Resolutions Passed at Annual Conference 2006

RESOLUTIONS PASSED AT ANNUAL CONFERENCE 2006

CONDITIONS OF SERVICE SECTION

Workload

Conference is angered that teachers face a continuing burden of relentless workload and excessive hours despite all the promises of an improved “work/life balance”. This is having a damaging effect on teachers’ health, on our families and friends, and on the children that we teach. It is a major factor in driving once-enthusiastic staff out of the profession through resignation and early retirement.

Teachers are being ground down by the intensity of our working day, under constant pressure to generate high quality teaching and learning, without adequate time to prepare, nor with sufficient resources to meet the needs of challenging students. Too often, the pressure is made worse by the unreasonable expectations of school managements, themselves under pressure to reach imposed targets, and added to by the threats of OFSTED and performance-related pay.

Conference notes that the much-heralded change to remove “clerical and administrative tasks” from teachers has made little impact on overall workload. Teachers are still typically working well in excess of 50 hours a week. Similarly, the introduction of an annual limit on covering absent colleagues still allows an average of one hour’s cover a week, while removing any limit on the length of absence that can be covered.

The provision of a contractual entitlement to 10% Planning, Preparation and Assessment Time (PPA) will have benefited some teachers, particularly in the primary sector, but is insufficient to prevent many still having to spend their evenings and weekends preparing, planning and assessing work. The Union maintains its long-held demand for a minimum 20% non-contact time for all teachers.

Conference is angered at the failure to fund schools adequately to ensure that the classes of all teachers released for PPA are taught by a qualified teacher at all times. This alone has meant that some pupils will now be in school without a qualified teacher for the equivalent of four weeks a year. The problems that this can create are, in themselves, a source of additional workload. Conference congratulates those schools that have committed themselves to avoiding “teaching-on-the-cheap” but recognises that unless additional funding for PPA is provided, more schools will face making choices unacceptable to the Union.

Conference notes the Secretary of State’s acceptance of the STRB’s call for a consultation on whether teachers’ professional role and responsibilities need to continue being defined in the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document, and her intention to develop new proposals on teachers’ duties with her partners in the RIG Group. Conference recognises the danger of the removal of statutory protections for teachers from excessive and unreasonable workload inherent in the STRB approach. It instructs the Executive to demand full consultation on proposed changes, and to make it clear to the Government and its partners that any deregulation of or worsening in teachers’ terms of employment will be met with the strongest possible resistance by the National Union of Teachers.

With the demands on teachers and the threats to education escalating, Conference regrets the fact that the Executive has failed to carry out 2005 Conference policy to:

• “draw up and ballot members on the introduction of new toughened workload guidelines that will allow Union members to enforce a meaningful limit to their working week” and, further, to develop:

• “a campaign of nationally co-ordinated industrial action to secure the funding needed to meet our demands, including announcing plans for a national strike and putting in all the preparations necessary to win the strike ballot.”

Conference instructs the Executive to:

a) seek urgent reports from Associations/Divisions about the extent and method of provision of PPA and then to consider whether the Union should proceed to ballot for national strike action to demand improved funding for schools;

b) draw up a series of additional actions that, following a successful ballot, the Union will sanction as a national policy, including enabling members to refuse to:

• Plan in excessive detail and/or to imposed formats unhelpful to teaching;
• Automatically hand in short term planning for inspection by management;
• Accept classroom observations outside guidelines laid down by the Union;
• Cover beyond the first day of an unforeseen absence;
• Teach classes with numbers that breach the Union’s actionable limits;
• Carry out excessive marking and assessment requirements which prevent them from having their entitlement to a reasonable work/life balance.

Conference further notes with concern the increasing number of complaints received from members about excessive and inconsiderate lesson observations by senior managers. This approach to monitoring appears to be a knee-jerk response to DfES “requirements” and often forms part of the usual pre-OFSTED panic particularly in relation to the Self-Evaluation Form (SEF).

The result of this sudden spate of short-notice/unannounced, unfocused, unproductive observations is increased stress and workload for already hard-pressed classroom teachers.

Conference therefore instructs the Executive to strengthen the guidance on lesson observations to protect members from excessive stress and workload so that:

1. There is only one performance management observation a year for each teacher;

2. There is a maximum of one additional lesson observation. This observation would normally be a peer observation negotiated in advance between two members of staff with at least one week’s notice before the observation;

3. Heads of facilities, department and curriculum co-ordinators should only have to carry out one lesson observation per year for each member of staff in their department or faculty;

4. All people carrying out lesson observations should have received appropriate training.

Conference instructs the Executive to then proceed with a national ballot of members, by the end of September 2006 at the latest, to seek their support for the introduction of these new action guidelines.

Workplace Bullying

Conference acknowledges the negative effects of workplace bullying on a teacher’s career. The persistent criticism of performance, attendance or other personal factors serves to undermine a teacher’s confidence, self-esteem and health.

Conference acknowledges that bullies are usually those in a position of power, head teachers and other senior and line managers. The abuse of this position causes unnecessary stress and suffering to a teacher who may or may not be vulnerable to this abuse. Furthermore, bullying succeeds where individuals are isolated and unsupported. Conference believes that bullying is best challenged by a collective and organised response, and that union officials and union groups need up-to-date information and a range of strategies to help them eradicate bullying in schools.

Conference recognises the need to strengthen Union organisation at individual school level so that schools may more effectively deal with school health, safety and welfare concerns such as those caused by bullying and harassment.

Conference notes the vital and influential role played by safety advisers in improving school safety and supporting school safety representatives.

Conference notes that silence serves to perpetuate this deplorable behaviour and believes that all teachers deserve to have dignity at work.

Conference acknowledges that bullying can take other forms including harassment by pupils or other members of staff who are not necessarily in more senior posts. This kind of bullying may particularly affect women, black & minority ethnic, and lesbian, gay, bi-sexual & transgendered staff who have long struggled against discriminatory attitudes.

Conference notes that there are varied reasons for a teacher to be vulnerable, including unjust OFSTED criticisms, poor staff relations and more often than not actually being more competent than the bully themselves.

Conference believes that the constant pressure and criticism from government, local authorities and OFSTED creates unreasonable expectations of schools which, in turn, help to create highly stressful environments in which bullying becomes commonplace. This is exacerbated by the continuing pressure placed upon schools to rise up the increasingly discredited and educationally damaging league tables to which schools are subject.

Conference believes that staff who are attempting to create a healthy work-life balance are often bullied into giving up time and resources beyond that which is reasonable. Staff with carer responsibilities are likely to be unfairly overlooked for promotion and training opportunities. Such staff are often challenged about a perceived lack of commitment to the school. They are also unfairly prejudiced in their attempts to secure management positions in schools.

Conference condemns the growing tide of homophobic bullying in schools and deplores the effect this has on staff and pupils. Conference believes that the tolerance of homophobic and sexist language creates an atmosphere in which people feel undermined, undervalued and despised. Conference congratulates the Union for its work in this field and instructs the Union to further explore ways of building campaign activities in schools.

Conference calls on the Executive to:

1. Build a public campaign to tackle the issue of workplace bullying and force it to be discussed at all levels.

2. Work with other organisations, particularly those with an expertise in this field, and trade unions in developing this campaign.

3. Ensure that all Health and Safety Reps and Advisers have appropriate and thorough training on dealing with issues of bullying in the workplace.

4. investigate (a) to (c) below and implement according to best current practice in the Union and other unions:

(a) How safety representatives and safety committees (see Safety representatives and Safety Committee Regulations 1977) in schools can be most effectively promoted and established as a means of improving school union organisation for the health, safety and welfare of staff.

(b) The use of safety representatives and school safety committees as a means of combating stress related to bullying and harassment.

c) The impact on the content and provision of health and safety training at local and national level.

5. Ensure that all schools have meaningful and supportive policies to protect teachers from harassment and bullying.

6. Campaign vigorously against aggressive and hostile sickness, absence and capability procedures.

7. Give publicity through Union journals and press releases to significant cases where the Union has intervened successfully to support members who faced bullying;

8. Publicise and promote the benefits of flexible working and less hierarchical forms of management.

Teaching and Learning Responsibility Payments (TLRs)

Conference welcomes the development of the Union campaign against TLRs since last year’s Conference.

Sadly, the introduction of TLRs has had a predictable detrimental impact on the pay, conditions and career prospects of many teachers.

Conference is alarmed that teachers have suffered, and will continue to suffer through:

• loss of promoted posts and status;
• increased pressures to take subject responsibility without pay;
• declining career opportunities through fewer promoted posts; and
• demoralisation.

Further, Conference condemns any attempts to make post Threshold teachers take on additional responsibility because of their higher pay.

Conference believes that the reduction in pastoral posts will have a negative impact on whole school provision with the undermining of the pastoral curriculum, student behaviour policies and reduced access to education. Such change would profoundly undermine a coherent and inclusive approach to student centred pastoral support in our schools. Existing pastoral support and guidance is based upon an experiential link rooted in traditional relationships of professional teacher - student trust. To break such a link, would be to disengage the voice of the teacher from the wider profile of the child.

Conference notes that introduction of TLRS, particularly the removal of pastoral posts, is integral to the government’s remodelling project and their technicist vision of education in which “teaching” is only concerned with the implementation of a narrow “standards” agenda, rather than the education of the whole child. Conference instructs the Executive to produce materials for Union members, and a wider audience, making the link between these attacks and government education policy.

Conference reaffirms the action policy agreed by 2005 Conference to defend members pay and conditions with action up to and including strike action.

Conference congratulates those members in schools around the country who have voted for and taken strike action to defend colleagues facing a pay cut or loss of posts. Conference believes that the Union has been most effective in defending members where Union groups have responded collectively and stuck together behind the principle “an injury to one is an injury to all”.

Conference notes that ballots for strike action over TLRs have taken place under the new rules for balloting agreed at Conference 2005. Conference believes that these new rules have enhanced the Union’s ability to take action in defence of members.

Conference notes that the reduction of salary safeguarding to three years means teachers will be under continual threat from school reorganisations.

Conference instructs the Executive to:

i) maintain the TLR action strategy in such circumstances;

ii) campaign for permanent safeguarding to be reinstated in the STPCD.

CO-ORDINATING AND FINANCE SECTION

Anti-Trade Union Laws

Conference notes that the UK currently has the most restrictive trade union laws in Europe; a fact highlighted in recent disputes such as that involving workers at Gate Gourmet. Conference notes that despite its opposition to the anti-trade union laws, when in opposition, the Labour Government has not removed them.

Conference notes the decision of the TUC Congress 2005 to campaign for a repeal of the anti-union laws.

Conference supports the TUC call for the repeal of the anti-union laws and their replacement with a framework of positive rights, in accordance with minimum International Labour Organisation (ILO) standards.

Conference notes Early Day Motion 1170 calling for a Trade Union Freedom Bill and expresses its support for the campaign for a Bill which should include:

a) the abolition of restrictive statutory provisions for balloting and notice of industrial action;

b) the protection of workers taking lawful industrial action from being in breach of contract and from dismissal;

c) provision for lawful supportive action by trade union members;

d) amendment of the law to limit the granting of injunctions to restrain industrial action;

e) a definition of a trade dispute which gives workers the right to take industrial action in respect of a decision taken by a body other than their employer which will have an effect on their present or future terms and conditions;

f) replace the current right to be accompanied to a hearing with a right to union representation; and

g) as appropriate, sectoral forums to establish minimum terms and conditions.

Conference supports the TUC call for a national march, rally and lobby of Parliament to support the Trade Union Freedom Bill in 2006. Conference believes that this should be part of a vigorous campaign for the repeal of the anti-trade union laws.

Conference asserts the rights of trade unions to be self governing and expresses its support for the TUC decision, "that affiliates and all independent trade unions should have the right to draw up their own rulebook, free from interference from legislation designed to curtail the efficacy of the fundamental rights of individuals to make and form trade unions”.

Conference instructs the Executive to:

i) work with other TUC unions to develop the campaign against the Trade Union Laws;

ii) circulate information about the campaign to members; and

iii) affiliate to the United Campaign for the Repeal of the Anti-Trade Union Laws.

EDUCATION: SECONDARY SECTION

Academies

Conference reaffirms its opposition to the government’s Academies programme. Conference opposes the Government’s proposal in the White Paper, “Higher Standards, Better Schools for All”, to expand the number of Academies to at least 200. It rejects the Government’s claims that Academies represent an effective policy for education in socially disadvantaged areas, or that they are a model for the whole school system, for the following reasons:

1. In spite of their privileged level of funding, the claim that Academies are particularly effective in raising standards of attainment is not supported by the evidence of:

• their GCSE and Key Stage 3 results;
• reports such as the House of Commons Education and Skills Committee report on secondary education;
• The Education Network’s response to the PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) report on Academies; and
• Professor Stephen Gorard’s research on Academies.

2. Academies operate at the expense of neighbouring schools, in three ways:

i) They receive far higher funding than non-Academy schools (£21,000 per pupil place compared to £14,000) and higher capital building costs at an average of £25 million, twice as much as for a new comprehensive school.

ii) They tend to attract an increasing proportion of pupils from better-off families, thus changing the social mix in local schools.

iii) Some Academies operate forms of selection including exclusions and covert forms of discriminatory admissions procedures.

3. The requirement that the sponsor should be a multimillionaire, apart from being educational nonsense is also totally against equal opportunities. We further note that so called “sponsors” are overwhelmingly white males. This gain is not consistent with equal opportunities, and the “old boy” selection process is not in compliance with the Race Relations (amendment) Act 2001. Further we note the statistically significant number that are Labour donors and who have been given an honour after becoming a sponsor. We condemn utterly the sleaze and cronyism revealed by the Sunday Times revelation that a peerage could be given for a donation of £10 million to the Academies project.

4. There should be no place for private sponsors being able in effect to buy control over public funded schools. In many cases sponsors are exercising undue influence over the curriculum to reflect their own religious or business values inways which are contrary to educational interests. The role of sponsors is to impose a business model of management, which has resulted (according to the PWC report) in a heavier workload for teachers.