Message from the TSN:
Hello, I’m the digital media manager for Teacher Support Network. Just came across your blog. Neat stuff. You’re an active internet user and a teacher. I’m looking to develop new ways for teachers to get more involved using online community building tools. I just wanted to send you a personal invite to get involved in some of our upcoming things
Outside of our tools on our site http://teachersupport.info, We also have some entry points set up on the social network sites.
On Facebook:
Page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Teacher-Support-Network/8348473439
Group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2385602766
Would enjoy your participation and feedback. We’re also looking to get more teacher bloggers involved with TSN’s online work to create more teacher bloggers, or at least more participants talking about issues facing UK educators. We’re in the midst of creating some new online tools and would be neat to have you on board to maybe look at some of them as we’re developing them.
Anyway, any input is welcome. Thanks in advance
Andrew Lyons
Digital Media Manager
Teacher Support Network
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Thursday, April 05, 2007
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT – A NATIONAL ISSUE DEMANDS NATIONAL ACTION !
PERFORMANCE PAY
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT – A NATIONAL ISSUE DEMANDS NATIONAL ACTION !
Martin Powell-Davies (Lewisham NUT)
T HE NEW REGULATIONS being introduced this year are not just “more of the same”. They are a serious escalation of a performance pay and monitoring regime which has already done so much harm in schools.
P
The 2007 STRB report recommended that pay progression is linked to performance management for main scale teachers too.
erformance management and the pay ‘threshold’ were always intended to be the mechanism to force performance-related pay on teachers. When they were first introduced, Socialist Party Teachers warned how they would be used to bully teachers into taking on even more work for fear of not getting a pay increase, and how bullying managers could use them to divide and demoralise staff. With others, we helped to initiate “School Teachers Opposed to Performance Pay”. While our union leaders failed to act, STOPP organised a national demo and rally in London in 2000.
Without industrial action, our campaign could not prevent performance pay being introduced. But it did help persuade New Labour to tread more carefully. To start with, nearly every teacher crossed the threshold. But, every year, the noose has been tightening. More teachers are being told their performance isn’t good enough to make the next step up the Upper Pay Scale – especially from U2 to U3.
But New Labour and their advisers think schools are still being too generous! Under their new performance management regulations, schools will be expected to set teachers more ‘challenging’ objectives and make more ‘robust’ pay decisions. OFSTED and the new School Improvement Partners will be used to make sure Heads are doing what the Government expects of them.
Line managers, rather than Heads, will be expected to do the dirty work. At the end of each performance management review meeting, they will have to say whether they think members of their team should be allowed to progress up the pay spine or not. Instead of any genuine discussion about teaching and learning, these meetings will now be dominated by pay. Teamwork and morale, so vital to a successful school, will be undermined.
It looked like these threats would only apply to Upper Pay Spine teachers at first, but the 2007 School Teachers’ Review Body report recommended that pay progression is linked to performance management for main scale teachers as well. This will apparently help “teachers to prepare for threshold assessment ” (!) and schools to “distinguish more effectively between unsatisfactory performance meriting … withholding of pay progression and serious underperformance meriting capability procedures ”.
The threat of capability procedures is not an empty one either. The RIG advice (5.38) states that “if serious weaknesses are identified … performance management should cease and the school’s capability procedure be substituted”. Heads have been specifically advised at training sessions that they should consider taking such an approach with UPS3 teachers that are no longer making the grade. This alone - along with the pressure on ‘reviewers’ to be firm with ‘reviewees’ -answers those who argue that UPS3 teachers won’t care about these changes.
There are other threats that should have been given more publicity. For example, Regulation 16 allows any reviewer with concerns to call a ‘revision meeting’ and set new targets mid-cycle. Of course, neither the law, nor the model RIG policy, set any limit on the number of targets to be set.
Even where NUT groups can secure our policy of a maximum of three objectives, the problem remains of what those objectives actually say. The NUT guidelines released last year correctly recommended that “objectives should not contain commitments to achieve certain percentages of test or examination results”. Unfortunately, the same statement appears to be missing from the latest NUT model policy for schools.
F
To show … that we are engaged in a serious fight, local approaches must be combined with national action.
ailure to show sufficient “pupil progress” is already the commonest cause of rejection of pay progression. In New Labour’s league-table dominated system of competing schools, this will be even more common in future. Unless we organise an urgent fightback, every teacher faces “payment by results”. Staff will end up opting to work where results are easier to get, adding to the growing polarisation between schools.
Performance management isn’t just about pay, it’s also about control. It is bound up with the incessant nit-picking observations that so demoralise and stress teachers. How can such observation be “supportive and developmental” when it’s linked to pay?
The latest blow is the revelation in the latest “NUT News” that any limit on ‘drop-in’ classroom observations has been dropped from the original draft RIG model policy. Teachers could apparently face a visit from a manager at any time – with the prospect of a ‘revision meeting’ being called if they are unhappy with what they see.
Of course the RIG unions will do nothing to advertise these dangers. The ATL’s advice to its school reps states that “local NUT representatives will not necessarily have the same information and understanding of the proposals that representatives of the social partnership will have.” We’d hope not! But has the NUT actually done enough to explain to teachers what is really at stake?
The Executive’s amendment (15.1) accepts the danger of performance pay applying even to main scale staff but reassures us with the thought that the Secretary of State didn’t make any formal change to their pay arrangements – for now ! For them, any consideration of national action is left for when “additional” measures are introduced. By then the new regulations will be in place.
Cambridgeshire’s amendment, reflecting the views of some in both the Socialist Teachers Alliance and the CDFU, calls for school and Division action to be supported where unacceptable policies are introduced or pay progression unacceptably denied. However, consideration of national action is postponed until “there is evidence of general support for such a strategy amongst members”.
But this is really an excuse for continued delay. PRP seeks to divide and isolate teachers. It is best fought by collective action. Of course, as on workload, we must encourage members to take local action. But, to show teachers, and the Government, that we are engaged in a serious fight, local approaches must be combined with national action.
The strategy of relying on individual school reps and Division officers to fight local battles alone will not succeed. As on TLRs, we may win some local victories, but many members lack the confidence to ‘go it alone’ in fighting battles that they rightly recognise are part of a national issue. But, if the Union led from the front and held a ballot for national action over performance pay and the workload driven by it, members would give support. That was certainly what the 96% YES vote in our indicative ballot of Lewisham NUT members demonstrated. That’s why we hope our amendment 15.3 will be reached, and passed, by Conference. No more excuses, give a lead, take action!
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT – A NATIONAL ISSUE DEMANDS NATIONAL ACTION !
Martin Powell-Davies (Lewisham NUT)
T HE NEW REGULATIONS being introduced this year are not just “more of the same”. They are a serious escalation of a performance pay and monitoring regime which has already done so much harm in schools.
P
The 2007 STRB report recommended that pay progression is linked to performance management for main scale teachers too.
erformance management and the pay ‘threshold’ were always intended to be the mechanism to force performance-related pay on teachers. When they were first introduced, Socialist Party Teachers warned how they would be used to bully teachers into taking on even more work for fear of not getting a pay increase, and how bullying managers could use them to divide and demoralise staff. With others, we helped to initiate “School Teachers Opposed to Performance Pay”. While our union leaders failed to act, STOPP organised a national demo and rally in London in 2000.
Without industrial action, our campaign could not prevent performance pay being introduced. But it did help persuade New Labour to tread more carefully. To start with, nearly every teacher crossed the threshold. But, every year, the noose has been tightening. More teachers are being told their performance isn’t good enough to make the next step up the Upper Pay Scale – especially from U2 to U3.
But New Labour and their advisers think schools are still being too generous! Under their new performance management regulations, schools will be expected to set teachers more ‘challenging’ objectives and make more ‘robust’ pay decisions. OFSTED and the new School Improvement Partners will be used to make sure Heads are doing what the Government expects of them.
Line managers, rather than Heads, will be expected to do the dirty work. At the end of each performance management review meeting, they will have to say whether they think members of their team should be allowed to progress up the pay spine or not. Instead of any genuine discussion about teaching and learning, these meetings will now be dominated by pay. Teamwork and morale, so vital to a successful school, will be undermined.
It looked like these threats would only apply to Upper Pay Spine teachers at first, but the 2007 School Teachers’ Review Body report recommended that pay progression is linked to performance management for main scale teachers as well. This will apparently help “teachers to prepare for threshold assessment ” (!) and schools to “distinguish more effectively between unsatisfactory performance meriting … withholding of pay progression and serious underperformance meriting capability procedures ”.
The threat of capability procedures is not an empty one either. The RIG advice (5.38) states that “if serious weaknesses are identified … performance management should cease and the school’s capability procedure be substituted”. Heads have been specifically advised at training sessions that they should consider taking such an approach with UPS3 teachers that are no longer making the grade. This alone - along with the pressure on ‘reviewers’ to be firm with ‘reviewees’ -answers those who argue that UPS3 teachers won’t care about these changes.
There are other threats that should have been given more publicity. For example, Regulation 16 allows any reviewer with concerns to call a ‘revision meeting’ and set new targets mid-cycle. Of course, neither the law, nor the model RIG policy, set any limit on the number of targets to be set.
Even where NUT groups can secure our policy of a maximum of three objectives, the problem remains of what those objectives actually say. The NUT guidelines released last year correctly recommended that “objectives should not contain commitments to achieve certain percentages of test or examination results”. Unfortunately, the same statement appears to be missing from the latest NUT model policy for schools.
F
To show … that we are engaged in a serious fight, local approaches must be combined with national action.
ailure to show sufficient “pupil progress” is already the commonest cause of rejection of pay progression. In New Labour’s league-table dominated system of competing schools, this will be even more common in future. Unless we organise an urgent fightback, every teacher faces “payment by results”. Staff will end up opting to work where results are easier to get, adding to the growing polarisation between schools.
Performance management isn’t just about pay, it’s also about control. It is bound up with the incessant nit-picking observations that so demoralise and stress teachers. How can such observation be “supportive and developmental” when it’s linked to pay?
The latest blow is the revelation in the latest “NUT News” that any limit on ‘drop-in’ classroom observations has been dropped from the original draft RIG model policy. Teachers could apparently face a visit from a manager at any time – with the prospect of a ‘revision meeting’ being called if they are unhappy with what they see.
Of course the RIG unions will do nothing to advertise these dangers. The ATL’s advice to its school reps states that “local NUT representatives will not necessarily have the same information and understanding of the proposals that representatives of the social partnership will have.” We’d hope not! But has the NUT actually done enough to explain to teachers what is really at stake?
The Executive’s amendment (15.1) accepts the danger of performance pay applying even to main scale staff but reassures us with the thought that the Secretary of State didn’t make any formal change to their pay arrangements – for now ! For them, any consideration of national action is left for when “additional” measures are introduced. By then the new regulations will be in place.
Cambridgeshire’s amendment, reflecting the views of some in both the Socialist Teachers Alliance and the CDFU, calls for school and Division action to be supported where unacceptable policies are introduced or pay progression unacceptably denied. However, consideration of national action is postponed until “there is evidence of general support for such a strategy amongst members”.
But this is really an excuse for continued delay. PRP seeks to divide and isolate teachers. It is best fought by collective action. Of course, as on workload, we must encourage members to take local action. But, to show teachers, and the Government, that we are engaged in a serious fight, local approaches must be combined with national action.
The strategy of relying on individual school reps and Division officers to fight local battles alone will not succeed. As on TLRs, we may win some local victories, but many members lack the confidence to ‘go it alone’ in fighting battles that they rightly recognise are part of a national issue. But, if the Union led from the front and held a ballot for national action over performance pay and the workload driven by it, members would give support. That was certainly what the 96% YES vote in our indicative ballot of Lewisham NUT members demonstrated. That’s why we hope our amendment 15.3 will be reached, and passed, by Conference. No more excuses, give a lead, take action!
Socialist Party Teachers Bulletin
You can read the bulletin online.
Click Here
Articles on
Slavery: the truth
Supply Teaching
Workload
Academies
Testing
Young Teachers
Performance Pay
Defending Reps
Professional Unity
SEN and Privatisation
Early Years
Building Schools for the Future
Political Fund
Classroom Observations
Pupil Behaviour
Salaries
Fringe Meeting
National Action
Read before you judge!
Click Here
Articles on
Slavery: the truth
Supply Teaching
Workload
Academies
Testing
Young Teachers
Performance Pay
Defending Reps
Professional Unity
SEN and Privatisation
Early Years
Building Schools for the Future
Political Fund
Classroom Observations
Pupil Behaviour
Salaries
Fringe Meeting
National Action
Read before you judge!
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Young Teacher elections - Phil Clarke opposes performance pay
All NUT members under the age of 35 are entitled to vote for the representatives of young teachers.
The following is Phil Clarke's statement:
I am seeking election as a recently qualified teacher who believes that the NUT has a vital role to play in defendingyoung teachers and the future of the comprehensive education system.
The main issues I want the union to campaign on for young teachers are:
* excessive workload
* the threat of performance related pay
* housing costs (especially in the South East)
The government seems determined to further divide and privatise the education system with the use of PFI schemes, trusts and academies. In contrast, we need publicly funded and accountable schools which co-operate not compete.
I am a Socialist and an active member of a hospital anti-cuts campaign group. I believe that it is only with a willingness to campaign and fight that the NUT will be able to play its vital role in securing an education system which meets the needs of all pupils.
The following is Phil Clarke's statement:
I am seeking election as a recently qualified teacher who believes that the NUT has a vital role to play in defendingyoung teachers and the future of the comprehensive education system.
The main issues I want the union to campaign on for young teachers are:
* excessive workload
* the threat of performance related pay
* housing costs (especially in the South East)
The government seems determined to further divide and privatise the education system with the use of PFI schemes, trusts and academies. In contrast, we need publicly funded and accountable schools which co-operate not compete.
I am a Socialist and an active member of a hospital anti-cuts campaign group. I believe that it is only with a willingness to campaign and fight that the NUT will be able to play its vital role in securing an education system which meets the needs of all pupils.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Censorship in West Sussex
West Sussex teachers have a blog on http://westsussexteachersassociation.blogspot.com and their employers have blocked them from viewing the site at school. WSTA represents about 4000 teachers in West Sussex.
This is extraordinary because the site has links to inservice training and ICT training courses teachers can take and their employers are just being heavy-handed.
If you have any thoughts on this you might like to email ictinschools@westsussex.gov.uk and give them your uncensored opinion on this!
They have also blocked
http://socialistteachers.blogspot.com
http://stopperformancepay.blogspot.com
The more protests they receive the more likely it is that they will drop this absurd policy.
This is extraordinary because the site has links to inservice training and ICT training courses teachers can take and their employers are just being heavy-handed.
If you have any thoughts on this you might like to email ictinschools@westsussex.gov.uk and give them your uncensored opinion on this!
They have also blocked
http://socialistteachers.blogspot.com
http://stopperformancepay.blogspot.com
The more protests they receive the more likely it is that they will drop this absurd policy.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Workload ballot results
The positive answer to the ballot was overwhelming:
Endorsing the guidelines (Q,1) 99% Yes !!
Supporting a ballot for action if necessary (Q.2) 87% Yes
The turnout was just under 20% - not surprising given the hopeless lack of national union publicity about the ballot and the guidelines beforehand.
Some may try and use the lowish turnout to argue there's no support - but the 99% speaks for itself.
We need to "translate" the workload guidelines into clear statements - perhaps a checklist for every rep to see what could be taken forward in their school.
Endorsing the guidelines (Q,1) 99% Yes !!
Supporting a ballot for action if necessary (Q.2) 87% Yes
The turnout was just under 20% - not surprising given the hopeless lack of national union publicity about the ballot and the guidelines beforehand.
Some may try and use the lowish turnout to argue there's no support - but the 99% speaks for itself.
We need to "translate" the workload guidelines into clear statements - perhaps a checklist for every rep to see what could be taken forward in their school.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Call for national action
TOO MANY teachers are already being ground down under the pressures of a divisive system of performance monitoring, imposed targets, league tables & inspections. It is creating a regime that bullies senior management to further bully staff and is the underlying cause of so much of our intolerable workload.
The new performance management regulations will make matters even worse. If they are introduced as planned in 2007, staffrooms will be further divided and demoralised as even more teachers are denied their pay progression. It’s time teachers stood together and called a halt!
More staff denied a pay rise
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT and the pay ‘threshold’ were always intended to be the mechanism to force performance-related pay on teachers. reject
When they were first introduced, Socialist Party Teachers warned how they would be used to bully teachers into taking on even more work for fear of not getting a pay increase. With others, we helped to initiate STOPP, “School Teachers Opposed to Performance Pay”. While our union leaders failed to act, STOPP organised a national demonstration and rally in London in 2000.
Without industrial action, our campaign could not prevent performance pay being introduced. But it did help persuade New Labour to tread more carefully. To start with, nearly every teacher crossed the threshold. But, every year, the noose has been tightening. More teachers are being told their performance isn’t good enough to make the next step up the Upper Pay Scale – especially from U2 to U3.
Figures recently given to the NUT National Executive suggest that as many as 50% of eligible staff may be failing to “cross the threshold”! In some cases, Heads are just getting harsher in their assessments. But many staff may simply not be putting themselves through the stress of having to prove their worth to school management.
Failure to show sufficient “pupil progress” is often the excuse for rejection. In other words, teachers now face a crude system of “payment by results”. But test scores depend on lots of different factors, many well out of the control of an individual teacher. Staff are being denied a pay rise despite the hours of hard work they put in.
Colleague against colleague
NEW LABOUR and their advisers think schools are still being too generous! Under their new performance management regulations, schools will be expected to set teachers more ‘challenging’ objectives and make more ‘robust’ pay decisions. OFSTED and the new School Improvement Partners will be used to make sure Heads are doing what the Government expects of them.
But, if that wasn’t enough, in most cases it won’t be the Heads making the decision. Line managers – often close colleagues – will now be expected to do the dirty work. At the end of a performance management review meeting, reviewers will have to say whether they think members of their team should be allowed to progress up the pay spine or not.
Instead of any genuine discussion about teaching and learning, these meetings will now be dominated by pay. Teamwork and morale, so vital to a successful school, will be undermined. Of course, if the Head doesn’t like a line manager’s decision, they can still overrule it and impose their view !
THE GOVERNMENT’S original aim to apply performance pay to every teacher hasn’t changed. But to try and minimise opposition, the new performance management advice stresses that pay recommendations should only apply to teachers on the Upper Pay Scale. For now, teachers below the “threshold” can still expect their annual increment. But for how long? If they succeed in getting this latest attack in place, you can be sure it won’t be long before it is extended to main scale teachers as well.
It’s hard to think of a more poisonous way of destroying teamwork. But that’s what will happen if these regulations come in. More colleagues will be denied their pay rise; more will be left demoralised; more will feel they have no option but to ‘teach to the test’; more will accept management dictates so as to keep in line for a pay rise.
Vote for action on workload
TEACHERS FACE A STARK CHOICE. Do we carry on allowing the screw to be turned tighter every year? Or do we take the threat of these new performance management regulations as the opportunity to organise united action against performance related pay?
Leaving individual teachers to pluck up the courage to appeal against unfair pay decisions is just not good enough. Most governors will stand by the school’s original rejection of pay progression.
Nor will the action proposed under the NUT’s ‘workload’ ballot be sufficient. Teachers must make the most of any action being offered to limit workload and get the vote out in the NUT’s national ballot starting on November 20th. But there should have been much more prior consultation with members about what will actually go into the new action guidelines. They may still not go far enough.
Previous NUT ‘beating back bureaucracy’ action allowed members to apply workload sanctions in every school. Now the Union is advising that local ballots for school-by-school strike action will be held instead.
As with TLRs, this approach can win important victories in well-organised schools. It may help to bring the number of classroom observations and objectives in line with NUT policy. But members would feel more confident if workload action was being taken across all schools.
But national action needed
WE NEED NATIONAL ACTION both on workload and to go further and build a campaign to defeat performance related pay itself. A divisive system, designed to isolate colleagues, should be fought by uniting teachers in national strike action.
If the NUT leadership put out a call for a national strike against performance pay, and the workload and bullying that come with it, teachers would respond positively.
The new regulations aren’t due to start until autumn 2007. That gives us time to organise a fightback. We should not only demand their withdrawal, but also the granting of the Union’s salary claim so that every teacher can win a significant pay rise, without it being tied to performance.
Teachers can’t afford to hold back and let the Government pile more pressure on us. But our union leaders will only organise action if we put them under pressure too! That’s why NUT school groups need to:
* Send in letters and petitions to Steve Sinnott and the NUT National Executive calling for a national strike ballot
* Organise an indicative ballot in your school or NUT Association to show the strength of support for national action
Draft petition to download see below.
The new performance management regulations will make matters even worse. If they are introduced as planned in 2007, staffrooms will be further divided and demoralised as even more teachers are denied their pay progression. It’s time teachers stood together and called a halt!
More staff denied a pay rise
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT and the pay ‘threshold’ were always intended to be the mechanism to force performance-related pay on teachers. reject
When they were first introduced, Socialist Party Teachers warned how they would be used to bully teachers into taking on even more work for fear of not getting a pay increase. With others, we helped to initiate STOPP, “School Teachers Opposed to Performance Pay”. While our union leaders failed to act, STOPP organised a national demonstration and rally in London in 2000.
Without industrial action, our campaign could not prevent performance pay being introduced. But it did help persuade New Labour to tread more carefully. To start with, nearly every teacher crossed the threshold. But, every year, the noose has been tightening. More teachers are being told their performance isn’t good enough to make the next step up the Upper Pay Scale – especially from U2 to U3.
Figures recently given to the NUT National Executive suggest that as many as 50% of eligible staff may be failing to “cross the threshold”! In some cases, Heads are just getting harsher in their assessments. But many staff may simply not be putting themselves through the stress of having to prove their worth to school management.
Failure to show sufficient “pupil progress” is often the excuse for rejection. In other words, teachers now face a crude system of “payment by results”. But test scores depend on lots of different factors, many well out of the control of an individual teacher. Staff are being denied a pay rise despite the hours of hard work they put in.
Colleague against colleague
NEW LABOUR and their advisers think schools are still being too generous! Under their new performance management regulations, schools will be expected to set teachers more ‘challenging’ objectives and make more ‘robust’ pay decisions. OFSTED and the new School Improvement Partners will be used to make sure Heads are doing what the Government expects of them.
But, if that wasn’t enough, in most cases it won’t be the Heads making the decision. Line managers – often close colleagues – will now be expected to do the dirty work. At the end of a performance management review meeting, reviewers will have to say whether they think members of their team should be allowed to progress up the pay spine or not.
Instead of any genuine discussion about teaching and learning, these meetings will now be dominated by pay. Teamwork and morale, so vital to a successful school, will be undermined. Of course, if the Head doesn’t like a line manager’s decision, they can still overrule it and impose their view !
THE GOVERNMENT’S original aim to apply performance pay to every teacher hasn’t changed. But to try and minimise opposition, the new performance management advice stresses that pay recommendations should only apply to teachers on the Upper Pay Scale. For now, teachers below the “threshold” can still expect their annual increment. But for how long? If they succeed in getting this latest attack in place, you can be sure it won’t be long before it is extended to main scale teachers as well.
It’s hard to think of a more poisonous way of destroying teamwork. But that’s what will happen if these regulations come in. More colleagues will be denied their pay rise; more will be left demoralised; more will feel they have no option but to ‘teach to the test’; more will accept management dictates so as to keep in line for a pay rise.
Vote for action on workload
TEACHERS FACE A STARK CHOICE. Do we carry on allowing the screw to be turned tighter every year? Or do we take the threat of these new performance management regulations as the opportunity to organise united action against performance related pay?
Leaving individual teachers to pluck up the courage to appeal against unfair pay decisions is just not good enough. Most governors will stand by the school’s original rejection of pay progression.
Nor will the action proposed under the NUT’s ‘workload’ ballot be sufficient. Teachers must make the most of any action being offered to limit workload and get the vote out in the NUT’s national ballot starting on November 20th. But there should have been much more prior consultation with members about what will actually go into the new action guidelines. They may still not go far enough.
Previous NUT ‘beating back bureaucracy’ action allowed members to apply workload sanctions in every school. Now the Union is advising that local ballots for school-by-school strike action will be held instead.
As with TLRs, this approach can win important victories in well-organised schools. It may help to bring the number of classroom observations and objectives in line with NUT policy. But members would feel more confident if workload action was being taken across all schools.
But national action needed
WE NEED NATIONAL ACTION both on workload and to go further and build a campaign to defeat performance related pay itself. A divisive system, designed to isolate colleagues, should be fought by uniting teachers in national strike action.
If the NUT leadership put out a call for a national strike against performance pay, and the workload and bullying that come with it, teachers would respond positively.
The new regulations aren’t due to start until autumn 2007. That gives us time to organise a fightback. We should not only demand their withdrawal, but also the granting of the Union’s salary claim so that every teacher can win a significant pay rise, without it being tied to performance.
Teachers can’t afford to hold back and let the Government pile more pressure on us. But our union leaders will only organise action if we put them under pressure too! That’s why NUT school groups need to:
* Send in letters and petitions to Steve Sinnott and the NUT National Executive calling for a national strike ballot
* Organise an indicative ballot in your school or NUT Association to show the strength of support for national action
Draft petition to download see below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
