Teaching union conferences debate school funding and reforms

At their Easter 2003 conferences, the UK's three main teachers’ trade unions expressed concern over the 2003-4 financial settlement for schools, and debated its implications for the planned reform of teachers’ contracts and improvements in educational standards.

In April 2003, the three main classroom teachers’ trade unions - the National Union of Teachers (NUT), the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) and the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) - held their annual Easter conferences.

The atmosphere of the conference debates, and the policy resolutions adopted, varied considerably between the three unions. The ATL, representing 150,000 teachers, lecturers and support staff in state and independent schools and colleges, is viewed as the most moderate of the three unions. Nevertheless, in an emergency conference resolution, it called on the government to restore cuts to individual school budgets 'which are creating a crisis in schools across the country'. It was reported that teachers and support staff in many areas faced the threat of losing their jobs, and some delegates heckled the schools standards minister, David Miliband, when he addressed the conference.

No government minister spoke at the conference of the NUT, the largest teaching union with nearly 250,000 members. After the NUT refused to sign an agreement on teachers' workload concluded in January 2003 (UK0302105F), and because of the 'ritual abuse' directed at government ministers at past NUT conferences, the secretary of state for education and skills, Charles Clarke, declined an invitation to attend. This did not prevent an escalation in the rhetorical war of attrition between the NUT and the government, and undoubtedly encouraged a series of resolutions threatening industrial action. The NUT conference unanimously backed a resolution demanding increased funding and agreed to hold ballots on strike action if schools were forced to cut jobs. It also agreed to ballot members on proposals to boycott national tests (of pupils aged seven, 11 and 14), and to refuse to teach classes of more than 27 pupils or cover for teaching colleagues after one day of unexpected absence. In the past, conference decisions often have been modified or diluted by the union’s executive committee, but the harsh criticism directed against both government ministers and the other teaching unions by Doug McAvoy, the general secretary of the NUT, may sustain the militancy of activists, described by the Times Educational Supplement (25 April 2003) as 'united in their isolation'.

The conference of the NASUWT, the second biggest teaching union with more than 200,000 members, also expressed considerable concern about school funding problems. In particular, it resolved to hold ballots on industrial action if experienced classroom teachers were unable to gain extra pay through progression on the upper pay 'spine' (UK0203102F). This resolution was approved after delegates had given a warm ovation to a speech by Charles Clarke in which he praised the NASUWT for the 'positive and professional' role it had played in shaping the workforce agreement (in contrast to that of the NUT), and defended the importance of targets and testing pupils in raising standards in schools. He conceded, however, that the financial settlement for 2003-4 had led to widespread anxiety generally, and in terms of its potential impact upon workforce reform in particular.

Even though the aggregate spending for schools will increase by 11.6% in cash terms in 2003, there are significant pressures on school budgets arising from increases in National Insurance contributions and pensions, and pay increases for teachers and support staff. The education secretary said that there would be a real-terms increase of GBP 250 million for schools nationally after these additional costs had been met, but recognised that the national averages concealed wide variations in school budgets. Significant changes in the government funding formula for distributing resources to local education authorities have been introduced in 2003. Moreover, each authority has discretion in setting its education budget, the increase in its council tax, and the budget for each school in its area; and the latter will be also influenced by changes in the number of pupils and their distribution between primary and secondary schools.

The inherent complexity of this funding system ensures that some schools will be winners, and others will be losers - especially after changes in the funding formulae have been introduced. Inevitably, the losers make much more noise than the winners. The dispersion of power and diffuse lines of accountability in school-based education also encourage representatives of central government, local government and head-teachers to blame one or more of the other parties for budget problems. As the Financial Times (26 April 2003) noted, 'Mr Clarke may come to see reform of school funding not only as a way of avoiding an annual 'funding fog', but as a real political necessity to make sure high-profile reforms in the classroom are actually delivered.'