When the NUT recently called a one-day strike, with the possibility of others to follow, the demand for an adequate pay rise was the main focus but not the only cause...

The politics of 'failure': Education is not just an academic question

WORKERS, SEPTEMBER 2008 ISSUE

How is it possible for a school to be rated "Good" by OFSTED, be in the top 10 per cent of improved schools, to receive commendations for those improvements and then be branded a "failing school"?

The government's National Challenge programme has produced such a contradictory position by identifying 638 schools nationally deemed to be failing, the criterion for failure being less than 30 per cent of students achieving five or more A*–C GCSEs including maths and English. No matter that a school has significantly improved its performance, or that it is meeting student needs that are not statistically quantifiable. There seems little by way of objectively assessing a school within its own economic and social context. It may well be that some schools are indeed failing their students and those shortcomings need to be addressed.

Not a proper measure
An arbitrary percentage of examination passes cannot be a proper measure of an individual school. Why 30 per cent? Why not 29 or 31 or 25 or 35 per cent? Why not 100 per cent so no school passes if one child fails?

Anyone who has been active in their trade union knows that when a dispute becomes critical and industrial action is taken, the headline demand is rarely the sole cause. So, when the NUT recently called a one-day strike, with the possibility of others to follow, the demand for an adequate pay rise was the main focus but not the only cause. There is a general dissatisfaction going beyond pay demands and the contradiction questioned above is one example of this.

Victim of politics: McEntee School in Walthamstow, northeast London, was forced to become an academy – but despite big improvements, including a special award for pupil improvement, found itself branded as failing in June this year. Photo: Workers

The remarkable thing about the NUT day of action was the overwhelming support of its membership. This did not reflect the ballot which, although returning a majority in favour of taking action, had only a minority of members who completed their ballot papers.

To state the obvious, this means a clear majority did not vote in favour of going on strike and yet the vast majority of members supported the strike call and large numbers actively came out for rallies and demonstrations. A major element in this was that the ballot, the formal legal requirement, was not crucial. It was followed by the good trade union practice of workplace meetings and open discussion. There, members were galvanised.

The poor return of home ballot papers does not mean the teacher is apathetic; it can mean that at home as an isolated individual, he or she feels confronted by what are seemingly opposed demands - the justice of his/her case as espoused by the union on the one hand conflicting with the very real sense of commitment to the job on the other. The end result is that the decision to take action or not doesn't get made and the ballot paper sits uncompleted behind the clock on the mantlepiece until the final date for return has passed.

Meeting formally with your colleagues, a group activity, allows issues which are the subject of many informal staff room discussions, to be fully explored. The use of the plural is deliberate, for while the main issue would be the derisory pay offer by the government, below inflation and therefore a pay cut, other factors are raised.

Constant manipulation
The constant manipulation of education by the state and its propensity to "blame and shame" those teachers working in the most challenging conditions are major elements of contention. Even for those teachers who are not in schools officially under threat the message is clear: you're under surveillance, it could well be you next, even, it seems, if the government's attack dog Ofsted has judged you to be a good teacher, a good school – for the moment.

The government is determined to drive through its policy of converting schools into academies. Its purpose is illustrated by the Walsall Academy, sponsored by the Mercers' Company of London, in Bloxwich, West Midlands, which is offering its teaching staff a pay rise of 10 per cent.

This seemingly generous offer is in return for teachers agreeing to work 10 hours more lesson time per week, a reasonable condition at first sight. Except, it's not. A standard secondary school week is 25 one hour lessons (there are variations, but they are minimal). An individual teacher does not teach each and every lesson because there is also some preparation time. But even if he or she did, an extra 10 hours would constitute a 40 per cent increase in the work load. That 10 per cent pay rise now looks rather less generous.

Ignoring agreements
Even more important are the longer-term implications. For the Walsall Academy to be able to propose such changes means that it assumes national agreements and contractual arrangements can be ignored. Indeed, this is the purpose of academies – they become freestanding schools in which union organisation and protection of members becomes dramatically more difficult.

The NUT, for example, would have to negotiate with each school in turn, and a national strike day, never mind any more sustained action, would be virtually impossible to organise. Effectively, teachers would have their contracts torn up and their unions neutralised. Their interests would then become almost entirely the concern of that other educational lapdog, the General Teaching Council. This already operates a protection racket in that every teacher has to pay a statutory tribute annually just to be allowed the privilege of going to work. A report written for the think tank "Reform" by Richard Tice, chair of governors at Northampton Academy ,states that low teaching standards are the result of teaching unions becoming too powerful. He goes on to say that unions have become blockers of reform by pursuing national pay deals, rather than supporting teachers who are doing a good job, as other organisations are doing.

Can there be any doubt that with the neutralisation of unions, increasing workloads will continue without even the pretence of "generous" pay rises. Undoubtedly, the "other organisations" such as the GTC will play their part in praising, perhaps even having national awards for, those teachers whose self sacrificing dedication means they have simply acquiesced.

The Department for Children, Schools and Families judges that about 35 local authorities presently require particular intervention. This could entail local authority (they are LEAs no longer, apparently) schools being handed over to interim executive boards or becoming part of a trust or federation. They then could be transformed into academies or simply closed down.

The chief schools adjudicator, Philip Hunter, has proposed that schools catering for a high share of an area's pupils eligible for free school meals should be closed as their intake makes improvement so difficult. This doesn't mean those pupils will as a result become much better educated – after all, if poverty is the major influence on their educational prospects a change of school alters little fundamentally.

They are still poor. But as statistical elements they will be less significant, lost among the overall performance figures of their "better school". It also begs the question of why so many children have their life chances blighted by poverty. The answer to that raises profound questions about the very nature of capitalism. Governments, especially the Labour government, have no intention of addressing those.

A feature of capitalism is the individualist consumer attitude. Present educational policy is predicated on this with league tables being the shopping list of must have (or must avoid) schools. Like the teachers' ballot the effect is to isolate individuals, in this case families, so decisions are made with poor information.

There is no involvement in education with all concerned actively discussing the purpose and methods of education. "Education" means "to lead out", not "to meet government determined targets driven by the requirements of capitalism". This, though, would mean active social engagement, aiming for a very different kind of economy. Until then, the move towards ever greater numbers of academies will continue to be the state's solution and teachers can expect increasing attacks on their pay and conditions. Let there be no doubt – this is what the state intends, ignoring the fact that, embarrassingly, many of the "failing" schools are academies!

Every school a failing school?
Such is not quite the situation yet, but the prospect of it is the answer to the opening question. Ultimately, if unchecked, every school that is not an academy will be deemed a failing school as it won't be maximising the potential of its workforce.

However good a school's examination results are they would be so much better if teachers weren't bound by outdated union practices. That will be the argument.

The head teacher of Walsall Academy has called for the same freedoms as enjoyed by her academy to be given to all schools. Freedom to work 40 per cent longer for 10 per cent more pay. If ever the influence of capitalist ideology on education needed an illustration, then that surely is it. And such freedoms lead to more stressed teachers who are less able to perform well. So there need be no conflict between personal and professional standards.


• Unison has just negotiated improved pay and conditions for its teaching assistant members in academies.

top