Camden's motion on "No Cover" must be amended
The highest prioritised motion at NUT Conference 2009, from Camden, is called “No Cover and a Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom”. However, I fear that if passed unamended, the motion as it is worded could undermine the aim in its title. Instead, I think it effectively gives tacit NUT acceptance to employing ‘cover supervisors’ in place of supply teachers.
The motion starts out by correctly reaffirming Union policy that it is not acceptable for absent teachers to be covered by cover supervisors to cover for absent teachers. That has to be the policy for a teachers’ Union - and an education Union - to take because:
· Many thousands of NUT members are supply teachers, some out of choice, some because they can’t find permanent work, some as a refuge from excessive workload and bullying management in previous posts. Employing cover supervisors, instead of supply teachers, allows schools to solve budget pressures at the expense of higher-paid teacher-qualified supply teachers.
· As the recession puts pressure on public spending, the pace of ‘remodelling’ schools - i.e replacing teachers by cheaper alternative staffing arrangements - will increase if we do not stand firm. The employment of cover supervisors for short-term absence will spread to more permanent positions at teachers’ expense.
· The regulations on cover supervisors make clear that “no active teaching taking place” and that other staff should provide “pre-prepared exercises”. This is clearly unacceptable educationally – and we need parents to be made aware.
· The implication that anyone can ‘manage’ a class without actively teaching flies in the face of good educational practice. ‘Behaviour management’ is also about being able to engage a class, answer their questions, get their interest, and develop relationships. In short, the skills of a qualified teacher are needed. In practice, many cover supervisors have found their job difficult for this reason.
Some teachers may feel that having a regular ‘cover supervisor’ provides more continuity than a supply teacher coming new to the school that day who does not know the pupils or school routines. That will be added to by the bad experience some schools will have had with privatised supply agencies who have charged schools huge sums without always caring too much about the quality of supply teacher they are providing. The answer however, is not to do away with qualified teacher cover but to make sure that they are properly employed through LA supply pools or by schools or groups of schools themselves so that proper pay, conditions, professional development and quality can be assured, along with the continuity and familiarity with school routines needed to step in to a class at short notice – no easy task for even an experienced teacher. Defence of our supply teacher members has to be an essential part of the campaign on ‘cover’.
The problem with the Camden motion is that, although it makes some of the points outlined above, its conclusions are based on an acceptance that already cover supervisors “are widely employed in every area of England and Wales”. While this may be true in some areas, it is far from a battle that has been entirely lost. Unfortunately, starting from this perspective, the motion concludes by saying that therefore we work with UNISON and GMB to ensure that “where cover supervisors are used they are”
· “Appropriately qualified” – but what can be 'appropriate' which is less than being a qualified teacher? - isn’t that the demand in the title of the motion?
· “Employed with decent pay and career prospects” – but if they are being asked to take a class, shouldn’t they be being paid at a supply teacher’s rate? Of course, then the budgetary reason to employ them over supply teachers would be lost – so we should argue for employment at teachers’ rates of pay.
· “Used for no more than the first three days of absence in secondary schools and no more than the first day of absence in primary schools”. Why accept even this length of employment? This clause would, even if unintentionally, set a benchmark that schools and LAs would take as being a length of employment acceptable to the NUT. It means the NUT accepting the loss of much of our supply teacher members’ employment.
The other problem with the Camden motion is that the only action mentioned (in c.) is strike action to reinforce ‘rarely covering’. What about the action to oppose ‘teaching-on-the-cheap’? To win the aim set out in the title, strike action also has to be offered to schools wishing to oppose cover supervisors, combined with national action on workload as a whole.
It is for these reasons that I think Classroom Teacher supports should put forward an amendment to the Camden motion. Do get in contact if you think you can put forward an amendment in your NUT Association.
Martin Powell-Davies
The motion starts out by correctly reaffirming Union policy that it is not acceptable for absent teachers to be covered by cover supervisors to cover for absent teachers. That has to be the policy for a teachers’ Union - and an education Union - to take because:
· Many thousands of NUT members are supply teachers, some out of choice, some because they can’t find permanent work, some as a refuge from excessive workload and bullying management in previous posts. Employing cover supervisors, instead of supply teachers, allows schools to solve budget pressures at the expense of higher-paid teacher-qualified supply teachers.
· As the recession puts pressure on public spending, the pace of ‘remodelling’ schools - i.e replacing teachers by cheaper alternative staffing arrangements - will increase if we do not stand firm. The employment of cover supervisors for short-term absence will spread to more permanent positions at teachers’ expense.
· The regulations on cover supervisors make clear that “no active teaching taking place” and that other staff should provide “pre-prepared exercises”. This is clearly unacceptable educationally – and we need parents to be made aware.
· The implication that anyone can ‘manage’ a class without actively teaching flies in the face of good educational practice. ‘Behaviour management’ is also about being able to engage a class, answer their questions, get their interest, and develop relationships. In short, the skills of a qualified teacher are needed. In practice, many cover supervisors have found their job difficult for this reason.
Some teachers may feel that having a regular ‘cover supervisor’ provides more continuity than a supply teacher coming new to the school that day who does not know the pupils or school routines. That will be added to by the bad experience some schools will have had with privatised supply agencies who have charged schools huge sums without always caring too much about the quality of supply teacher they are providing. The answer however, is not to do away with qualified teacher cover but to make sure that they are properly employed through LA supply pools or by schools or groups of schools themselves so that proper pay, conditions, professional development and quality can be assured, along with the continuity and familiarity with school routines needed to step in to a class at short notice – no easy task for even an experienced teacher. Defence of our supply teacher members has to be an essential part of the campaign on ‘cover’.
The problem with the Camden motion is that, although it makes some of the points outlined above, its conclusions are based on an acceptance that already cover supervisors “are widely employed in every area of England and Wales”. While this may be true in some areas, it is far from a battle that has been entirely lost. Unfortunately, starting from this perspective, the motion concludes by saying that therefore we work with UNISON and GMB to ensure that “where cover supervisors are used they are”
· “Appropriately qualified” – but what can be 'appropriate' which is less than being a qualified teacher? - isn’t that the demand in the title of the motion?
· “Employed with decent pay and career prospects” – but if they are being asked to take a class, shouldn’t they be being paid at a supply teacher’s rate? Of course, then the budgetary reason to employ them over supply teachers would be lost – so we should argue for employment at teachers’ rates of pay.
· “Used for no more than the first three days of absence in secondary schools and no more than the first day of absence in primary schools”. Why accept even this length of employment? This clause would, even if unintentionally, set a benchmark that schools and LAs would take as being a length of employment acceptable to the NUT. It means the NUT accepting the loss of much of our supply teacher members’ employment.
The other problem with the Camden motion is that the only action mentioned (in c.) is strike action to reinforce ‘rarely covering’. What about the action to oppose ‘teaching-on-the-cheap’? To win the aim set out in the title, strike action also has to be offered to schools wishing to oppose cover supervisors, combined with national action on workload as a whole.
It is for these reasons that I think Classroom Teacher supports should put forward an amendment to the Camden motion. Do get in contact if you think you can put forward an amendment in your NUT Association.
Martin Powell-Davies
posted by classroom teacher at
14:07
1 Comments:
Perhaps it is just too hard to comprehend, too 'painful to contemplate' but I think the Unions pretty much do what the Labour party tells them to. Look at the construction industry; 'British jobs for British workers'. How can the Unions(Unite et al) fight for the right of a British worker to get a job against the same right, of a worker from another EU state? And why should they? Pretty soon all these unions are going to see growth in membership (Dues ££££, power, influence, more 'snouts in troughs') beyond their wildest dreams,with the PAN-Euopean socialist Parties and Unions. Already foreign workers, are urged to join the unions here; now why is that - don't they have one back home?? (This will mean larger donations to labour coffers too; I can see the £ signs in their eyes) We are all very much 'tiny tadpoles' in a much bigger 'ocean'. The unions, NUTers et al, have much 'bigger fish' to fry, than what is going on in the UK. They too are probably hoping for expanding their membership base (dues ££££, power) and I would not be too surprised to see sometime in the near future, the call for cover supervisors, to be brought into the arms of the teaching unions. And anyway, it is up to Labour; they want to save money on supply teachers (education), so they get cover supervisors in. It has never been about the education of our kids; when are you going to 'get' that? An EDUCATED, CONFIDENT, with-a-voice, electorate, is 'Superfluous to requirements' for a Government that will 'brook NO opposition' (I want my referendum??). No one is going to listen to union members; did they ever lol??. (Ever done the 'maths' and figured out the income of the NUTers et al, that we sheeples, I mean teachers, pay them, and considered what we 'get back for it'? What do we REALLY get in return? SH*FT*D I reckon). Only if the parents 'hit the streets' in protest, MIGHT Govt. 'bat an eyelid' but it would still not make any difference to policy. For that to happen we would have to be a democracy. We are not! I did not 'strike' when the 'NUTters' called for one over pay. My problem is not pay, it is workload and behaviour (or lack of it). The strike over pay was a Labour 'ploy' to get the parents (electorate) against us; we were lambasted by 'Joe Public' because of our greed (and all those long holidays as well). I tried to warn colleagues that they were being used as part of a bigger agenda by Labour/Unions but they would not listen. The strike was totally FUTILE AND WORTHLESS. I am glad I did not participate; I kept my integrity intact and have been proved right. Unless you could 'marshall' all teachers into one union, led by people ELECTED by AND ACCOUNTABLE DIRECTLY TO US, the members and who could be removed/sacked easily, whose pay/benefits/pension etc was decided by the membership (can you explain to me why Derek Simpson has the use of, till death, then his 'partner'till her death, of an £800,000 'grace and favour' home; can you explain why Unite even owns this property - why can't Unite members use it, didn't they pay for it?), you will never have any influence over government policy because you are powerless and totally dependent on those at the top of the (feudal) hierarchy of all the unions. Remember, they are not called 'Union Barons' for nothing!! Wake up and smell the coffee, then maybe you could do something useful for your colleagues, the kids and maybe your country!! Why not 'start again' and be the catalyst for a new Teachers Union; one that is owned and managed by teachers (no 'executives' needed) and has NO links with ANY political party, thereby attracting people of all political persuasions. In 2004 there were over 400,000 teachers in England alone!! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3668149.stm
I reckon at £5 p.m. membership X 100,000 members (as a MINIMUM) we would be a force to 'reckon' with. Now that's 'POWERFUL'! AND IMAGINE THE REACTION OF THE NUTers et al if we did; 'a sight for sore eyes' I tell you!
Post a Comment
<< Home