Tony Dooley

Editor, Ipswich NUT's

WOODENHEAD NEWS

I have been Ipswich Local Association Secretary since 1985

Here is the letter I am sending to associations and divisions within Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and Norfolk seeking support for my candidature for the NUT NEC in '98.

I am writing to inform you and your members that I wish to stand as a candidate in the forthcoming election for National Executive Member for Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire, given the retirement of our existing NEC Member, Mark Slater.

When I indicated to my association that I was tentatively considering putting myself forward for this election the response was resolute that they wanted me to stand. Subsequently, the association has sought the backing of the Suffolk Division for my decision and I am pleased to say that at its most recent meeting on October 16th a motion to endorse my candidature was passed.

Accordingly, I write to you to seek the support of your association for my nomination. Currently, I am the Secretary of the Ipswich Association, a post I've held since 1985 and in that capacity I have the equivalent of 10 days facility time for NUT work. I would welcome an opportunity to speak to a meeting of your association, if that was at all possible.

To give you some indication of 'where I stand' I attach (see below) the statement I made on behalf of the Ipswich Association concerning the White Paper on Education as well as the recent correspondence I have sent to schools in my association.( See Other News and Events.)

I am pleased to say that Mark Slater ( whom the Ipswich Association nominated and supported in each previous election with which he has been associated) has indicated his support for my candidature, an endorsement I obviously welcome and value.

If it is not possible for whatever reason for me to attend a meeting of your association you can meet me via the internet (!) on the Ipswich NUT Homepage on:

http:// www.anglianet.co.uk/homepages/abdnut

and my Email address is: abdnut@anglianet.co.uk

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best Wishes

Yours sincerely Secretary, Ipswich NUT

My Response to the document: 'Excellence in Schools'

The Consultation Process itself:

It is clear that few members of the NUT have had access to the actual document and that the NUT document seeking views in response is itself incomplete. This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. In addition, few schools have allocated the time to consider the white paper and many colleagues are so snowed under at the beginning of the school year to be able to read what has been presented let alone formulate a set of responses; this isn't 'professionalism recognised'. What I wish to record are the sentiments shared with members, both within my school and beyond, in the Association, with whom I've spoken and who received an original draft statement from me with my initial reactions to the White Paper. Time also dictates to me that this will not seek to reply to all the questions posed (and not posed!).

The White Paper's 'philosophy':

Despite particular details which suggest an improvement for teachers in a number of areas with which we would welcome ( the abolition of vouchers for Nursery provision, the abolition of the assisted places scheme, a recognition that bureaucratic procedures, such as generated with the code of Practice for SEN, are excessive in teacher time/workload etc) the tone and thrust of the document is one that is largely hostile towards teachers and phrases such as tackling the 'culture of complacency' is an insult to all those teachers who have worked hard and achieved success with young people consistently over the past years, given the backdrop of unrelenting criticism from the outgoing government and in the media. The impact that this government has had in relation to education has reached the pits for teachers ( and others) with the decision to seek to end student grants and to introduce fees for courses in higher education. This was not in their manifesto and is clearly a betrayal of the principle of a right to higher education, which after all must be one of the goals towards which those who achieve the required standards in schools would wish to aspire.

Nowhere is the impact of poverty recognised in the white paper in affecting chances in education and the least well off in society will wonder about the reasonableness of committing themselves to an 'educational mortgage', especially in an increasingly insecure labour market. For some young people if you are not in poverty when you enter school you may well be when you leave college, unless, of course you come from a family for whom 15 or 20 thousand pounds is easily found to subsidise higher education.

Nowhere is there any recognition of the effect of the 'bullying' policies advocated by the previous government (and adopted by many Heads) on the lives of our members. The recent shocking revelation that huge numbers of teachers do not have adequate sleep is borne out by my discussions. That this white paper calls for 'unrelenting pressure on schools and teachers for improvement' and that there will be 'zero tolerance of under performance' is a recipe for even more stress-related illness, breakdown and even early death.

Nowhere is there evidence that the government acknowledges the need for all schools to be safe and healthy environments containing the range of resources needed to provide genuine equal opportunities. Already there is pressure on teachers to act in a way that undermines conditions of service; for instance, in providing extra teaching and the like in time that should be designated for a lunchtime break. And if the school 'up the road' is doing such and such, aren't teachers 'failing' children if they don't provide the same?!

The CASE 'Parents and Schools July 1997' makes the point that the white paper asks for views forty five times but 'it doesn't ask some of the questions we want to reply to'. That, also, has to be the stance of the NUT and we would surely agree with the sentiments behind those questions, such as why do we need community schools, aided schools AND foundation schools? We don't! If this is a government that 'consults' whom did it consult about the proposals for higher education? Not even Dearing in his report advocated scrapping student grants altogether.

Education for the most part, for this government, much like its predecesor, is reduced in importance to that set of activities that can be given numbers for statistical purposes; nowhere is there any sense of what the process of learning is all about and how it can be best achieved for all. When I read that there is concern about SEN provision being skewed towards statementing rather than preventative and remedial work I think of all of those who worked in a support role being made 'redundant' in recent years, including myself, allegedly for financial reasons. To make a commitment to funding schools to meet everyone's needs would require an end to the market mentality of LMS that has caused the destruction of such provision. But, of course, the Labour Government is committed to the spending plans of the discredited Tories!

The Labour Government wants to make families accountable for children's learning, with contracts. But some families have not only been aware of the importance of success at schools and the crucial role that class size plays in that outcome but have had the income to buy that in the private sector, that's why the advertisements from Public Schools always stress 'small classes' (not its dodgy cousin 'smaller classes'). The pledge to reduce class sizes for 5,6 and 7 year olds to no more than 30 is wholely inadequate.

I urge the National Union not to try to square the circle to suggest that the White Paper in any fundamental way can contribute to the way forward for education as envisaged by us in our various policy statements. On May 1st I, like many others, voted to get rid of the Tories; that clearly was not enough. The NUT must now campaign to end Tory Educational Policies FOR ALL OUR CHILDREN.

To return to Homepage, click here