Report from the NUT Supply Teacher Conference - 27 June 2015

“We are all only a term away from being a supply teacher” Kevin Courtney, Deputy General Secretary, NUT speaking to NUT Supply Teachers’ Conference 2015

This was positive day in so many ways.  First of all, it was full weeks ago, and there was a great turn out on the day with around 150 supply teachers giving up a Saturday to attend this important event which is now in its third year.

I was personally delighted to see that a number of the Executive had also given up their time to attend.  I’m not sure how many were there last year, but I’m pretty sure the numbers had at least doubled this year. That’s great because it shows supply teacher issues are starting to be taken seriously.

The date for the lobby of supply agencies was agreed as 28 October. This has been the subject of much debate, owing to the lack of movement in promoting it before the onset of the summer holidays and there was a suggestion that it should be moved back to February. However the clear view of the conference was that we should stick to October. It is now up to the Executive to work with the staff at Hamilton House, and associations and divisions around the country, to ensure that this important lobby, which will highlight the poor pay and insecure working conditions of supply teachers, is given the full weight of union backing. This is an event for all teachers, not just supply teachers. It’s time we all showed solidarity with our supply teacher colleagues.

A highlight of the conference was hearing from Tony Carlin, of INTO, the Northern Irish teaching union, who came to speak to conference about the supply teacher register run in Northern Ireland. It is mandatory to be on the register, and all supply teachers are paid to scale AND have access to the Teachers’ Pension Scheme. The software used to run the register is so effective that only two people are needed to organise supply teachers for the whole of the region. This keeps running costs low which means that the savings can be passed back to schools instead of lining the pockets of the supply agency bosses. It’s a win-win, and is a model that we need to be using this side of the Irish Sea too.

However, while there were many positives to take away from the day, there were also concerns with the way the conference had been organised and these need to be addressed.

It was strongly felt by the NUT Supply Teacher Network (NUTSTN) that a supply teacher should chair the conference. I don’t think the first session, where out of six people on the panel only one was a supply teacher, lessened that feeling. While the Supply Teacher Network was grateful for Alex Kenny of the Executive stepping in to chair the conference, I don’t think anyone felt that “Kevin asked me if I’d do it” was a democratic way of picking a chair.

There were also serious concerns that Kate Shoesmith of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC), the body who represent supply agencies, was given 20 minutes of conference time to give an unimpeded sales pitch for their services, and to defend the absolutely shoddy way supply teachers are treated. The NUTSTN had asked that the REC representative appeared as part of an Education Question Time-style event to close the conference. The only forum Kate Shoesmith should have been allowed to appear in is one where her assertions could be properly interrogated and examined.

While Tony Carlin speaking about the Northern Ireland Supply Teacher Register was a highlight, ETeach, the company that provide the software for the register, were not at the conference, despite the NUTSTN asking for them to be invited. This is another example of how an opportunity to move things forward was missed and how the organising voice of supply teachers is being ignored.

I personally felt that a conference which should have been used to motivate and empower supply teachers to organise and take action was, yet again, reduced to a very controlled talking shop. The presentation which started the conference was highly technical and appeared to be setting a context in which the NUT couldn’t be blamed for not taking action to support supply teachers because, hey look, the way they’re employed is so darned complicated. Supply teachers already know that they exist in the dark netherworld of education privatisation where employment legislation doesn’t seem to reach. This seemed to be a fairly demotivating way to start a conference and it was really odd that, although absolutely massive amounts of information was given about the way supply teachers are contracted, none of the information was available as a hand out.

For the past year we have been told that the reason that the Supply Teacher Conference can’t elect its own chair and be organised and planned by supply teachers is because we don’t have an Advisory Committee within the union structure. When we asked if we could have one we were told that we couldn’t because they weren’t effective and a review of the whole structure was taking place. However, at the conference, Kevin Courtney announced that, by next year, there would be a Supply Teacher Advisory Committee. We knew nothing about this and I have mixed feelings. If it means that supply teachers have an input into the policy making and policy implementation of their union, and are better able to organise, that’s great. But if these committees are ineffective as we’ve been told repeatedly, how does that take us forward?

So how can things be improved?

Well first and foremost, if the union is serious about improving the working lives of supply teachers then it needs to work much harder to empower them. If the structures in place are unable to support that, then they need to change, and quickly.

No one in the NUTSTN is afraid of democracy. We welcome any developments that enable as many supply teachers as possible to get their voices heard.

Next year the Supply Teachers’ Conference needs to have a) seen real commitment from the Executive to improving their pay and conditions b) be run bottom up, not top down to ensure that it’s the genuinely proactive, empowering and developmental event it should be.

I will personally be doing all I can to ensure this happens.                                                             

Bridget Chapman

New forced academies legislation - What should we do?

Nicky Morgan has just announced legislation which will sweep away any last shreds of democracy in converting schools to academies. Since parents at Downhills School very nearly stopped their school becoming an academy (and almost brought the academies programme down in the process) and parents at Hove Park actually did stop their school being converted, Gove, Morgan, and their fellow ideologues have been determined to stop those pesky parent and community voices being heard at all. 

As far as I can see there is no time to waste. Now is the time to fight. If we don't hit back hard now, we will be culpable in the destruction of our state education system. We owe it to generations past, present and future to fight to protect it.

So what can we do? 

1. The NUT needs to be talking to the NASUWT and the ATL and agreeing in principle that the unions will work together and support joint strike action in ANY school where forced academisation is proposed.

2. Union groups in schools likely to be affected should be calling joint union meetings NOW and taking indicative ballots for strike action in the event that forced academisation is proposed.

3. The NUT should work with the Anti-Academies Alliance to fast-track a public inquiry into the performance of academies. 

4. We have to be working towards announcing a calendar of national strike action, starting later this year and coordinated where possible with other unions. 

Please share if you agree. 

The problem with the C word...

For a long time now I’ve been debating about the use of the word ‘cunt’. I say it’s not OK when it is used as a derogatory term, that it is demeaning to women and misogynistic. Other feminists disagree, arguing  that we have bigger problems to deal with, that they don’t use the term in a gendered way, and that it is unfair to make others out to be ‘bad feminists’ for using the word. For example, Anna Fleur (@magiczebras)  wrote a blogpost on this subject: ‘Can we check our cunting privilege?’: https://magiczebras.posterous.com/can-we-check-our-cunting-privilege

I hold my position firmly but, rather than keep arguing it in 140 character bite-sized pieces (damn near impossible, not to mention time-consuming) I decided that I had to write something explaining my position more fully. What finally prompted me was Melissa Ben (@Melissa_Benn) tweeting a link to a piece in the Independent on the huge impact low self-esteem has on young women (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/girls-interrupted-revealed--the-true-cost-of-low-selfesteem-7606258.html ), for it is this effect I seek to counteract.

First of all, let me be clear. I have no problem at all with the word cunt when it is not used in a derogatory manner.  I have had several people genuinely ask me if the word can be used in any other way? Well, I have a cunt. There, that’s not derogatory, although I have had people physically recoil from me when I’ve said it. Strangely, they’re often the same people who would think nothing of using the word cunt as an insult.  I love the word cunt, I think it’s a great, powerful term and completely agree with much of what Laurie Penny (@pennyred) says in this piece where she argues that alternatives like ‘pussy’ are hopelessly inadequate:  http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2011/02/sexual-power-word-cunt-hint

So why do I object to the word cunt being used as a derogatory term?  Well, I believe in a Derridean approach to language that says that language has a value that constantly changes, depending on the experiences the person hearing or reading it brings to bear.  The value we attach to a word, a phrase, or a sentence in our head, is hardly ever the same value someone hearing it will attach to it. We cannot simply say, “well I didn’t mean it in a negative way, I wasn’t using it as a gendered term, etc”, and wash our hands of it. Language is extremely powerful, it can have a tremendous impact, and we have to be aware of that when we use it. 

I give you this example.  I’m a secondary school teacher and the word ‘gay’ is in constant use as an expression of derision.  I constantly challenge students on its use and the response is often the same. That the person using it is not using it to mean homosexual, but uncool or stupid.  So, is that OK? Should I just let it go?  I think not, and for this reason: research shows that around one in ten of the young people I work with are likely to be gay, and they may come to realise this during their time at school. What impact will the constant use of the word gay used negatively have on them as they come to terms with their sexuality?  I don’t think it will have a positive or healthy impact, which is why I continue to challenge the young people I work with, getting them to think about their language choices and the potential impact they could be having on others.

So, how does this impact on my stance on the use of the word cunt? Well, whether you use the term in a gendered way or not, cunt is absolutely a female word. It’s used frequently in porn films as a synonym for vagina, and porn, unfortunately, is where many of our young people get their ideas about what sex should look like, and what bodies should look like. Women in porn these days are all too often stripped of natural body hair so they look like prepubescent girls. 

Saying I don’t use cunt to mean genitalia, or I don’t use it in a gendered way, does not mean it’s not heard that way. Young women absorb it as meaning genitalia, as surely as they absorb the messages about body hair being unacceptable on their cunts, the appearance of their cunts not being up to scratch (think of brazilians and vajazzles) and their cunts being unpleasantly smelly (think of the ads for scented ‘feminine hygiene’ products and schoolyard insults that buy into this such as “fishy fanny”).

I worked in an inner-city school recently, in a very deprived borough, where we ran a well-being survey to see how our students were doing. One of the questions was about what you had for lunch, and where you ate it; in the playground, in the dining hall? I asked a group of young female students this question, and they looked at me aghast. “I don’t eat lunch!” one said. All around her there were nods of agreement. “Why not?” I asked. “Because I’m fat!” came the reply, and again, vigorous nods signalled agreement from the group.  Now, these young women were not overweight at all, and yet they had picked up the message from the media that their normal, healthy shape was unacceptable, and must, even at the expense of their health, be changed.

When cosmetic companies are being fined for airbrushing supermodels almost beyond recognition (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/27/loreal-julia-roberts-ad-banned ) we must accept that young women are being constantly bombarded with images and standards that are actually impossible to achieve. They will spend their lives struggling to meet a completely unattainable physical  ideal, and be manipulated into constantly feeling that they are not up to scratch, are lacking in some way.

It is against this background that I set my argument. I believe that the young women that I love working with so much have enough misogyny on their plate without us adding to it. In the same way that I don’t think a young gay student can come away completely unaffected by constantly hearing the word ‘gay’ used in a negative way, I don’t think that young women can come away from constantly hearing the word 'cunt' being used in a negative way without being affected.

I know people argue that words like dick and cock are used as insults. “What’s the difference?” they say. First of all I would say that it’s all about the power balance. The use of these words has to be seen against the backdrop of our society, one in which women are oppressed and men are not. The other difference is that dick and cock sound almost friendly and ‘matey’ in comparison to cunt. There is a level of vitriol and hatred behind the word when it is spat out that ties into a misogynistic hatred of women.

I completely take Anna’s point that there are other issues facing women, but I just don’t think it’s either or. You can argue about language AND fight against truly awful practices like ‘honour’ killings and female genital multilation. To me it’s all part of the same fight anyway; normalising the hatred of women through language creates an atmosphere in which people feel freer to continue with practices like FGM.

And as for speaking from a privileged position? I agree, I do, I am definitely guilty as charged. But I can’t change that, and it doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t work as hard as I can towards helping to create a better, more equal place for the young women I work with to grow up. And language is a huge part of that.

More blogposts on this subject:

http://pme200.blogspot.de/2011/10/very-rude-word.html?m=1 (by @PME200)

http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/cunts-bitches-and-weeping-syphilitic-chodes/ (by @stavvers)

Update 18.04.12: Also *very* relevant is this brilliant piece from Jezebel (@Jezebel) http://jezebel.com/5900928/your-vagina-isnt-just-too-big-too-floppy-and-too-hairyits-also-too-brown