Amanda Spielman, backed by Secretary of State Damian Hind, says: “If the impact on pupil progress doesn’t match the hours you spend marking then stop it!”

So who is to judge the match between the hours you spend and progress made?

Surely this should be a professional judgement for the teacher? It is potentially a complicated judgement. The teachers’ own level of fatigue comes into it as well as the suitability or otherwise of any marking scheme the head insists on. The vast majority of the profession know, for example, that the dialogue, triple marking schemes lead to standardised comments from the pupil and pro-forma responses from the teacher. Almost no learning takes place but huge numbers of hours are consumed.

However in the current climate of Ofsted and accountability fear many heads don’t allow teachers this level of professional judgement.

This is undoubtedly bad for our children’s education. The more downtrodden and alienated a teacher feels, the more likely to leave the profession for example.

That’s why professional judgement must be supported, bolstered, by collective action.

The key thing with this new Government/Ofsted video is that staff (union members) discuss it collectively. They decide what changes they want the head to make - then they elect some people (union reps) to tell the head.

The video can support that process. It can’t replace that process.

If the head doesn’t move then the union members have to decide their next steps. Do they let it lie? Do they leave the school? Or do they approach the union for help?

In these circumstances the local union reps would approach the head, along with school reps, and again make the case, perhaps bringing in other local examples of where change has already taken place.

If that still doesn’t work then the staff have the same decisions to make. But in many situations like this staff ask for an “indicative ballot”. This tests the strength of feeling without formally calling a strike and oftentimes the head will see that they really should change their position.

As our final step we would ballot for sustained (that is paid) strike action. There are very many examples where staff have won agreements like this which have reduced their workload, increased their scope for making their own judgements as to what helps their pupils learn, and in so doing has improved education.

Professional judgement and collective action go hand-in-hand. 

Join the National Education Union to boost both.

Get in touch to get organised

In the last few months, schools across the London Region have taken these steps and over 20 have asked for an indicative ballot - sometimes then a formal ballot - on workload and other demands like over pay, job cuts, or opposing bullying or academy transfers. Most have achieved gains as a result.

So get in touch with the NEU - either through your Local NUT Division or the London Regional Office - and get organised to win change in your school.

What needs to change?
 
In response to NEU posts about the video, teachers have been posting on social media about what has to change if workload is going to be cut.

Here are just a few of the suggestions posted:
●    Excessive monitoring requirements such as planning submitted in advance;
●    Filling in forms for monitoring, rather than trusting to people's professionalism;
●    Lots of extra SEND paperwork because LAs are refusing to assess due to funding cuts;
●    Repeating the same data in different formats;
●    Too great an amount of contact time, or number of classes, that a teacher is expected to teach;
●    Contacting parents by ‘phone and having to record the results of such calls;
●    Excessive data entry and analysis;
●    Observations, book scrutiny, learning walks, planning scrutiny and pupil progress meetings;
●    Schools are cutting back on support staff  - e.g. so teachers have no-one to do bulk copying;
●    Schools need to apply “rarely cover” properly;
●    Email overload.... and the expectation that you'll read and respond before the end of the day. 

Discuss what needs to be changed in your school - and decide what needs to be done to win change.

What changes can be won?
 
All schools are under pressure from budget cuts and the government’s punitive accountability regime but, despite this, some schools have taken action to significantly reduce staff workload.

Some of these changes have been won through union groups getting organised and negotiating change, sometimes backed up by action ballots. In London, schools have won changes such as limits on contact time and observations, or reduced workload through winning a work/life balance policy or improved performance management policies. 

Nationally, some employers, like Nottingham and Coventry, have agreed ‘workload charters’ with unions that place a limit on overall working hours - not just teachers’ 1265 hours ‘directed time’.

The DfE/Ofsted video includes examples of schools that have cut workload through changing their marking policy (with no effect on pupil outcomes!) or data collection requirements.

As one of the Heads featured in the video says, “it can take brave leadership to tackle existing orthodoxies in schools and get rid of routines that are sometimes established and expected”. Indeed, and perhaps NEU members can encourage a few more school leaders to be brave and cut workload!

If you have good examples of improved policies or other changes that you have won, tell the NEU!

Making plans to win a London Workload Charter

At the recent NEU (NUT Section) Divisional Secretaries Briefing meeting in Leeds, there was widespread agreement that London NUT should draft a 'London Workload Charter' for consultation with members - before then seeking its adoption by schools across the London Region.

The proposal is based on successful work already done in areas such as Nottingham and Coventry, where Local Authority backing has been won for local workload charters. 

This is to be welcomed, although it is surely a common sense approach for any employer to take given:
1) their responsibilities to act in line with both relevant legislation and DfE advice on teacher workload;
2) the damaging effects of excessive workload on the ability of staff to teach and support pupils effectively;
3) the recruitment and retention advantages it presents, particularly given the staffing difficulties in many London schools.

To help NEU members discuss what a 'London Workload Charter' should include, here is an initial draft for discussion:

A) Our school will fully abide by the provisions of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document, in particular by having:

• An agreed weekly and annual directed time budget ensuring that the maximum limit of 1265 hours directed time over 195 days is not exceeded;
• An agreed lunch break of reasonable length free from any supervision or other duties;
• Guaranteed, and clearly timetabled, Planning, Preparation & Assessment Time and additional Management Time for those with additional responsibilities;
• Cover for absence only rarely required, and only in circumstances that are not foreseeable;
• No teacher required routinely to participate in any administrative, clerical and organisational tasks which do not call for their professional skills and judgement.

B) Our school will implement our legal responsibility to ensure that  staff are led and managed "with a proper regard for their well-being and legitimate expectations, including the expectation of a healthy balance between work and other commitments" by making sure that, for teachers, all policies should be reasonably deliverable within an additional ten hours per week beyond directed time. For those with additional leadership responsibilities, a further one hour a day may be required. For staff other than teachers, their duties should be deliverable entirely within contractual hours.

C) Our school management will negotiate with union representatives at regular meetings of a school negotiating committee to ensure all school policies are consistent with the commitments set out above, in particular with regard to:

• Working Time (ensuring that any additional workload created by new initiatives, policies or practices is compensated for by a reduction in workload elsewhere)
• Marking Policy (in line with DfE advice and the limits sets out above)
• Planning Policy (in line with DfE advice and the limits sets out above)
• Data Policy (in line with DfE advice and the limits sets out above)
• Class Size policy (setting out limits on class sizes and staffing provision for different age groups and pupil needs)
• Timetabling policy (setting out maximum teaching loadings for teachers with and without additional responsibilities)
• Pay Policy (ensuring it does not place demands on teachers which would require them to breach the workload limits set out in this Charter).

If you'd like to comment on these suggestions, especially if you and your NEU members want to hold a meeting to discuss how they could be won in your school, email london@neu.org.uk.

Download a copy of this draft charter here