Kent NUT
Will the Government listen?
The Campaigns continue!
Make sure you keep up with the campaign news. Visit kentnut.org.uk
 |
|
Conference 2012
The Union held its annual conference in Torquay this year and I am pleased to say that Kent was well represented. As far as I can determine, 17 delegates from Kent (not including the group from Medway) were there to represent the Division. I have to confess that I did not actually meet some of the delegates and some I saw only in passing. Perhaps it is time to resurrect the practice of many years ago of holding a Kent Reception. I look forward to hearing Division Council’s views on the matter. Part of the problem this year, for me at least, was that not only was I staying outside Torquay but I was also hatching a nasty case of flu with the result that I took myself off to bed as soon as I could at the end of day’s business and so missed out on the various receptions and events which took place every evening. The other inconvenience was that I was unable to get to conference until the Saturday morning as my progress across southern England was impeded by two crashes which blocked, in quick succession, the A303 and then the A35.
Once again, Conference was seemingly of a single mind on many issues and resorted to a card vote on only one occasion on what was a minor matter. The main motions were decided by substantial majorities, in particular over the issue of the pension campaign. It is interesting to note, listening to the discussion on the matter that there appears to be a definite tension between the London Divisions and the rest of the country outside the major population centres. Officers from London seem much more confident of activating their membership for another one-day strike than their colleagues from the shires where the notion of alternative action seems more favoured. In conversation with colleagues from Divisions resembling Kent in size and membership, it would appear that a big event in the nature of the London march of last March would be well-supported. I have reported along these lines on opinions in our Division to Bob Stapley, standing in as Regional Secretary for Marion Darke who is recovering from a spell in hospital for a hip replacement. Bob was asked to survey Divisions in the South-east on the matter with a view to informing the National Executive in time for their meeting to discuss ways of taking the campaign forward. This is of course in the light of the unanimous decision of Conference to continue the fight against the government’s attack on our pensions. Pensions were discussed on suspension of standing orders in order to take account of recent developments which rendered many of the existing motions redundant. This was to have the unfortunate effect of preventing Motion 42 from West Sussex, and which I was due to second, from seeing the light of day. With our colleagues in West Sussex, I am taking steps to rectify what we regard as being a most unfortunate turn of events. I shall return to this later.
In Session two on Saturday morning, two attempts to refer back the Executive report on salaries and conditions of service were made. The first, objecting to the lack of emphasis on the need to tackle teacher stress was successful. Apart from that, motions on fighting the new Performance Management rules, on the misuse of capability and on teacher workload were largely passed. There were some interesting interventions which were not well received conference coming from Haringey and which are referred to in Fred Jarvis’ article in the TES of 27th April. I recommend this article to your attention. One other motion on false allegations against teachers was passed unanimously.
In session three on Saturday afternoon, we listened to a very intense speech from an Australian lawyer who is involved in supporting young Palestinians who find themselves caught up with the Israeli authorities. It made uncomfortable listening. A unanimous motion on Sixth form colleges followed and then there was the discussion on Pensions already mentioned.
Sunday morning began with Session four and a passionate discussion concerning all aspects of Ofsted. Our opposition to Ofsted was largely carried although, once more, a member from Haringey and one from Newham made some unwelcome (to the majority of delegates) but, in my view quite sensible, cautionary remarks in an attempt to inject some realism into the calls for action. A unanimous motion against the introduction of the market into state education followed before standing orders were suspended for the discussion on salaries. Later in the session, motions were passed calling for opposition to the government’s phonics programme, against the incidence of youth unemployment and for inclusion in SEN.
Monday morning saw the session devoted to Welsh matters and this was followed by the priority motion against localised pay and in favour of nationally negotiated pay. The motion was passed unanimously. In the afternoon session there were debates on international and equality issues which I did not attend, coming back into the conference chamber for the discussions on union organisation. Motions were passed on the issues of the importance of the lay structure of the union and the need to foster the role of the school rep.
The last session on Tuesday was devoted to catching up on unfinished business (not enough, however, for Motion 42 to see the light of day) and to the annual discussion on improving the way in which conference is organised. The usual targets of discussion, composite motions and gender bias, were given a good airing. Conference broke up in the rain but in good spirits. Everyone I know finds the experience of going to conference invigorating and energising. Delegates may argue over just about everything, but you come away knowing that there are thousands of colleagues around the country who share your general view of the national education service and your part in it. Sometimes it is difficult to remember that but conference is the restorative. I recommend it to you all.
As an envoi, let me come back to Motion 42. This was conceived as an attempt to get the union to consider the discrepancies that exist between the metropolitan divisions and those situated in what I call loosely “the shires”. In discussion with my opposite numbers from several “shire” divisions, we have come to the conclusion that the union should seriously consider adjusting its organisation to take account what the Divisional Secretary for West Sussex calls the “democratic deficit”. This is simply illustrated by some easy comparisons between the realities of being an officer in, say, a London Borough and the same officer in, say, Kent. My colleague in the London Borough is able to cycle round his division and to visit all schools in the course of a morning; I have to reckon on at least two hours by car simply to get from one school in the east to another in the west. My colleague in the London Borough is probably within walking distance of the regional office. For our regional official to meet me, he has to do at least two hours driving and, if the meeting is, say, in Thanet then he is looking at 3 hours in the car. Nevertheless, the structure is the same in each case. Our motion sought to address this by calling for a working party to examine the matter and come up with solutions. Sadly, it was not to be and so we are now looking at ways of keeping the issue alive for development another day. Touch wood!
John Walder
