Newsletter - February 2003

NUT Stands Firm On Workload And Role Of Teaching Assistants

A war of words is now raging over whether it is right or wrong to stay in the present talks with the Government on Workload.

The NUT is not in those talks because in order to remain in, the Government insisted that unions sign up to the following principles:

• That teaching assistants should be allowed to teach classes on their own, but that a teacher would have responsibility for preparing work and making sure outcomes were satisfactory
• That there would be a new requirement on teachers to cover for 38 hours a year; this would largely be for the longer term absences that supply teachers now cover, with teaching assistants covering the shorter ones
• That the heralded 10% Planning Preparation and Assessment Time (billed as non-contact time for all) would not necessarily be created by reducing class contact time; it could be found elsewhere within the 1265 hours; it could, therefore, be no gain for primary teachers and a serious loss for secondary teachers
• That the purpose of the removal of bureaucratic tasks is to free teachers up to do more teaching

We believe that there is no guarantee that these plans will reduce overall workload.

We believe that non-teachers teaching classes on their own, even if it is described as being to free up the time of teachers, is the thin end of a very big wedge. Remember this from the document that the other unions signed:

"the school will need innovative remodelling strategies...for example teamwork options involving a QTS teacher and one or more assistants covering a double-sized group of pupils" (p9 of the Time For Standards Agreement)

The other unions have capitulated to the Government’s bullying tactics. It’s a good job that the NUT is the largest union and is growing fast. Our best protection today is for other teachers to join us. (Tel 01274 414664 for application forms)

Six Term Year Consultation - what the proposers haven’t told you

The professed aim behind a 6 term year is to improve standards for pupils and help teachers. How well does that stack up with the facts?

• How about losing 7 days’ holiday in the transition to a six term year?
  This will happen in 2004 because schools finish on Friday 23rd July, but it is intended that schools open for pupils on Tuesday 24th August - add a training day on the Monday and the Summer holiday is reduced from 44 days away from school to 37 days. We never get those days back.
  Why should teachers have to pay for this change? This loss is unacceptable to the NUT.
• The 6 term year is supposed to even out term lengths- does it?
  Terms 1 & 2 Autumn 2004/5 will actually be longer than the previous Autumn teaching term and the terms will be at least a whole week longer than the rest of the 6 terms. To describe the terms as being of "roughly equal lengths" indicates that someone has not grasped level 4 SATS in Maths. Term 1- 38 days, 2- 37, 3- 28, 4- 28, 5- 29, 6- 30
• But we will have 2 weeks in October to break up the long haul from July?
  Yes, but will your children or partner have a similar break if they attend school or work in a different LEA that does not follow this pattern. Will you have childcare costs at Easter if our break does not coincide with the normal Easter break in another LEA.
• The pattern of holidays that has been proposed does not include the 5 training days.
  These will have to be added to start terms earlier for teachers and/or to reduce the one or two week breaks.
• Apparently standards in other countries are not affected by even longer Summer breaks than in England
  The Swedes manage to have 8-9 weeks, as do the French and Canadians.
• What about arriving back in secondary school 2 days before the GCSE results come out
  How does that help teachers to organise their 6th form timetables or settle students into the 6th form? Until exam issues are sorted out, the new dates will be positively harmful to teachers.
• Of course, there are arguments on the other side
  Lots of people like the idea of a 5 term year of 8 weeks each. The impact of the present proposals is not sufficiently thought out and until there is a national acceptance of a unified scheme, then Bradford going it alone is plain daft.

You may still have time to have your say on the consultation by using the internet on www.Bradford.gov.uk/sixtermyear/index.asp

Overseas Teachers Dumped

Teaching Personnel is a web based supply agency set up by two young men in 1996 to make money from the teacher shortage. You may be thinking ‘good luck to them’ or wishing you had thought of it first. They certainly have made money out of it. The founders recently capitalised the business allowing them to realise something like £60 million. Not bad for a good idea.

But of course it is not as simple as that. Maybe there are always casualties when someone makes £60 million. One set of casualties has been overseas teachers brought into the country by Teaching Personnel. They were recruited on terms favourable enough to persuade teachers in mid career to uproot their families and move here, but the contracts allowed Teaching Personnel to legally make detrimental alterations at two weeks notice.

Less than six months after they arrived many teachers faced a situation where they couldn’t work for any other agency but only got paid when Teaching Personnel sent them work. For some, that work has dried up, leaving them in poverty and facing deportation.

Alerted by the Bradford office the NUT nationally has been working with the Home Office and the DfES to find a way forward for teachers here and in other cities. The Home Office no longer issues work permits for Supply Agencies, and they have agreed to issue work permits tied to short term posts for these teachers.

Twelve teachers who were recruited in this way from India were sent to Bradford. Three have now found permanent jobs and one has returned. This leaves eight teachers - five secondary (English, Business studies, Food Technology, Humanities, Social studies, Maths), and three primary - who urgently require a long term placement or a permanent post. These are able and experienced colleagues.

Can You Help?

If there are opportunities in your school that might be suitable please let us know and we will pass on the information. For this term even short term supply opportunities would be welcome.

INTRODUCING JOHN ILLINGWORTH

In 2004 the NUT will hold an election for the General Secretary when Doug McAvoy retires.

Bradford NUT is supporting John Illingworth's campaign for this position.

John has been an active member of the union for 28 years. He teaches in a city centre primary school in Nottingham, has been a local officer since 1984 and a conference delegate every year since 1985.

John has been active in a wide range of education and conditions of service campaigns, including:

• The fight against performance pay and excessive workload
• The scrapping of Ofsted and school league tables
• The right to retire at 55 with no loss of pension
• Opposition to all forms of discrimination.

John came to Bradford to speak in a public debate with politicians during our campaign against the privatisation of the LEA.

John was National President in 2001/2.

Bradford NUT Supports Education In Nepal

At our January General Meeting we were again visited by Phil Grayston, a former member and teacher in Bradford who has been training teachers in rural Nepal as part of a VSO programme.

We agreed at his request to continue our sponsorship of a school for the children of the Badi community, an endangered "untouchable" group with whom he has worked. He gave a very moving report, which will be dealt with more fully in our next newsletter.