Unions must share blame for the teacher shortage

SURVEYS show that 4,600 teaching posts will be vacant when the new term starts next week, around 800 of them in London schools. This is what the chief schools inspector, Mike Tomlinson, had in mind when he said that teacher shortages are the worst in more than 30 years.

But whose fault is it?

The Government is being roundly attacked by the teaching unions for "not doing enough". But they are not only ignoring their own responsibility for the crisis; they are exacerbating it.

Four reasons are cited for the current problems: poor discipline, low pay, too much work and low morale. Poor discipline is hardest to address and the unions are right to point to this. Some parents expect schools to manage youngsters whom they have failed to discipline at home. Government policy has been confusing.

Exclusion targets (now scrapped) led some head teachers to believe they had to keep troublemakers in school. Now money is being invested in "sin bins" for the unruly, and offsite units for excluded pupils. As the unions point out, this problem requires more parental responsibility as much as cash to resolve.

But the teaching unions must take their share of blame for the other three factors. They are deterring good potential recruits by exaggerating both the lowness of pay and the burden of workload - and union militants in particular are contributing to the lowering of morale.

Teachers say they are poorly paid. Yet salaries have risen a lot in the past two years. This year a newly qualified teacher can earn 20,000 in inner London, which is comparable to other graduate starting salaries.

Inner-London teachers with eight years' classroom experience can earn between 30,000 and 34,000 a year, including performance pay. Heads of English or maths in the capital's secondary schools earn up to 39,800. And top pay for head teachers of large comprehensives is now 81,800. (Pay outside the South-East is 3,000 lower.) These salaries are not a king's ransom, but they are better than the unions suggest.

When the pay increases were announced this year, the unions vied with one another to condemn them loudest, thus drowning out the true figures.

It is hardly surprising that research for the Teacher Training Agency found that most undergraduates believe that teachers' pay is 20 per cent lower than its actual level.

It is true, as Mike Tomlinson pointed out, that more must be done to retain teachers. (A quarter leave within their first three years.) Help could come from providing low-cost teacher homes and new reten tion allowances (worth up to 5,000 a year). If needs be, a special bonus for all after four years in the job could be introduced.

But then there is the perceived problem of overwork.

Teachers say they work more than 50 hours a week, including marking, preparation and administrative duties. Until recently, the unions would have had you believe that this Stakhanovite activity was undertaken 52 weeks a year. HOWEVER, a recent independent study by Price waterhouse Coopers reminded us of the lengthy holidays which teachers enjoy. (Ironically, the Government commissioned the study in response to union demands.) After visiting 50 different schools, using teachers' diaries and allowing for holiday work, the report concluded that teachers do indeed work harder in term time than other professions - but this was fully compensated for by the long holidays. In truth, teachers work no harder overall than the rest of us.

This is not to deny there is excessive recent paperwork from Government, inspectors and local authorities. But this is being eased. More worryingly, demands to "cut workload" to "let teachers teach" are often accompanied by suggestions that they set and mark less homework or abandon measures that genuinely improve standards.

The new study allows us to put claims of excess workload in perspective.

Finally, there is the question of teachers' morale and the respect with which they are held by society. The unions say their image problem has been created by politicians and inspectors identifying poor teachers and failing schools. But, if teacher morale is a direct result of their perceived public esteem, perhaps they should look closer to home.

I was with David Blunkett at the National Union of Teachers conference in Easter 1995 when he was trapped in a tiny office by mob of Trotskyist teachers.

That was perhaps the most extreme example of the way in which teachers present themselves at their annual conferences. It is reflected in the daily utterances of union leaders who condemn any proposal first and consider its merits later. This is the image the unions present of their own profession.

IRARELY heard a speech by an education minister (or even a chief inspector) in which good teachers were not praised. But we seldom hear a union leader wholeheartedly celebrate successful teachers.

Instead, the NUT regularly attacks performance-related pay, thus hiding its beneficial effect on salaries and as a reward for good teaching.

Rival unions even slated the annual Teaching Awards, which broadcast teacher achievements on national TV.

Teachers do deserve great credit for recent improvements in teaching, notably in primary schools. But more than 750 failing schools which have been restored to health would have been left to fail their pupils had their weaknesses not been identified and addressed.

The teaching unions let down their own members by distorting the truth.

They also make it much harder to recruit and retain good teachers.

Instead of turning potential recruits off teaching, might now not be a good time for the unions to join forces with the recruiters to attract more people into the profession - and to help keep those already there? That would be in the interests of all their members.

_Conor Ryan was special adviser to Education Secretary David Blunkett.

Copyright 2001
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.