Elect Martin Powell-Davies: 

Defending Teachers, Defending Education

Home

Articles from latest Lewisham NUT News for January 2004:

SATS: 86% YES – but NO BOYCOTT

It’s time for SATS to go ! That was the message from over 30,000 primary teachers who voted “Yes” in the NUT’s ballot to boycott National Curriculum tests at Key Stages 1 and 2.

YES 30,452 (86%)

NO 4,875 (14%)

(National Turnout: 34%)

The 86% majority showed the overwhelming level of opposition to the damage SATS are inflicting on the primary curriculum. It also confirmed the views gathered in the Union survey held earlier last term which showed the same strength of feeling against the tests.

But, unfortunately, the National Union have ruled that this is all that this vote will count for – as another survey of members’ views. There will be no NUT boycott of the 2004 tests.

NUT members will have little alternative this term but to carry on with preparing young children for SATs. That will mean teaching according to what’s needed to meet the targets, not what’s best for children’s learning, enjoyment and self-esteem. It’s a crying shame.

Although the ballot result was easily more than what is required under the law to proceed with industrial action, it failed to reach the high threshold set under the NUT’s own internal rules for extended action.

This requires a Yes vote from over 50% of those who received a ballot paper. This meant getting not just 30,000 but a total of 52,000 teachers voting for a boycott.

The Union’s rules mean that our action against unrealistic targets has been stopped by our own high targets.

The justification for this Rule has always been that it ensures that members are fully behind any action - it will only go ahead if it has majority support. But is it sensible for the numbers who DON’T vote to decide the outcome of a ballot ? If such high turnout thresholds were used in local Council elections there would be an awful lot of unfilled seats on many Councils!

The 86% vote leaves little doubt about the views of those who voted. But what about those that didn’t ? Would they have refused to join a boycott ? London teachers can turn to our own recent experiences for a possible answer.

In 2002 we balloted twice for one-day strikes over London Allowances. Everyone judged those strikes as huge successes and they did help win post-threshold teachers in Inner London a significant increase. Most NUT members went on strike. Even where a few did not, this was hardly noticed as our action had such a major impact.

Yet the turnout in the ballots had been only around 30% for the first strike, 40% for the next. Fortunately the Union turnout rules did not apply for one-day unsustained action. Otherwise would this have been another “failure” ?

This doesn’t mean that the Union doesn’t need to ask why so many teachers failed to vote. Ask teachers in your school and see what answer they give !

Some just didn’t get round to it or never received a ballot paper at their correct home address. Many will have been from areas where local NUT Associations did far less than others to encourage them to vote.

But a major factor will have been that some weren’t confident to vote for action that might mean taking on their Head and perhaps changing the way they had got used to teaching to fit in with the SATs regime. The National Union had not done enough to prepare members before the ballot and to convince all of them that a boycott would work.

But the lessons of the London strikes show that, even where there are doubts, most members will support action when a lead is given. Even if allowing a certain flexibility about exercising “professional judgement” might have meant that in some places the boycott would have been more solid than in others, 30,000 or so teachers boycotting the 2004 SATS would have been a real step forward in our campaign to ditch these tests. All the signs were that we would have gained significant parental support too.

As it is, many parents may now be asking that, if the NUT thinks these tests are so bad, why aren’t they boycotting them ? The failure to boycott will inevitably mean a certain pause in the campaign to defeat SATs. However, it is far from over.

The damaging effects of these tests mean that opposition will only continue to grow. The ballot campaign has helped draw in a new layer of teachers and parents into activity.

The NUT is still going to survey teachers at Key Stage 3 on SATs. Some teachers, such as the Teachers of English, may still look for ways they can take action. Some parents may move to withdraw their children from SATs. Some Heads are even hoping to use new legislation that gives them the “power to innovate” to replace SATS with teacher assessment.

The Anti-SATs Alliance, which has helped to co-ordinate some of the opposition, will be meeting on January 17th to discuss what it plans to do next. We will let you know of the next events so that NUT members can come along and help keep up the campaign.

Teachers need to take stock but also make their views heard. If you have an opinion about why teachers didn’t vote, e-mail or write in to the Union. If you think the National Union were wrong not to proceed with the boycott, write to Doug McAvoy as well !

And finally, how do you think we should go forward from here ? Should NUT Conference delegates seek to change the Union Rule needing such a high response? Should we call for future ballots to go ahead in those schools and LEAs where support is strongest? Above all, how do we get over this setback and stop the SATs?!

Martin Powell-Davies, Secretary, Lewisham NUT

Blue sky?

What does “remodelling” promise for the future of education? Nothing but “blue skies”?

… or schools without teachers ?

Click here for article