I've been to more meetings in Mander Hall than I can remember, but today's NUT LGBT Conference has to be one of the best events that I have attended there at NUT HQ.
As a National Executive member on the LGBT Advisory Committee (in fact I think it's the only National NUT body which I've been elected to unchallenged - which perhaps tells its own story!), I was really pleased to see such a good turnout at this year's Conference - and, even more, to hear the analysis and insight in the contributions made from both the top-table speakers and the LGBT teachers attending.
One theme that ran through many of the contributions was how this Government's attacks on education were part of a wider attack on communities and on social cohesion.
Owen Jones spoke about the progress that has been made in social attitudes but pointed out how trade unions and other campaigners had helped bring about those changes as well.
Natacha Kennedy linked the educational damage that has come with the standardised testing and other policies central to the 'GERM' - the neo-liberal Global Education Reform Movement - with the social damage that comes from policies designed to segregate and divide communities.
Some telling points were made by Nigel Utton, a Headteacher from, as he put it, one of the least inclusive authorities, Kent, where children are still segregated by the 11-plus. Nigel questioned whether Gove and the Government want equality, rather whether they want to segregate and divide in order to prevent us from working together to fight their damaging policies.
The workshops and panel discussion gave some useful ideas on how to confront prejudice amd make schools more 'LGBT friendly', such as the ideas and resources on www.ellybarnes.com. There were some excellent stories given, illustrating how young people will come together to oppose inequality, especially if they are given the opportunity to discuss and challenge prejudice and discrimination.
A number of delegates called for the NUT to pay particular attention to encouraging schools to participate in LGBT History Month in February. LGBT teachers will, of course, be to the fore in pushing for the Union to support and develop such initiatives but this has to be the responsibility of all of us active in the NUT.
Teachers have a particular responsibility to tackle homophobia and homophobic bullying in schools. However, we are also well-placed to explain, to educate and to make sure that young people learn to unite together against those who would try and divide us.
Saturday, 30 November 2013
Friday, 29 November 2013
A LETTER FROM A PARENT - performance-pay undermines relationships between teachers and students
I am writing to you to express concern about the current situation in your school in regards to the pay policy that is being proposed for teachers and other staff members.
As a parent, I value the work that teachers do and believe that performance related pay will do nothing to improve the quality of teaching and learning that my son and other students receive. In fact, I feel it will undermine relationships between teachers and students. It doesn't take much imagination to see where this can lead: teachers unnecessarily pressurising students to meet targets, being reluctant to work with students who don't follow national trends in progress or worse, feeling compelled to cheat in order to meet targets.
You may be aware that mental health issues are on the increase among UK teenagers and I am convinced that this is in part due to a culture in many of our schools that places too much emphasis on attainment to the neglect of the emotional and psychological welfare of children. The fear of failure and the stress and anxiety that accompanies these pressures will increase if teachers are paid by narrow measures such as exam results and other numeric targets.
I would like assurances from yourself that the school will not adopt performance related pay and will stick to national pay scales. Insecure, tired and undervalued staff are unlikely to create a positive learning environment for our children. Please respect our teachers by having the confidence in them to do their job free from these unnecessary, bureaucratic and harmful measures.
Monday, 25 November 2013
UPDATE FROM LEWISHAM: Significant progress made but key issues still to resolve:
The following motion was agreed unanimously at the Lewisham NUT General Meeting tonight:
Lewisham NUT:
1) Congratulates members in the seven Lewisham schools where strike notice was served for supporting National Union policy and showing their continuing willingness to escalate to strike action, if required, to secure an acceptable pay policy.
2) Welcomes the fact that two of those school groups already felt sufficiently reassured to be able to defer action and agrees that, following progress made in talks with Headteachers this morning, specifically agreement that the words "as defined by Ofsted" should be removed from pay policies, Thursday's proposed strike action should be deferred in the remaining five schools (in the King Alfred and Prendergast Federations).
3) Notes with concern that regrettable tactics designed to undermine action have been employed, including criticising members for supporting Union policy and the sending of misleading letters to individual members of staff. However, far from weakening resolve, these tactics have only secured stronger support for Union action.
4) Notes that, while significant progress was achieved this morning, a number of other key issues remain under discussion and that Unions are expecting to receive, by Thursday 28, written proposals from Headteachers indicating further proposed amendments which they would be willing to make to the pay and appraisal policies, and
5) Further agrees that, as long as these proposals give sufficient reassurance that we now have a genuine framework for discussion in place, aimed at reaching agreement over these remaining concerns, then the action notified for next Tuesday and Wednesday (December 3rd and 4th) should also be deferred while negotiations continue.
Lewisham NUT:
1) Congratulates members in the seven Lewisham schools where strike notice was served for supporting National Union policy and showing their continuing willingness to escalate to strike action, if required, to secure an acceptable pay policy.
2) Welcomes the fact that two of those school groups already felt sufficiently reassured to be able to defer action and agrees that, following progress made in talks with Headteachers this morning, specifically agreement that the words "as defined by Ofsted" should be removed from pay policies, Thursday's proposed strike action should be deferred in the remaining five schools (in the King Alfred and Prendergast Federations).
3) Notes with concern that regrettable tactics designed to undermine action have been employed, including criticising members for supporting Union policy and the sending of misleading letters to individual members of staff. However, far from weakening resolve, these tactics have only secured stronger support for Union action.
4) Notes that, while significant progress was achieved this morning, a number of other key issues remain under discussion and that Unions are expecting to receive, by Thursday 28, written proposals from Headteachers indicating further proposed amendments which they would be willing to make to the pay and appraisal policies, and
5) Further agrees that, as long as these proposals give sufficient reassurance that we now have a genuine framework for discussion in place, aimed at reaching agreement over these remaining concerns, then the action notified for next Tuesday and Wednesday (December 3rd and 4th) should also be deferred while negotiations continue.
Wednesday, 20 November 2013
PLEASE NOMINATE MARTIN POWELL-DAVIES FOR RE-ELECTION TO THE NUT EXECUTIVE
THE MEMBERS ELECTED TO THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE FOR 2014-2016 will face a sterner test than any previous national leadership has faced.
- Can we successfully defend teachers against the attacks on pay, pensions and conditions and on teacher trade union organisation?
- Can we oppose attempts to go back to a Victorian age of payment-by-results and just an ‘elementary’ curriculum for working-class children?
- Will teaching become an even more unbearable job where divided and bullied colleagues are used up, burnt out and then just replaced?
Since I have been on the Executive, I have helped build national action, as took place in 2011. However, I have also seen the anger from London teachers at being called out on an isolated regional strike in 2012 that was not then followed by further action. We have also all taken part in the determined regional action of 2013 – only to see Gove emboldened by the NASUWT and NUT drawing back from the national strike action that was promised for the end of November.
Members were told that we had been promised talks – but Gove was always clear that any ‘talks’ would only be about ‘implementation’ of his policies. His provocative response was only to be expected from a hardened Tory politician who saw his trade union enemies hesitating once again. Now that the talk of ‘genuine dialogue’ has been exposed as a sham, we must reinstate our action.
If we keep hesitating, then we will only give Gove confidence to attack us even more. Yet, he should be the one on the back-foot. His policies on free-schools and pupil places are increasingly exposed. Our regional strikes were solidly-supported. We should be following up that action with a firm calendar of escalating action, which certainly needs to include considering a two-day strike.
Regrettably, we have no firm date for action after Xmas and certainly no agreed plan for further national strike action after that. We need to hold joint meetings of NUT and NASUWT members across our region to build support for national action. We also need to elect a National Executive that will be as determined in fighting for that action as Gove is determined to attack education.
Martin Powell-Davies, current member of the NUT National Executive and candidate for NUT VP
- Secretary of Lewisham NUT since 1993. In that time, Lewisham Association has been built from under 900 to over 2000 members, becoming a strong, well-organised, campaigning Local NUT Association. Martin has led campaigns, rallies and demonstrations from cuts to SEN and teachers’ jobs to opposing racist attacks and academies. He has supported hundreds of individual teachers and NUT school reps.
- Member of the NUT National Executive since 2010. Martin was successfully elected because of the support for his record in the Union locally and nationally and his support for collective action to oppose attacks on teachers and education. While on the Executive, Martin has consistently argued that the Union has a responsibility to give a lead and call national strike action. His stand for National Vice-President has been well-supported and the result of that election will be known after November 20th. If Martin is unsuccessful in that election, he will rightly be standing to retain his seat on the NUT Executive.
Thanks for your support - and achieving third place in the VP election
The results are in for the NUT National Officers Elections - and the winners were:
Philipa Harvey (Senior Vice-President)
and Anne Swift (Junior Vice-President).
I polled the second-highest number of first-preference votes but eventually finished third in the final count. (*Please see below for the full results)
For all of the candidates awaiting the result of an election relying on a typically low turnout of individual postal votes, it was impossible to predict the final result. It was always most likely that, after transfers, I would be squeezed out into third place and, in the end, that's exactly what happened.
I am happy that my vote, even if not enough to win, showed such a strong level of support for my stand and for the national action that we have been campaigning for.
Without the backing of any of the major 'blocs' in the Union, and without any other candidate calling for a transfer to me, to poll 7665 first-preference votes is a real succcess.
Certainly, right to the end, my opponents were clearly worried at the level of support that my candidature was winning.
That support could be glimpsed from the 38 nominations that I received to stand in the first place, and from the supportive comments from teachers unknown to me posted on Facebook and Twitter. One simply said, "if Gove doesn't like him, that's good enough for my vote". A Cardiff teacher even told me that one of her colleagues had left the NASUWT in order to vote for me!
I'd certainly like to thank everyone who has helped support me during the campaign - although, in truth, with a limited budget and the usual pressures of teaching, casework and local disputes for us all to contend with, there was only limited campaigning that could be done.
The support from LANAC, the Local Associations National Action Campaign was key to me standing in the first place. We did manage to mail leaflets to a fair number of schools, especially in the 38 nominating Local Associations. We distributed materials to striking colleagues in many towns and cities during the October regional strikes. I know that many individual teachers were also helping to 'spread the word' as well to their friends and colleagues.
Above all, my support was built on the underlying anger of classroom teachers at Gove's attacks and I hope that they saw me as a candidate who was serious about organising the action necessary to stop them.
When I submitted my election address at the beginning of October, I already suspected that the action in November might not go ahead, and that Gove would again be encouraged by further 'union hesitation'. Regrettably, Gove's provocative letters, making clear that no genuine talks to resolve the dispute were really on offer, have proved my fears to be correct.
Unfortunately, at the time of voting, many teachers were being told the official story that our regional action had 'wrung from Education Secretary Michael Gove an offer of talks'. Some may well have wondered why I was questioning the decisions taken by the majority of the NUT National Executive. Perhaps now, the real situation is beginning to dawn on them.
Certainly, we now urgently need to reinstate our national action. We face an onslaught from a Government determined to steal back all the gains of the past. Pay, pensions, conditions and genuine comprehensive education are all under serious threat. This election is just one moment in a continuing movement that we have to build if we are to stop those attacks.
At a meeting that I attended at City and Islington College this lunchtime, the determination of teachers to build that movement was clear. They were also engaged in a serious debate about what we need to do to win: How do we build united action with the NASUWT and other unions? What should an escalating program of action consist of? What other events, local strike action and work-to-rule actions can also be built? How do we get our message out to teachers, parents and the public?
Those debates and discussions amongst classroom teachers will be key in determining how we now build the Union and the action required to defend teachers and education. I am confident that if we focus the anger and discontent amongst classroom teachers at the unbearable pressures facing them into a serious campaign of action, then we can succeed in defeating the attacks we face.
LANAC, meeting again this weekend in Nottingham, can continue to grow and develop as an inclusive network to bring those discussions and debates together and to campaign within the Union to help make sure a movement of sufficient strength is built.
I will continue to use my energies and efforts, supported by those who have helped me in this campaign, to build that movement so that we can defeat the attacks we face and win an education system that teachers, parents and students can be proud of.
* The full results will be released officially tomorrow morning and so I will not yet post them here. All I would note for now is that, despite my differences with Philipa over some issues, I called for a transfer to her, as another candidate of the 'Left'. Regrettably, neither Philipa nor Louise were willing to indicate any support for my candidature. Looking at where the transfers from Louise ended up, a chance to elect two Left Vice-Presidents could have been missed.
UPDATE: Here are the published results:
Philipa Harvey (Senior Vice-President)
and Anne Swift (Junior Vice-President).
I polled the second-highest number of first-preference votes but eventually finished third in the final count. (*Please see below for the full results)
For all of the candidates awaiting the result of an election relying on a typically low turnout of individual postal votes, it was impossible to predict the final result. It was always most likely that, after transfers, I would be squeezed out into third place and, in the end, that's exactly what happened.
I am happy that my vote, even if not enough to win, showed such a strong level of support for my stand and for the national action that we have been campaigning for.
Without the backing of any of the major 'blocs' in the Union, and without any other candidate calling for a transfer to me, to poll 7665 first-preference votes is a real succcess.
Certainly, right to the end, my opponents were clearly worried at the level of support that my candidature was winning.
That support could be glimpsed from the 38 nominations that I received to stand in the first place, and from the supportive comments from teachers unknown to me posted on Facebook and Twitter. One simply said, "if Gove doesn't like him, that's good enough for my vote". A Cardiff teacher even told me that one of her colleagues had left the NASUWT in order to vote for me!
I'd certainly like to thank everyone who has helped support me during the campaign - although, in truth, with a limited budget and the usual pressures of teaching, casework and local disputes for us all to contend with, there was only limited campaigning that could be done.
The support from LANAC, the Local Associations National Action Campaign was key to me standing in the first place. We did manage to mail leaflets to a fair number of schools, especially in the 38 nominating Local Associations. We distributed materials to striking colleagues in many towns and cities during the October regional strikes. I know that many individual teachers were also helping to 'spread the word' as well to their friends and colleagues.
Above all, my support was built on the underlying anger of classroom teachers at Gove's attacks and I hope that they saw me as a candidate who was serious about organising the action necessary to stop them.
When I submitted my election address at the beginning of October, I already suspected that the action in November might not go ahead, and that Gove would again be encouraged by further 'union hesitation'. Regrettably, Gove's provocative letters, making clear that no genuine talks to resolve the dispute were really on offer, have proved my fears to be correct.
Unfortunately, at the time of voting, many teachers were being told the official story that our regional action had 'wrung from Education Secretary Michael Gove an offer of talks'. Some may well have wondered why I was questioning the decisions taken by the majority of the NUT National Executive. Perhaps now, the real situation is beginning to dawn on them.
Certainly, we now urgently need to reinstate our national action. We face an onslaught from a Government determined to steal back all the gains of the past. Pay, pensions, conditions and genuine comprehensive education are all under serious threat. This election is just one moment in a continuing movement that we have to build if we are to stop those attacks.
At a meeting that I attended at City and Islington College this lunchtime, the determination of teachers to build that movement was clear. They were also engaged in a serious debate about what we need to do to win: How do we build united action with the NASUWT and other unions? What should an escalating program of action consist of? What other events, local strike action and work-to-rule actions can also be built? How do we get our message out to teachers, parents and the public?
Those debates and discussions amongst classroom teachers will be key in determining how we now build the Union and the action required to defend teachers and education. I am confident that if we focus the anger and discontent amongst classroom teachers at the unbearable pressures facing them into a serious campaign of action, then we can succeed in defeating the attacks we face.
LANAC, meeting again this weekend in Nottingham, can continue to grow and develop as an inclusive network to bring those discussions and debates together and to campaign within the Union to help make sure a movement of sufficient strength is built.
I will continue to use my energies and efforts, supported by those who have helped me in this campaign, to build that movement so that we can defeat the attacks we face and win an education system that teachers, parents and students can be proud of.
* The full results will be released officially tomorrow morning and so I will not yet post them here. All I would note for now is that, despite my differences with Philipa over some issues, I called for a transfer to her, as another candidate of the 'Left'. Regrettably, neither Philipa nor Louise were willing to indicate any support for my candidature. Looking at where the transfers from Louise ended up, a chance to elect two Left Vice-Presidents could have been missed.
UPDATE: Here are the published results:
Sunday, 17 November 2013
Grading lessons to deny pay progression is unacceptable
"Dear
Parent/Guardian, if your son/daughter fails to pay attention in my class, it
could cost me £2,000"
Surely no school would dream of denying a teacher annual progression up their pay scale in such an unfair manner? Surely no school would want to poison the relationship between children, parents and teachers by imposing such a draconian policy?
Unfortunately, this imaginary letter is not such a far-fetched exaggeration. It is, in summary, what is effectively written in many school pay policies, including the disputed model policy issued by my employer, Lewisham Local Authority.
How can that be so? Firstly, because the National Association of Head Teachers model pay policy, on which the Lewisham policy is based, states that "to move up the main pay range, one annual point at a time ... Teaching should be ‘good’, as defined by Ofsted"
Secondly, because the 'Ofsted definition' being used by schools (and expressly set out in some school observation policies) describes, amongst other things, the following description of a lesson; "Pupils find the strategies and tasks interesting. Most concentrate well and pay full attention to the teacher. However, some may lose interest and need to be reminded to concentrate by the teacher".
However, that description, where a teacher uses interesting tasks and strategies and where most pupils pay full attention, is not a description of a good lesson. It is one that can't even be described as "satisfactory" any more, but one that "requires improvement".
In short, if, despite all a teacher's efforts, despite all the various other issues that might be impacting on a particular child on that day, despite all the challenges that a particular class might present, if a few children lose concentration, the teacher has failed to meet the standard for pay-progression.
Some Heads will protest that they wouldn't apply the policy as crudely as that - but then why insist on such a crudely written policy?
Such policies are also based on a 'definition' which inspectors themselves say should not be applied to individual lessons.
For example, Mary Myatt, an adviser and inspector who should know a thing or two about teaching and learning, has written the following on her blog: http://marymyatt.com/2013/11/10/ofsted-criteria-and-lesson-observations/ :
"Some schools take the judgement on the quality of teaching from the inspection handbook and apply this to individual lessons. But it wasn’t intended to be used like this. It is not a tick box, it is a descriptor which is used to make a judgement on the overall quality of teaching in the school. Not, repeat not, for individual lessons".
In http://marymyatt.com/2013/10/29/why-lesson-observations-only-count-for-so-much/, she writes, "the Ofsted schedule makes clear that a wider range of indicators must inform the judgement on the quality of teaching. ‘Inspectors must not simply aggregate the grades awarded following lesson observations’ (School Inspection Handbook Sep 2013 p37)"
Training provider, David Didau, '@LearningSpy' on his blog www.learningspy.co.uk, goes further and rightly talks of "the mistaken belief that you can recognise great teaching and learning just from looking".
In http://www.learningspy.co.uk/training/can-make-lesson-observations-worthwhile/ he spells out that "The weight of critical opinion would suggest that grading lessons is both unhelpful and unreliable".
'@LearningSpy' refers to the research by Professor Robert Coe, director of Durham University’s Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring, who "has declared that schools inspectors in England are basing their verdicts on evaluation methods which may not be reliable ... Coe even goes so far as to suggest that classroom observation might be the new Brain Gym. He questions both the validity and impact and points out that there isn’t even one single, solitary study that provides real evidence that observations lead to improvement in teachers’ practice. Who knew?"
In http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-24079951 Prof Coe "suggested that ratings given to lessons by observers could be 'influenced by spurious confounds'. These included the charisma and confidence of the teacher, the subject matter being taught, students' behaviour in the classroom and the time of day. He questioned whether the observation ratings could be consistent given so many variables. He also listed a series of "poor proxies for learning", arguing that outward signs such as busy and motivated students and a calm and ordered classroom do not necessarily always mean that students are learning effectively and could reproduce correct answers independently".
'@LearningSpy' concludes with a recommendation that schools should "Stop grading lessons. You don’t need to do it. The excuse that Ofsted force schools to judge lessons is just that".
I don't know what view Mary Myatt, David Didau and Robin Coe take about trade unions and strike action. What I welcome is that they are confirming what teachers already know from their everyday experience - that observations are inevitably subjective and that judgements can be arbitrary. They certainly shouldn't be based on a completely inapplicable so-called Ofsted 'definition' of a 'good' lesson.
Yet 'Ofsted observation gradings' are widely being used in an unfair and destructive way to justify putting teachers on capability procedures and imposed 'support programmes'. When Gove's legislation allows it at the end of this academic year, they will also be used to block teachers' pay-rises too. This invidious practice has to stop.
Of course, we all want to be 'good' teachers. However, firstly, as these educators all explain, judging the quality of a teacher can only be based on a wide range of factors. Given the vast range of different schools, the range of expertise and specialisms of staff and the many different pupil cohorts within any one school, and the range of needs and backgrounds in any one class, it is never going to be a simple judgement to decide who is 'good' and who isn't.
What we can all agree is that, with appropriate resources, reduced workload, mutual respect and support, which could include properly-constituted peer observation, then we could all be better teachers. However, divisive performance-pay will cut across supportive teamwork and any honest discussion of strengths and weaknesses. It will be used to arbitrarily block pay-rises, especially when school-budgets are under pressure. It also has to be stopped.
Any school pay policy that is based on the NAHT's 'good' teaching 'as defined by Ofsted' is dangerous nonsense. Unfortunately, it seems that it will require teachers taking strike action to stop this nonsense demoralising teachers, and to prevent both the unfair denial of pay and the damage to education that will otherwise result from such divisive policies.
Surely no school would dream of denying a teacher annual progression up their pay scale in such an unfair manner? Surely no school would want to poison the relationship between children, parents and teachers by imposing such a draconian policy?
Unfortunately, this imaginary letter is not such a far-fetched exaggeration. It is, in summary, what is effectively written in many school pay policies, including the disputed model policy issued by my employer, Lewisham Local Authority.
How can that be so? Firstly, because the National Association of Head Teachers model pay policy, on which the Lewisham policy is based, states that "to move up the main pay range, one annual point at a time ... Teaching should be ‘good’, as defined by Ofsted"
Secondly, because the 'Ofsted definition' being used by schools (and expressly set out in some school observation policies) describes, amongst other things, the following description of a lesson; "Pupils find the strategies and tasks interesting. Most concentrate well and pay full attention to the teacher. However, some may lose interest and need to be reminded to concentrate by the teacher".
However, that description, where a teacher uses interesting tasks and strategies and where most pupils pay full attention, is not a description of a good lesson. It is one that can't even be described as "satisfactory" any more, but one that "requires improvement".
In short, if, despite all a teacher's efforts, despite all the various other issues that might be impacting on a particular child on that day, despite all the challenges that a particular class might present, if a few children lose concentration, the teacher has failed to meet the standard for pay-progression.
Some Heads will protest that they wouldn't apply the policy as crudely as that - but then why insist on such a crudely written policy?
Such policies are also based on a 'definition' which inspectors themselves say should not be applied to individual lessons.
For example, Mary Myatt, an adviser and inspector who should know a thing or two about teaching and learning, has written the following on her blog: http://marymyatt.com/2013/11/10/ofsted-criteria-and-lesson-observations/ :
"Some schools take the judgement on the quality of teaching from the inspection handbook and apply this to individual lessons. But it wasn’t intended to be used like this. It is not a tick box, it is a descriptor which is used to make a judgement on the overall quality of teaching in the school. Not, repeat not, for individual lessons".
In http://marymyatt.com/2013/10/29/why-lesson-observations-only-count-for-so-much/, she writes, "the Ofsted schedule makes clear that a wider range of indicators must inform the judgement on the quality of teaching. ‘Inspectors must not simply aggregate the grades awarded following lesson observations’ (School Inspection Handbook Sep 2013 p37)"
Training provider, David Didau, '@LearningSpy' on his blog www.learningspy.co.uk, goes further and rightly talks of "the mistaken belief that you can recognise great teaching and learning just from looking".
In http://www.learningspy.co.uk/training/can-make-lesson-observations-worthwhile/ he spells out that "The weight of critical opinion would suggest that grading lessons is both unhelpful and unreliable".
'@LearningSpy' refers to the research by Professor Robert Coe, director of Durham University’s Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring, who "has declared that schools inspectors in England are basing their verdicts on evaluation methods which may not be reliable ... Coe even goes so far as to suggest that classroom observation might be the new Brain Gym. He questions both the validity and impact and points out that there isn’t even one single, solitary study that provides real evidence that observations lead to improvement in teachers’ practice. Who knew?"
In http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-24079951 Prof Coe "suggested that ratings given to lessons by observers could be 'influenced by spurious confounds'. These included the charisma and confidence of the teacher, the subject matter being taught, students' behaviour in the classroom and the time of day. He questioned whether the observation ratings could be consistent given so many variables. He also listed a series of "poor proxies for learning", arguing that outward signs such as busy and motivated students and a calm and ordered classroom do not necessarily always mean that students are learning effectively and could reproduce correct answers independently".
'@LearningSpy' concludes with a recommendation that schools should "Stop grading lessons. You don’t need to do it. The excuse that Ofsted force schools to judge lessons is just that".
I don't know what view Mary Myatt, David Didau and Robin Coe take about trade unions and strike action. What I welcome is that they are confirming what teachers already know from their everyday experience - that observations are inevitably subjective and that judgements can be arbitrary. They certainly shouldn't be based on a completely inapplicable so-called Ofsted 'definition' of a 'good' lesson.
Yet 'Ofsted observation gradings' are widely being used in an unfair and destructive way to justify putting teachers on capability procedures and imposed 'support programmes'. When Gove's legislation allows it at the end of this academic year, they will also be used to block teachers' pay-rises too. This invidious practice has to stop.
Of course, we all want to be 'good' teachers. However, firstly, as these educators all explain, judging the quality of a teacher can only be based on a wide range of factors. Given the vast range of different schools, the range of expertise and specialisms of staff and the many different pupil cohorts within any one school, and the range of needs and backgrounds in any one class, it is never going to be a simple judgement to decide who is 'good' and who isn't.
What we can all agree is that, with appropriate resources, reduced workload, mutual respect and support, which could include properly-constituted peer observation, then we could all be better teachers. However, divisive performance-pay will cut across supportive teamwork and any honest discussion of strengths and weaknesses. It will be used to arbitrarily block pay-rises, especially when school-budgets are under pressure. It also has to be stopped.
Any school pay policy that is based on the NAHT's 'good' teaching 'as defined by Ofsted' is dangerous nonsense. Unfortunately, it seems that it will require teachers taking strike action to stop this nonsense demoralising teachers, and to prevent both the unfair denial of pay and the damage to education that will otherwise result from such divisive policies.
Another provocation from Michael Gove
 |
| The latest provocation from Gove |
The members elected to the NUT National Executive for 2014-16 will face a sterner test than any previous national leadership has faced.
* Can we successfully defend teachers against the attacks on pay, pensions and conditions and on teacher trade union organisation?
* Can we oppose attempts to go back to a Victorian age of payment-by-results and just an ‘elementary’ curriculum for working-class children?
* Will teaching become an even more unbearable job where divided and bullied colleagues are used up, burnt out and then just replaced?
The answer to those questions is, I fear, in the balance. We face a Government determined to drive through cuts and privatisation. The next Government, whoever wins, may be little different. Yet their policies do not have public support, particularly if we expose their real agenda. I am confident that firm action can push back these attacks – but time is running short to organise it.
Since I have been on the Executive, I have helped build national action, as took place in 2011. However, I have also seen the anger from London teachers at being called out on an isolated regional strike in 2012 that was not then followed by further action. We have also all taken part in the determined regional action of 2013 – only to see Gove emboldened by the NASUWT and NUT drawing back from the national strike action that was promised for the end of November.
Members were told that we had been promised talks – but Gove was always clear that any ‘talks’ would only be about ‘implementation’ of his policies. His provocative responses to the NUT and NASUWT were only to be expected from a hardened Tory politician who saw his trade union enemies hesitating once again. Now that the talk of ‘genuine dialogue’ has been exposed as a sham, we must urgently reinstate our action.
If we keep hesitating, then we will only give Gove confidence to attack us even more. Yet, he should be the one on the back-foot. His policies on free-schools and pupil places are increasingly exposed. Our regional strikes were solidly-supported. We should be following up that action with a firm calendar of escalating action, which needs to include considering a two-day strike.
Gove is giving teaching unions no choice but to organise a serious and determined struggle. If anyone thought that we might be able to persuade Gove to come to some kind of acceptable agreement, without a clear plan of further escalating action being in place, then they must now see that they were mistaken.
Gove clearly can't resist trying to put the boot in but his provocations could yet backfire on him. Instead of stepping back, the NUT and NASUWT now need to step up our action, announcing a firm date for a national strike as soon as possible and also a plan for further national action after that.
School reps should hold joint meetings of NUT and NASUWT members across England and Wales to respond to Gove's provocations and to build for national action. NUT members also need to elect a National Executive that will be as determined in fighting for that action as Gove is determined to attack education.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)