TEACHER #PAYRISE - a short thread 1) It is a good thing, overall.
Teachers desperately need a payrise, and in real terms we are still behind where we were a decade ago. It's a step in the right direction and we want more of it!
2) It's a response to strength...
It's no coincidence that our biggest payrise in 15 years comes just after we organised mass resistance to the government's plans for schools.
3) ...but it's also a bribe
In September we will go back to full classrooms with totally inadequate protections in place. The government hopes that this payrise will stop us fighting back.
It won't.
4) It's must come from existing budgets...
The government has not allocated new money to pay for the payrise. Schools will have to fund it from their existing budgets. This happened in 2018 too.
5)...but school funding is up.
But unlike 2018, most school budgets are not being cut - they're increasing (albeit still below 2015 levels).
So while there is no new money specifically allocated to fund this pay rise, there is new money.
6) The rise is very uneven
New teachers will get 5.5% while experienced teachers on upper and leadership payscales will get 2.75%.
Support staff not part of this announcement at all. The last we heard, they were only getting 2%.
7) The govt's vision
Higher starting salaries but a flatter pay structure means one thing: a short-term profession. They want young people to work very long hours for a few years before quitting. They're removing the incentive for teachers to stay.
7) The govt's vision (cont)
The poor payrise for support staff suggests a style of teaching which does not need many adults in the room. This means more teacher-led activities (instead of pupil-led or group work) and less tailored support for individual children (including SEN)
Conclusion
The payrise is good and should be welcomed. It's evidence of our collective strength. But it's also a sign of threats to come - threats which we must be prepared to challenge.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I am a teacher and this is my publicly stated desire to overthrow capitalism.
Context: govt saying resources from organisations with 'extreme views' should not be used in classrooms.
They define extreme views as including "a publicly stated desire to abolish or overthrow democracy, capitalism, or to end free and fair elections" theguardian.com/education/2020…
But capitalism is not the corollary to democracy. Quite the opposite. Under capitalism only a limited form of democracy is possible. Better than before - but not enough.
True democracy permeates the economy too. So that the world's resources can be used for the benefit of all.
The government wants to scrap section 106. What does this mean and why is it bad? A thread:
Everyone involved in housing or anti-gentrification campaigns will know that the planning system is rigged in favour of big business and against communities. 1/5
If a developer gets planning permission then the value of that land rockets - even before anything is built.
Since 1947, the planning system has tried to balance this. If developers will profit from planning permission they must give something back. 2/5
Want to build a massive factory? Build a school too. Want luxury flats? We need affordable ones too.
The principle has been undermined over decades e.g. if developers can claim it's not profitable.
But Section 106 keeps a semblance of community-benefit in the system. 3/5
Lots of Labour types now trying to make sense of STV. My best advice would be to look at the local elections of Scotland and the north of Ireland - both use STV. You'll get a feel for how parties operate, how many candidates they pick etc.
With strong discipline, each party/slate's seats is proportional to its share of votes. If your voters are less disciplined you get a bit less.
Sinn Fein has the most disciplined voters (for obvious historical reasons!) Have a look at Black Mountain ward in Belfast City Council.
Count 1 is 1st preference votes. 3 got more than the quota of 1757 so were elected automatically.
Count 2 is after the 'surplus' votes from SBP transfer to a range of candidates.
Count 3 and 4: surplus votes from SF's Beattie and Corr - almost all go to other SF candidates.
As a councillor, it's easy to think you're special. The Labour Party likes to tell you that you are.
So does Momentum. Thanks to its 'Public Office Holder' section, my vote in the NCG election is worth 20x that of other members.
Seems like the wrong priorities to me.
We'd be better off trying to build Momentum into a force that can both support officeholders and hold them accountable. This means listening to their voice but not privileging it above others. Ultimately, left-wing officeholders are only as strong as the movement around them.
History is, sadly, littered with Leftwingers taking up posts, only to move to the Right.
This is rarely just corruption or opportunism. More often it's due to constant pressure from the Right, which is not balanced by accountability from the movement.
Edward Coulston was a monster and should not be commemorated. Yes, we should remember the horrors of the slave trade but not with statues of its perpetrators.
Germany is covered with memorials to the Holocaust - none are statues of concentration camp guards.
In Germany, all children learn about the Holocaust and the rise of the Nazis. In Britain, we ignore the horrors and talk about abolition but not slavery itself.
Reading the history books you'd think the British only started the slave trade so that they could then abolish it.
Coulston's statue was erected almost a century after the slave trade was abolished.
Everyone knew slavery was repugnant, they just refused to acknowledge it's how he became rich.
And we're doing the same today: refusing to recognise the horrors of our history.