Nut Workload Agreement

ยท Teachers were angry at what they saw as the government`s inability to take seriously the problems of excessive workload and understaffing. 5The NUT and the NAS have tried to outdo each other. B each with NUT pamphlets published in the 1950s “to refute the SIN`s assertions, represent the best interests of male teachers and have the best record for militancy.”8 Such rivalry is evident in their relationship with the TUC to which they joined in 1968. NAS and 1970 for the NUT, when teachers realized that they would be excluded from negotiations between the labour movement and the government on the country`s economic development (they had a direct impact on education). The NUT had tried to avoid this membership by creating the Conference of Professional and Public Service Organizations (COPPSO) in 1962, in response to the firm`s unwillingness to follow the agreement negotiated in the Burnham Committee because of the “wage break” decided in 1961. Coppso is based on the Joint Council of the Four Secondary School Associations, established in 1906, and by several other office workers` unions. They all tried to be represented at the National Economic Development Council. However, the government would only negotiate with the TUC and COPPSO members recognized that there was no alternative but to join the TUC if they wanted to influence official policy. As Ironside and Seifert assert in industrial relations in schools, “the government has succeeded in strengthening formal ties with the broader labour movement.”9 Such an approach may indicate a greater propensity for militancy and union action, but it has long been an integral part of the Nut and the NAS`s action. In 1965, for example, the SIN refused to work with unskilled staff and argued that it was a “cheap way to avoid the lack of teachers caused by low wages and poor working conditions”10 The NUT quickly joined the movement and, in 1970, unskilled employees were virtually eliminated. In 1969, members of both unions also participated in successful wage-fighting actions and their activism forced the leaders of both organizations to adapt.11 Teacher Workload Control Group Reports, which provided advice on policy identification, planning and teaching resources, and data management.

24After the world that teachers have faced since the late 1970s, we are now turning to the four largest unions at the turn of the century to analyze their policies, the methods they have used and their achievements. To study their policies, we will refer to the same themes that we had previously used to clarify any changes on the part of teachers` representatives: working conditions and remuneration, evaluation, national curriculum, evaluation tests, league tables and education (types of schools and educational providers). With regard to working conditions, 2001 can be considered an exceptional year, with NUT, NASUWT and ATL agreeing at their annual conferences to require a 35-hour week. PriceWaterhouseCoopers was then tasked with studying the workload of teachers and unions and the government entered into the social partnership in January 2003. The NUT was the only one not to join, which may explain some differences in the unions` approach to working conditions and wages. The social partnership was based on the Labour Force Agreement Monitoring Group (WAMG), which includes all the organizations that signed an agreement in January 2003. Questions related to its mission: “Transformation, changes in teacher pay structure, revision of all school staff structures, review of teacher performance management and new professional standards46 As Bob Carter, Howard Stevenson and Rowena Passy pointed out in industrial relations in education, this area has been narrowly defined by excluding indirect links with the aforementioned themes (e.g. B”the impact of inspections on workload).47 , teachers are supported. in the first