LINDA TAAFFE (National Executive - Outer London ) 15.12.03
The result of the ballot out today shows that there is a huge reservoir of support for an active campaign to bring an end to the invidious national curriculum testing. 86% is a good result measured by the yardstick of individual postal ballots. We all know the difficulties – papers left on one side, people moving, voting in the isolation etc. Many elections in unions rarely involve a third of their electorate nowadays. Council elections, and even some parliamentary elections never reach this level. So 34% of those eligible is a viable base.
Just imagine 30,000 teachers refusing to carry out tests! What a hole that would make in next year’s league tables! No “optional tests” either would be a big step forward in regaining teachers’ professional judgement. The ball would be set rolling. The prospect of at least English Key Stage 3 teachers joining in early in the new year would add to the momentum. Other teachers who initially lacked confidence, or were sceptical would be emboldened. Moreover many commentators are saying Blair is looking shaky especially over top-up fees. What an opportunity to open up another front on education!
We always said that we could not do away with SATs all in one go. This vote is good enough to make that start. It is galling to think that we have satisfied all the legal requirements of some of the most restrictive anti-trade union laws in the world – and now have fallen foul of our own rules! The rule under which we balloted, requiring the 50% turnout, was in order to pay out money from the Sustentation Fund, should any member be docked pay. If it did come to this, surely the union could find other ways eg by balloting the individual schools to ensure no member would lose out. Aren’t rules there to facilitate the struggle? How can we now go back to parents and say we are being held back by an unhelpful rule of the Union, so we are going to continue to administer tests, which distort the curriculum and damage their children’s education. We would not be true to ourselves.
The Anti-SATs Alliance has plans to hold a conference in January. Every school in the country should be contacted to send a couple of class teacher delegates to this, so we can decide where we go from here. We should also appeal to parents, and students. How can they step in to help? They don’t need ballots!
I urge teachers to contact the Union head office, or their Executive Member without delay to ask that the Union reconsider the question of a boycott going ahead as planned. The leadership need to feel what teachers feel. Demand an emergency Executive Meeting is held as soon as possible. The press release from head office talks the good fight – but there is no substitute for action.
Linda Taaffe