Education is a Right

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

Education is a Right

Trade Union Leaders’ Response to Education Green Paper
National Union of Teachers
Association of Teachers and Lecturers
Professional Association of Teachers
NATFHE

London's NHS £50m in Debt
NHS PFI Announcement
The Private Finance Illusion

Postal Workers to Decide on Strike Action

On Tuesday, February 12, the Education Secretary, Estelle Morris, launched the government’s Green Paper on the reform of the secondary education system.

The focus of the government’s concerns and the direction in which it intends to drive the education system are apparent from the prominence given to "business" and "work-related" issues in the proposed reform. The statement in the Green Paper that in the 21st century "everyone will need to be knowledgeable, to be able to think logically and creatively and to continue to learn throughout their lives" clearly is meant to be understood only in the context of its explanation that this is to prepare pupils for the "employment opportunities ahead". The government is signalling that the thrust of its proposals is not to equip the younger generation to live in the 21st century as well-educated, creative and independent-thinking people. Rather it is simply to prepare the vast majority for "employment opportunities". In other words, the youth are to be still blocked on every front from contributing to society's progress, but the present system, apart from tinkering with it, is declared to be the last word, and the future for the youth is narrowed down to competing with each other for "employment opportunities". Meanwhile, it is proposed that an elite will bypass GCSEs and proceed straight to AS Level exams.

This means to say the government's overriding priority is to be to place education still more at the service of big business, with no regard for the needs of the younger generation or of raising the overall level of society.

This approach runs throughout the Green Paper, despite the high sounding phrases about "tailoring education to the individual needs of pupils", creating "fast track education for those who would benefit from it" and so on. The government’s proposal to introduce "vocational GCSEs" has already come under attack from educators and other concerned parties. The idea that 14-year-olds will be involved in "directly work-related" learning which could take place in a school, college or "workplace" has set alarm bells ringing for many people. To confirm these fears, the Green Paper openly declares that "increasingly, schools, colleges and local businesses will work closely together to deliver these opportunities more effectively". The agenda at work here has nothing to do with the claims of "supporting more individual learning for 14-16 year olds", and everything to do with subjugating the entire education process to the job market, to tailor the qualifications of the young entirely to the needs and interests of big business.

Another feature of the proposed reforms, which has received somewhat less attention than the implications of the "vocational GCSEs", is that they represent a further step along the road in the privatisation of the education system and attacking the pay and working conditions of teachers. The Green Paper declares that "we intend to develop a new model which would enable an external private or voluntary sector sponsor to take responsibility for a weak or failing school against a fixed term contract of…. five to seven years…". With regard to what it describes as "successful schools", the Green Paper states that "we want now to extend their autonomy by offering greater freedom over the curriculum and over pay and conditions".

The government’s Green Paper on the reform of secondary education is taking society in a retrogressive direction. It does not recognise that education is a fundamental human right, which cannot be sacrificed on the altar of the interest of big business.

There is a pressing need for the working class, the youth, teachers and other educational workers to take up this issue in all seriousness and to discuss and define what type of education system is needed for a modern society and to fight for its realisation. This is an essential part of the work to build the workers’ opposition to the reactionary political trend exemplified by the government’s Green Paper.

National Union of Teachers

John Bangs, head of the NUT's education department, said: "I welcome the government's commitment to making the 14-19 phase more coherent, and its restoration of an entitlement to the arts and humanities for 14-16 year olds – something for which we have called for a long time.

"The NUT supports the proposal for foreign languages to be taught in primary schools but given the shortage of teachers, that can only be a long term aim. We do not have enough modern language teachers for secondary schools let alone sufficient for the thousands of primary schools.

"Young people must not be forced into making invidious choices simply because their schools cannot afford to offer the full range. The proposal for distinctions at A level is a classic example of the elite university tail wagging the dog. It is not beyond the wit of the universities to develop their own means of distinguishing between high flyers without undermining A levels for all other pupils."

Association of Teachers and Lecturers

Peter Smith, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said: "The green paper is too cautious in its approach. We are not looking for a short-term fix. The government is not looking at the long-term needs of Britain's schoolchildren. The proposed changes merely conform to the status quo, mixed with a hint of safe experimentation.

"There remains too much emphasis on maintaining the status-quo and three academic A-levels. This creates two problems. It means youngsters on an academic route will continue to follow programmes of study that are too narrow and restrictive. Secondly, vocational pathways will continue to be seen to exist for those young people who cannot cope with the academic courses. The impact is a remedial package, with vocational studies continuing to be the second stream.

"Britain needs a redesigned post compulsory curriculum, giving breadth, coherence, continuity and flexibility to all pupils between the ages of 14 and 19. This green paper falls short of that aspiration."

Professional Association of Teachers

Jean Gemmell, general secretary of the Professional Association of Teachers, said: "We are in favour of a more flexible curriculum that can develop the skills and meet the needs of all pupils.

"It is important for both pupils and employers that there is a clear parity between 'academic' and 'vocational' qualifications. Too many pupils are written off, or see themselves as written off, as failures because the system recognises one form of success only.

"The 14 to 19 phase of education is a challenging area and we hope that these proposals will offer students a broad and balanced curriculum, reflecting their changing needs and aspirations. While we applaud strategies that motivate and inspire young people to learn and that provide solutions to minimise disruptive behaviour in class, young people's choices should not be limited as they may ultimately make wrong choices about their future."

NATFHE

Paul Mackney, the general secretary of NATFHE, said: "We have long argued for greater parity of esteem between academic and vocational routes – so this is a positive step. We expect much of the 14 to 19 provision to be delivered in colleges, but the government has to guarantee that FE colleges do not become the new tertiary moderns – with schools and 6th forms creaming off the 'academic' high fliers.

"Further Education lecturers will expect the same kind of support and backup that is available to schools to teach this age group. The fact that lecturers are increasingly teaching the same students as schoolteachers will make the 10 per cent disparity in their pay impossible to swallow."

London's health service is an estimated £50 million in the red, a study analysing NHS finances released by the Liberal Democrats yesterday, February 12, claims.

The study claims that budgets are being overspent on prescribing medicines and on payments to outside bodies, such as agencies who provide temporary nursing staff. They are swallowing up vital cash that could be used to improving standards of care, the report says.

London hospitals spend about £500 million a year on agency nurses alone – needed to fill the gap left by more than 4,000 empty posts – according to figures from the Audit Office. A survey of hospitals carried out three months ago found that some of the biggest spending trusts are spending more than £10 million a year on agency nurses. The total annual bill for the top 10 trusts was around £90 million, including one trust that refused to be identified.

Nine of London’s 16 health authorities have a combined overspend of almost £35 million, according to the research. It is estimated that across London's NHS the deficit is nearer £50 million.

Campaigners have warned that the situation will inevitably lead to cuts in services.

The government has unveiled Private Finance Initiative schemes to raise more than £1.1 billion for the building of new hospitals. Health Minister John Hutton announced the scheme on yesterday, February 12, for the latest phase of what the government is claiming is the biggest building programme in the history of the NHS.

A spokesperson for UNISON, however, said: "The public and health workers will welcome the prospect of new hospitals serving their local communities. But UNISON has grave concerns over the long-term impact of PFI schemes on the taxpayer as well as on NHS staff.

"We will be seeking assurances from the government that health workers will stay in the NHS and not be sold off to private contractors. We do not want another Dudley to develop where staff took strike action to defend their jobs in the NHS.

"An agreement was reached last year for pilot schemes where NHS staff such as porters, cleaners, cooks, laundry and security personnel would no longer be at the mercy of private contractors, who have consistently driven down wages and conditions. We want to ensure that this announcement does not undermine those negotiations.

"UNISON maintains its opposition to the principle of using PFI as we do not believe that it is good value for money. Private companies are cashing-in on PFI schemes at the expense of patients, workers and the taxpayer."

WDIE is reproducing this statement of UNISON from the union’s website.

All public projects now have to use the Private Finance Initiative (also known as Public Private Partnerships) in which hospitals, schools and other public assets are built and run by private companies and then leased back to the NHS, local councils and other government bodies.

UNISON has serious concerns about the Private Finance Initiative. These centre on the impact on our members in their places of work, but also the wider impact on public services and the public finances.

UNISON has collected evidence and commissioned expert research on PFI. We have also drawn on reports of government organisations, such as the NAO, the Audit Commission and Select Committees.

Many of the advantages claimed for PFI are actually the benefits of a more sophisticated public procurement process. As a result of PFI, far greater resources have been put into refining procurement, at all levels of government. The expertise and knowledge gained can be used for future procurement of assets and are not restricted to PFI.

Many of the disadvantages of earlier public procurement were due to circumstances outside the control of the procuring authorities and the contractors. For example, the starting and stopping of funding and the lack of provision for maintaining assets over their life times. UNISON is especially concerned that whilst public funds for PFI schemes are protected and guaranteed, the remaining public services will have to disproportionately bear the brunt of any future cuts in funding.

Public services are not like other commodities. They exist where a community decides that a particular activity is vital for the general interest and cannot be provided by the market alone. The state then assumes some degree of responsibility for the service. This could be by funding the service or at the other extreme by regulating for its quality and delivery. In undertaking this, the state also assumes the ultimate responsibly for the risk of the service failing – a risk for which there can be no adequate financial compensation and a risk that cannot be transferred from government.

We have seen this already in service failures such as the Paddington train crash and the Passport Agency where regardless of who was delivering the service and on what terms, it was the government that had to take the final responsibility for what went wrong. These risks are not adequately taken account of in PFI deals, where it is often assumed that risks of failure can be transferred to a private, service provider.

We also wish to draw attention to the secrecy that surrounds PFI schemes, despite government advice to the contrary. Public authorities need to make more information available to stakeholders at every stage of the PFI process. UNISON is still meeting resistance to providing information on signed deals and projects that are still in progress.

UNISON's main objections to PFI Government expenditure

UNISON opposes PFI because it is an expensive and wasteful method of financing public investment that will damage public services now and for generations to come. UNISON believes the government should properly fund public investment and allow public authorities to borrow to invest.

Affordability and costs

There is a growing body of evidence that PFI projects escalate both in scale and cost. This in turn leads to an affordability gap that is being met from other parts of the public sector and by reductions in services and capacity.

Public sector comparator

The public sector comparator may not compare like with like. In order to test value for money, the costs of both the PSC and the PFI scheme will need to be broken down into their component parts.

Exclusion of services

If PFI does continue then services should be excluded. This will at least reduce the resources devoted to PFI and allow employees to remain within the public sector.

The impact on staff

Whilst there have been improvements to staff protection there are still major areas not covered by agreements: new staff; pensions; injury benefit in the NHS. UNISON remains concerned that the trend in PFI contracts has been to reduce pay and conditions and to cut jobs.

Postal union leaders are meeting to decide whether to call a series of strikes as part of a campaign to win a five per cent pay rise. The national executive of the Communication Workers Union met yesterday, February 12, following an overwhelming vote in favour of industrial action by the 145,000 postal workers in Britain. Billy Hayes, CWU general secretary, said he was pleased that union members had shown their feelings clearly.

Options under discussion included 24-hour strikes, an overtime ban or a refusal to work Saturdays. Union sources indicated that they may decide to continue talks under the threat of strike action. Any action would be the first national postal strike in six years.

A spokesman for the CWU said: "The meeting will receive a report of the latest talks with Royal Mail and access the worth of continuing those discussions. It will also decide what action it considers appropriate. All current media 'reports' are entirely speculation. There have been no decisions, or indications from the union. Action could be anything from a work to rule to a national strike. Although there is a possibility of a decision on Tuesday, Wednesday is a more likely day for an announcement. It is impossible to be definitive at the moment."

Royal Mail has offered a two per cent increase, with a further 0.5 per cent if customer quality of service targets were met, under a package worth more than £60 million. It says it cannot afford the five per cent demanded.

Royal Mail's holding company Consignia, which has announced that it is to make cuts of £1.2 billion, said that a strike would be "catastrophic" as rival firms line up to take more of its business. The industry regulator PostComm is threatening to hand out licenses to rival operators if service levels deteriorate.

Robin Cook, leader of the House of Commons, reiterated the government's view that arbitration was the answer to the rising wave of industrial unrest. Employers and unions should find "other ways of resolving disputes" he said.