Getting in a lather over the Camden motion?
Nick Grant, a member of the NUT National Executive, sent this contribution to the debate over cover supervisors:
So which Lewisham or Kirklees schools have requested a ballot for action on behalf of supply teachers or against cover supervisors? The only attempt I know of, in Oldham five years ago, fell victim to a combination of Doug McAvoy's ego and members' lack of stamina.
I doubt if there are any members in the country now who would follow the abstract propaganda being suggested here, even though under existing union policy irrespective of the fate of this year's motion from Camden, members can expect the union's Action Committee to sanction at their request a ballot for official industrial action. To my knowledge no school has submitted such a request.
There's a world of difference between asking people to ballot over pay or conditions which directly effect them, as opposed to altruistic fights on behalf of NUT members who choose to work as supply teachers in these changed circumstances and who, frankly, are not always popular given that they can earn almost a full salary in a full year without many of the onerous workload tasks full-time staff are obliged to undertake. This is a regrettable though an actual fact of life which has been raised whenever I've sought members' views in Ealing schools.
Members I'm sure will want reps to try to negotiate for qualified teachers to be used for cover purposes in every school, especially as full-time employees. That, however, will be limited largely to secondary schools with their greater economies of scale. Primary colleagues will undoubtedly be well pleased with the new arrangements if they no longer have to split or double-up classes to cope with cover. They are already concerned about TAs doing PPA cover, but, again, not to the point of taking strike action. Most heads and indeed parents will agree with us that qualified staff are preferable. Any decision to employ cover supervisors will always be a financial rather than an educational one.
But if we lose that argument and cannot convince members to strike altruistically, our only recourse is some form of solidarity with UNISON (or other union) members. This could also help drive up TAs' pay such that there will be less and less economic reason to prefer them to a qualified teacher. As that is something we need to develop anyway as part of an urgent move towards unity amongst school unions in the face of the huge threats on jobs, pay and pensions, it is ridiculous to get in a lather about the Camden motion.
So which Lewisham or Kirklees schools have requested a ballot for action on behalf of supply teachers or against cover supervisors? The only attempt I know of, in Oldham five years ago, fell victim to a combination of Doug McAvoy's ego and members' lack of stamina.
I doubt if there are any members in the country now who would follow the abstract propaganda being suggested here, even though under existing union policy irrespective of the fate of this year's motion from Camden, members can expect the union's Action Committee to sanction at their request a ballot for official industrial action. To my knowledge no school has submitted such a request.
There's a world of difference between asking people to ballot over pay or conditions which directly effect them, as opposed to altruistic fights on behalf of NUT members who choose to work as supply teachers in these changed circumstances and who, frankly, are not always popular given that they can earn almost a full salary in a full year without many of the onerous workload tasks full-time staff are obliged to undertake. This is a regrettable though an actual fact of life which has been raised whenever I've sought members' views in Ealing schools.
Members I'm sure will want reps to try to negotiate for qualified teachers to be used for cover purposes in every school, especially as full-time employees. That, however, will be limited largely to secondary schools with their greater economies of scale. Primary colleagues will undoubtedly be well pleased with the new arrangements if they no longer have to split or double-up classes to cope with cover. They are already concerned about TAs doing PPA cover, but, again, not to the point of taking strike action. Most heads and indeed parents will agree with us that qualified staff are preferable. Any decision to employ cover supervisors will always be a financial rather than an educational one.
But if we lose that argument and cannot convince members to strike altruistically, our only recourse is some form of solidarity with UNISON (or other union) members. This could also help drive up TAs' pay such that there will be less and less economic reason to prefer them to a qualified teacher. As that is something we need to develop anyway as part of an urgent move towards unity amongst school unions in the face of the huge threats on jobs, pay and pensions, it is ridiculous to get in a lather about the Camden motion.
posted by classroom teacher at
16:25
1 Comments:
I am a Teaching assistant in a Special Needs School and a Unison shop steward. We are not happy in our school that cover supervisors are being introduced. We have been told that if we do not apply for the job they will restructure and get people in that will do the job. It amounts to bullying. We are not trained teachers and we don't want to do it. The extra money is a slap in the face. It works out between 20p and 50p extra an hour. Supply teachers get in excess of £100 per day. Most of those supply teachers are so bad that we end up teaching for them. Do parents know that their children could be without a trained teacher for up to 3 days?. Unison seem to think that this is ok, maybe they should ballot their members and see the response. Something needs to be done now!
Post a Comment
<< Home