President's Address Peebles 13 May 2011

Congress, Guests, Colleagues,

In March of this year, I attended a conference on CfE on behalf of the Association.   I was introduced by the chair as the representative of an organisation which had been a “critical friend” to CfE.     I’ll repeat that:   “a critical friend”.   I think that was an absolutely accurate description of our stance.   The SSTA is fundamentally in favour of CfE’s principles:   greater flexibility for teachers; a reduced dependence on assessment; an emphasis on literacy and numeracy and a sensible and effective approach to interdisciplinary learning.

On the other hand, we now have a curriculum which is NOT a curriculum. It is possessed of Experiences and Outcomes which are NOT fit for purpose. It is supported by a National Assessment Resource which, because of a total absence of summative assessment, is NOT capable of delivering a national standard for parents, pupils and teachers. It is supported by new National Qualifications which will NOT deliver National standards at National 4. And there remains considerable scepticism about the arrangements for National 5 and above, not least because we do not yet have the detail to decide. And, as if you needed reminding colleagues (but perhaps the media do) the pupils who will sit these exams are about to enter S2 and will be sitting those very same exams in three years time. As to when they will start their courses of study for these exams, who knows ”¦?

Colleagues, CfE is quite simply unfinished business for the SSTA and we will not let go until our members tell us to do so.

In my speech last year, I referred to the likely consequences of the financial crisis and the recession which it precipitated. At that point, we knew that cuts were coming but not the scale of those cuts. But it is not the scale of the cuts which is astonishing so much as the sheer hypocrisy associated with them.

David Cameron and his Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, have said that the cuts are unavoidable but will be implemented in a way that is fair. Why is it then that TUC research shows that the poorest members of our society will suffer a loss of household income of up to 30% over the next few years while the richest will suffer a loss of only 2%? The impact on women will be even greater : Lone parents and single pensioners – most of whom are women – will suffer the greatest reduction in their living standards due to public service cuts. Lone parents will lose services worth 18.5% and female singles pensioners services worth 12% of their incomes.

53% of the jobs in the public sector services that have not been protected from the cuts are held by women. The pay and conditions of all public sector workers, 65% of whom are women, are deteriorating.

But the most hypocritical aspect of these cuts is the way in which they will simply transfer public debt to private debt. Public debt may be slashed but private debt, which caused the crisis in the first place, will soar. The Office for Budget responsibility has calculated that by 2015, total household debt in the UK will reach £303 billion or £77 thousand per family.

Meanwhile, the banks which caused the crisis by spending our money like drunks on a lost weekend, have been rescued, courtesy of the tax payer. And they have returned to their old ways of rewarding themselves with fat bonuses.

RBS which is 83% tax payer owned, announced this March that it would pay out bonuses totalling £1.3 billion including a shares bonus worth up to £4.5 million – on top of his existing £2m annual bonus – to the Chief Executive Officer Steven Hester. The Coalition government did nothing.

Hypocrisy also marks the coalition government's smash and grab raid on teachers' pensions. Contributions will be increased by 50% and Scotland's teachers face the possibility of having to work until the age of 68. There is a myth that teachers have an easy job but no one who knows what modern classroom teaching is really like could seriously countenance this. And let's lay another myth to rest: our pensions are far from gold plated. The average pension is around £9 000 and the last review of our pension scheme increased our pension age to 65 and increased contributions. The Treasury signed it off then as sustainable.

But to return to my theme of hypocrisy in politics: even after last year's general election, I remember David Cameron stating that any changes to pensions would not infringe rights already accrued. On 23 June 2010, Prime Minister David Cameron told the BBC's Face the Audience programme: “The rights you have accrued so far, of course, no one is going to touch those.”

Yet recently, at the stroke of a pen, indexation of teachers' pensions was changed from the RPI to CPI. It has been calculated that this will lead to a loss to pensioners over twenty years of £20 000 or more from their pensions.

Mr Cameron, you have taken thousands from my pension and from the pensions of every other teacher in Scotland. You have attacked our accrued rights. In my book, that makes you a hypocrite or worse: a liar and a thief!

The financial consequences of the pension grab will be horrendous for younger teachers already saddled with debt from funding their way through university and post graduate education courses. The temptation to opt out will be great. A cynical person might suspect that this is the real intention of the pension thieves.

However, the further consequences for recruitment and retention of teachers are deeply worrying. When the economy finally does revive, as it will, what well qualified graduate will give a second thought to coming into the profession to fill the gaps left by the departure of older teachers such as myself? Yet the demolition government appears set on this course without even going to the trouble of undertaking an actuarial re-valuation of the teachers' superannuation scheme.

Colleagues, Jonathon Swift said ”¦ “ I never wonder to see men wicked, but I often wonder to see them not ashamed.”

I suspect that , were he alive today, Swift would be agog at a millionaires' club Cabinet which launches an unprecedented attack on living standards and especially those of the poor, adds hugely to personal debt, allows bankers almost unlimited access to a feeding trough funded by that very same personal debt and then robs teachers of their pensions while claiming to be, and I quote David Cameron again here, committed to “making teaching a noble profession again”.

Meanwhile, in Scotland, we too have had hard experience of politicians' hypocrisy. Last autumn, at the Scottish Labour Party conference, the Scottish Labour Leader, Iain Gray, said that ”¦ “Labour values and Labour people were the only bulwark against the Tories.”

And in January this year, in an article for Scotland on Sunday, Alex Salmond also used the “b” word ”¦

“Now we have a Scottish Parliament, which offers not only a bulwark against unwanted Westminster policies but also an institution which can and will take us forward to a better future.”

Why is it therefore that the SNP Scottish Government and both Labour and SNP councils have conspired to attack the living standards of Scotland's teachers and bring about a destruction of their conditions of service which will last well beyond the present economic crisis?

Some people. Some values. Some bulwark. In fact, pardon the language please, more “bullsh*t” than bulwark.

It is clear now that if education is to be defended in Scotland, then we cannot rely on politicians to do so. That must fall, as it always has done, to the teacher trade unions. Or at least to some of them.

It has been said that the revised COSLA proposals represented an improvement for supply teachers on the previous proposals. How can that be when we have calculated that some supply teacher members will lose over 40% of their income and with no adequate guarantees that employers will not simply eject them after 5 days in a school with obvious detriment to pupils' continuity of learning.

Then there is the proposal to abolish lifetime salary conservation within 5 years. It has been said that no one should expect to be paid a salary for doing nothing. The SSTA would agree with that statement. Every promoted teacher should have a remit agreed with the employer and that remit should reflect the salary paid. But some employers used the lifetime conservation arrangements, which were freely entered into under the 21st C Agreement, to persuade promoted staff to give up their remits while management structures were changed. Having now got their way, they are coming back for a second bite of the cherry. How can we trust them not to do the same with this new agreement?

Defenders of the revised offer have said that it protects teachers' jobs. There were 57 500 fte teachers in Scotland's schools when the SNP came to power. In September 2009, there were 56 800 teachers employed in Scotland. By September 2010, that figure had fallen to 54 600. The revised offer from COSLA offered the possibility, and in the SSTA's view an unlikely possibility, of 51 131 posts in September of this year.

Even allowing for a drop in pupil numbers, to describe a loss in a single year of 3 500 jobs as protecting teacher employment is to engage in double speak worthy of Orwell's wildest imaginings.

Congress, the SSTA rejected these proposals and the others because they were simply unacceptable to our members. We know because our members told us – twice.

I would never want to be part of a trade union which sought to abandon vulnerable groups of members. I am however, proud of the manner in which this Association has held fast to its trade union principles. It is a fundamental principle of trade unionism that all are equal in membership, in subscription and in benefit: “an injury to one is an injury to all”. Let others adopt Vicki Pollard policies ”¦ “No but Yes but, No but Yes but, No but Yes but ”¦” The SSTA will stand by its members.

And to that end, let me repeat what I said in my speech last year: when employers threaten our members, then we will use all legal means available to protect them and the service they deliver.

And not merely to protect our members and their living standards and conditions of service. Teachers' conditions of service are pupils' conditions of learning. Our members' union subscriptions are a down payment on a better education service for all concerned: teachers, pupils, parents and yes even employers too.

In my Congress speech last year, I stated that this Association would make common cause with any and all in the defence of teachers' salaries and conditions. And at January Council this year, this Association committed itself to cooperate fully with other teaching unions in defending Scottish education. These offers were made in earnest and they remain on the table. However, rather than take them up, leading members of another teaching union ignored these offers and voted to accept the COSLA deal. In doing so, they totally ignored the results of ballots conducted by ourselves and other teaching unions.

In fairness to them, they were consistent: they also ignored their own ballot!

Then some of them had the effrontery to accuse the SSTA of “posturing” when we refused to do the same.

Colleagues, we have come to a pretty pass when teacher trade unionists describe the defence of teachers and education as “posturing”.

Defending your members, is not “posturing”. That is simply what trade unions - real trade unions and real trade unionists do.

Colleagues, if recent events demonstrate nothing else, they demonstrate the need for unity among Scotland's teachers. A house divided against itself cannot stand. But unity of purpose and unity of values is the fundamental unity teachers need and not any monolithic and monopolistic unity of structure.

In the last 35 years, in all the struggles in which Scotland's teachers have been involved, the SSTA has united with other unions in defence of teachers' pay and conditions and in defence of our education system.

I know, I was there, as were many of you.

The names of those struggles are like battle honours on a regimental colour. Maybe we should have them added to our union banner: Houghton, Clegg, McCrone and now with submissions calling for the scrapping of working time agreements and the ending of any protection afforded by the 35 hr week, and with a committee which contains not a single classroom teacher, it looks like we may be headed that way with McCormac too.

But structures serve their purpose too and it is now clear that Scotland's teachers need and deserve a better structure to unite behind. But that structure must be firmly based on the SSTA's values of democratic principles and democratic accountability. It must also focus on the SSTA tradition of delivering advice and support to teachers directly when the teacher needs it - not when the local area office or the local secretary can find the time and certainly not when the school rep, if there is one, can summon up the necessary information.

And when necessary, the unions which are part of that structure, must be prepared to fall out with employers and not schmooze with them over issues such as delivering CPD to teachers or introducing new initiatives such as CfE.

Such a structure must be based in Scotland and must focus on the needs of Scotland's education service and Scotland's teachers. To be an adjunct of an organisation whose main focus is education in England and Wales simply will not serve.

The new structure must allow Scotland's teachers to unite to defend and advance Scotland's education system. And it should also recognise the simple fact that nursery teachers, primary teachers, secondary teachers and further education lecturers have common professional and trade union interests but often have different perspectives and traditions in terms of curriculum, teaching methodologies and even some conditions of service.

It is not beyond the wit of man or woman to create a structure which encompasses those differences while. And this is critical, sharing the most important vision of democratic trade unions which are prepared to stand up and fight for their members. Indeed, as once contentious issues such as the common maximum fade from memory and new challenges present themselves, such a structure provides a template for professional unity for all of Scotland's teachers.

Congress, I call on Scotland's teachers to support the SSTA's efforts to make our vision of unity a reality. Help us create a new structure which focuses on the values and principles I have just described.

There is real potential in such a union. Indeed, in the words of the song: there is power in such a union and commend it to you and the wider profession.

Peter Wright

President

SSTA Annual Congress 2011

[(3.2) Safety nets]

The second inference is the obverse of the risk-taking that is entailed by presenting students at the highest feasible level: the insistence on not by-passing any safety net that is on offer:

So, (interfering with the neat designs), and hence with the capacity to use assessment to encourage learning, we will have over-presentation, because students will sit the highest feasible level at which their school judges them to have even a small chance of success.

We will have under-presentation, because students will simultaneously sit lower levels than they are capable of, in search of a safety net.

And we will have over-presentation within the under-presentation, because National 4 assessment will have lower status than National 5 assessment, or than the General level of Standard Grade.

And for all these reasons, there are very serious doubts as to whether the proposed new structure of National Qualifications can do much to improve students' learning:

[(4) Literacy and Numeracy Tests]

There is a further concern, too, about the proposed new arrangements for National Qualifications, a concern about the proposed assessment of numeracy and literacy.

Here the concern is not so much with these tests themselves as with the vagueness of the Experiences and Outcomes of Curriculum for Excellence so far as all kinds of necessary technical competence are concerned.

In fact, far from being intrinsically a problem - despite the apparently widespread belief of much public criticism of them - in one important sense the tests of numeracy and literacy are welcome.

They do recognise the importance of those detailed, technical, craft-like skills which underpin valid knowledge and the valid use of knowledge.

And - despite the criticism - these proposals seem to understand that a well-designed assessment can encourage students to learn:

It is also very welcome that the tests of literacy and numeracy are now to be absorbed into the disciplines were they belong, English and mathematics, although the role of portfolios and the other non-examination-based features of them still raises many unanswered questions about the validity of the assessments.

But there is still a deeper problem.

The tests, being only two in number, tend to discourage an understanding that all disciplines require distinctive technical skills:

Let me explain this point by illustrating how the Experiences and Outcomes fail to allow appropriate importance to these crucial technical matters.

(i)

Applied projects without the technical underpinnings of the theory and of the practical context will be amateurish;

(ii)

Ethical debates without clear and specific criteria of objectivity and evidence will be impossible to assess reliably;

for example, at level 4 of ‘People, Society and Business', one outcome is

(iii)

Aims that, (with the best of intentions), seek to get beyond the merely routine will skate over the surface unless the contributing expertise has been properly grounded;

for example, in Drama we are told that learners will ‘have rich opportunities to be creative and to experience inspiration and enjoyment'.

How do we assess learners' experiences in any objective way?

If someone tells us that they have been inspired and have enjoyed themselves, isn't that just the end of the story, regardless of what anyone else might judge?

Isn't what is lacking here some objective criteria of performance and of aesthetic quality?

Why is this outcome identical for drama, dance, music and art and design? Doesn't that raise the suspicion that the thinking has not been precise enough?

Most worthwhile learning has something analogous to the skills of literacy and numeracy, and although these two might be the most fundamental, those others need attention through assessment as well.

The Experience and Outcomes pay inadequate attention to such skills, even in relation to literacy and numeracy:

So, although the proposed assessment of literacy and numeracy is welcome for motivation because it does direct attention to technical details, it is from being enough in the wider context of Curriculum for Excellence's vagueness on technical skills in general.

(6) Disciplines

I suggested earlier that there are two important principles which assessment has to meet if it is to encourage motivation and self-belief in an educationally worthwhile way:

Indeed, the points just made about necessary technical skills are a preliminary to this.

By forcing students to pay attention to what is specific to each discipline, studying, practising and mastering technical details are the necessary first steps to grasping disciplinary coherence.

Of course, much controversy has been generated by the place of the subject disciplines in Curriculum for Excellence, and when it has been claimed that it does not respect their integrity and importance, this has been strenuously denied by those in charge of the reform and by the advocates of the reform.

I don't intend to return to this controversy today, but I would ask questions about the relationship between assessment and the disciplines.

(6.1) Assessment and the structure of disciplinary knowledge

The first point is that meaningful assessment presupposes some structure of disciplinary knowledge:

Take some examples:

(i)

Why do we test students on their knowledge of quadratic equations?

(ii)

Why do we ask students to prepare a folio of reading and writing about their reading?

(iii)

Why do we ask students to develop some understanding of the facts of the natural world and of the theories that link these facts together?

These are the senses in which assessment presupposes a structure of disciplinary knowledge.

They are why a syllabus is required for any meaningful assessment that is able to lead onto anything further:

Curriculum for Excellence's broad topic areas are not subjects but groups of subjects, and (even with these) it repeatedly says far more about cross-curricular themes than about specialist enquiry.

So I cannot see how its principles can be used to define a worthwhile system of assessment.

[(6.2) Comparison]

This necessary embedding of valid assessment in the progressive structure of disciplines has a further implication that is counter not only to the apparent philosophy of Curriculum for Excellence but also to the whole tenor of pedagogical principles that have come to dominate in recent decades.

This is that comparison and absolute standards of excellence, (far from being invidious), are inseparable from sound learning.

The comparison that is most obvious perhaps is with a body of knowledge that the learner might acquire but hasn't, or hasn't yet.

There are real standards of accomplishment because there are real entities called subjects or disciplines, and one of the main purposes of assessment is to tell the learner how far he or she is towards reaching these standards.

In telling someone how far they are towards these absolute goals, we are of course also telling them how far they fall short:

For most people for most of the time, assessment is bound to mean relative failure, in the sense that there is, for most of us for all the time, far more that we don't know about a subject such as French or mathematics or science or literature than that we do.

That comparison with absolute standards might be controversial enough in our relativistic and post-modern age.

But it also points towards an even more unfashionable conclusion:

If we set an assessment criterion in a way that is sensible, not only must it not be too easy;

Inevitably, therefore, those who are less than the best will be forced by assessment to compare what they have achieved with the accomplishments of the best.

Only if we adopt a philosophy in which anything goes, or in which everyone's view is equally valid, (including their view of what counts as success), can we avoid this comparing of students:

Yet comparing students is seemingly one of the most heinous sins of fashionable pedagogy.

And that is daft for another reason too:

research suggests that comparing our performance to others' is indeed deeply encouraging of achievement:

7. Conclusions

So if assessment is to promote students' motivation and their belief in their capacity to succeed at the levels of which they are capable, then it has to be properly challenging and it has to be authentic, and in both these respects it has to be grounded in the details of disciplinary distinctiveness.

Curriculum for Excellence evades the central point about assessment, which is that it tests expertise and therefore has to measure failure as well as success:

That is what the point of learning is:

Whatever the potential may be of the new Curriculum, the actual proposals for assessment

And without valid assessment, can Curriculum for Excellence really be said to be feasible at all?  

1 Lecture given by Lindsay Paterson (Edinburgh University) to the annual conference of the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association, 7 May 2010, Peebles. For sources of research relevant to the lecture, please contact him at lindsay.paterson@ed.a.uk.

President's Address

It's been thirteen years since an SSTA Congress coincided with a UK General election.

The result then was rather different from the one we face today of course. But, whatever judgement History finally makes on the events of the last thirteen years, there are one or two lessons for us as trade unionists and of course not a few consequences also.

For obvious political reasons, none of the party leaders have been totally frank about how our huge public debt may be paid back or the consequences for taxation and funding the public services.

However, for a worst case scenario we need only look at our teacher colleagues in the republic of Ireland...

Our teacher trade union colleagues in the Irish Republic tell us that Irish teachers have now suffered a 19% reduction in salaries over the last year. That includes cuts in salary and increases in pension contributions.

In addition, there has been a quite disgraceful and sustained campaign of vilification and demonising of the public sector and public sector workers by elements of the Irish media.

Things may not get that bad in the UK but it is safe to say that the Public services will be under pressure as never before. Teachers' salaries and pensions may well come under attack here also.

For the avoidance of any doubt let me say this now: this Association may have its differences with other trade unions about particular issues but when the fundamental interest of secondary teachers is at stake and when our members give us a democratic mandate to do so, we will defend those interests and in their defence we will make common cause with any other trade union. We cannot and will not accept a cull of public education to pay for private sector stupidity and greed.

I said earlier that I would return to the theme of trade union democracy. As the events of last year demonstrated, the membership of this Association chooses our most senior salaried official. However, we cannot rest on our laurels. We need to find ways of further enhancing member engagement in the Association. I am confident that the new recruitment and engagement committee chaired by James Forbes will do just that.

We now have a new General Secretary with a strong democratic mandate to implement change in the operational culture of this Association.

We are rightly proud of the service delivered by our administrative staff and Professional Officers at HQ. When I am at HQ, I work at a PC in the general office and I hear our office staff's response to every telephone call that comes in. They do so with unfailing promptness and courtesy and they go out of their way to ensure that the member is given every satisfaction. I know that emails receive exactly the same degree of care. Our office staff deliver a truly personal service and I thank them now on your behalf.

I have also discussed members' cases with all of our Professional Officers and I know how effective their intervention and support can be for secondary teachers who need trade union help. They too deserve our thanks.

Teachers who are not members of this association would be astonished at the level of service and care offered by the SSTA. We need to be more forthright in telling them about those values of service and care.

However, a side effect of all this is that this Association has perhaps allowed itself to become rather inward looking and that our members have perhaps become more reliant on the centre than is desirable?

The challenge which the new General Secretary, the Headquarters team, Council, Executive and Congress must rise to is to preserve the old strengths of the SSTA and at the same time develop new strengths by responding to the requirements of members for support and expertise when and where the members need it most whether at school level, at District level or by contacting SSTA Headquarters.

In addition, there is the constant challenge of doing so while at the same time ensuring the best possible value for the subscriptions which our members pay us in return for the services we deliver.

Some initial progress has been made in the right direction:

The SSTA website has been joined by a Facebook page for our new to teaching group. Some members of the N2T group are with us today at my invitation.

All members have received frequent newsletters, either to schools, via school representatives or, in the case of around 900 members, to home addresses.

In finance, our new General Secretary has devolved budget heads to HQ staff with a mandate to deliver best value.

The Association's Finance committee has also exercised stringent control over the Association's spending such that it has been possible to freeze subs this year.

It is early days but the direction taken and our destination, is in clear focus: this Association is run for and by its members and it is their money which funds every penny we spend. This Association will never forget that simple fact nor will we forget that our priorities are set by the needs of the membership: classroom teachers trying to deliver high quality education in contexts which all too often conspire to frustrate their efforts.

In that respect, the SSTA is now returning to what we have always done best and which once caused a journalist to describe us as "Scotland's most combative teaching union". We will work cooperatively with good employers and managers but those who fail to support their secondary teachers will find the SSTA knocking on their door. Those employers who treat their teachers as commodities, to be discarded when considered inconvenient, should take note.

As I suggested earlier, democratic accountability is at the very heart of the Association's values and that fundamental value continues to inspire our actions in every sphere.

For example, the GTCS is a vitally important national arena in which members of the SSTA have attempted to push forward our principles. SSTA members who have served on the Council know that they are accountable to the secondary teachers who elected them.

Thus, the issue of independence for the GTCS must mean a genuine independence from all external influences while remaining accountable to the teaching profession and, of course, still mindful of the wider public interest.

There is however, an unfortunate tendency on the part of some who are elected to serve on the GTCS to forget this.

This was never more strikingly illustrated than in the current Scottish Government proposals to give the GTCS the power to re-accredit Scotland's teachers.

One might have imagined that teachers, elected by their fellow teachers, would have greeted this proposal with a degree of circumspection. However, the convener of the council has welcomed these proposals ...

'In welcoming today's Government statement, Council Convener, David Drever, concluded:

"We feel that the proposed changes can only enhance the work that we already do and open new areas for the GTC Scotland to explore."

However, at least the Convener was elected by teachers.

The Chief Executive of the Council is an appointed official whose not insignificant salary is paid by teachers and teachers alone. What democratic mandate does he have for stating as he did in the GTCS magazine ...

"We will look carefully at promoting collegiate leadership in schools..."

and

"We will consider the implications of CfE for registration categories."

As a former member of the Council, it pains me to say this but teachers are now beginning to perceive the GTCS as little more than an employers' stooge which does absolutely nothing for classroom teachers other than lift £45 out of their pockets once a year. No wonder the turn out in the recent election was only 16.54%, a drop of nearly 6% on the previous election.

And no wonder also that Cathie Nicol, supported by the SSTA came top of the poll last year. She actually said she would try to do something for classroom teachers if she was elected! And more power to your elbow Cathie!

But the most significant illustration of the continuing importance of the SSTA and our values is in the development of Curriculum for Excellence.

When SSTA officials met with the new Cabinet Secretary on January 6th of this year, he conceded a fundamental truth that secondary teachers have a different perspective on the curriculum.

Certainly, both exist in order to deliver a broad general education to our young people. The secondary sector is thus reliant on the efforts of our primary colleagues and I would add has therefore no interest in diminishing those efforts in any way. Rather the reverse holds true.

However only secondary teachers add the vital knowledge and understanding and skills which can only be delivered by subject specialism and only secondary teachers prepare those young people for national qualifications leading to employment and further and higher education and the world beyond.

This explains why, from day one and to this day, the SSTA has responded to the concerns of secondary teachers and sought to hold to account and scrutinise the various proposals associated with the Curriculum for Excellence. Regrettably, other organisations have tended to ignore or minimise those concerns.

For example, at the February meeting of the Management Board for CfE, following motions passed at SSTA Congress last year and December Council, I tried to persuade the Board that pupils sitting subjects at level 4 no less than those at level 5, deserved the respect and additional re-assurance of quality provided by an external assessment set by the SQA. The representative of another teaching union argued against this.

In the past year I have visited many secondary schools in Scotland and I have yet to meet a single secondary teacher who considered this proposal to be sound in terms in terms of the negative message it may give to children in that crucial middle group of ability, far less in its potential impact on secondary teacher workload.

The SSTA's serious concerns about CfE has led to not one but two surveys of teacher opinion. One by the SSTA and the Scottish Government. This was offered to us by the Cabinet Secretary at our meeting on January 6th. After that survey was announced, the CfE Management Board decided that teachers should be consulted directly about CfE. What an amazing coincidence.

Let's be clear about this: without the SSTA, teachers would never have been consulted at all.

We asked our members if they required additional resources to implement CfE. 88% said that they did.

We asked our members where the main problem lay and 90% told us that it lay in the lack of assessment materials.

We asked our members whether they had been adequately consulted on timetabling and curriculum models for CfE. 71% of the survey told us they had not.

67% of the respondents told us that their schools' curriculum model either enjoyed nil support from them or only a small amount of support.

73% agreed that communications from local authority, LTS, SQA etc had been neither effective nor supportive.

One in particular summed up the fears and frustrations of secondary teachers ...

"It seems the tail can wag the dog. Secondary education does not work that way. To mix metaphors, I'd like to keep the baby in the bath water but know what washing and drying equipment is to be used and what clothes have to be prepared to dress the baby."

Other organisations have asked for a year's delay on the grounds that secondary teachers need more time and more support and that is certainly true.

But is is equally true that the issues go beyond this.

We know why secondary teachers are not fully behind CfE.

It's because much of it is mince!

The position I took that day was based on a categorical statement by the Cabinet Secretary that he was "absolutely committed to solve the problems" and it was conditional on SSTA members' concerns being addressed. It was not, in even the remotest sense, an endorsement of the fully rolled out CfE programme. I stated that a delay in the examinations was not necessary "at that stage."

I granted, if you like, a stay of execution only.

I also believed that there was the potential, in the days that followed for the Cabinet Secretary to talk to us in an effort to address the issues highlighted by our members. And not only by SSTA members. The HMI report which was presented to the meeting is now in the public domain and, coming from the Minister's own advisers, might be considered even more damning.

However, Mike Russell's subsequent press release and some of the content of media interviews he gave that day, showed not even a hint of the very serious issues facing secondary teachers before they can implement the full programme of CfE.

The decision taken unanimously by Executive the next day was the right decision. It reinforced the point that this Association's profound objections to some aspects of CfE did not change, has not changed and will not change.

CfE is, in a number of ways, a deeply flawed programme which is not yet fit to be rolled out fully in secondary schools. But our members have told us what the problems are and we have suggestions about how they might be addressed.

The SSTA did not create the mess that is Curriculum for Excellence but as a teachers' organisation which believes in collegiality, we are ready to be part of the solution.

I now call on the Cabinet Secretary for Education to remember his democratic accountabilities.

I call on him to accept that secondary teachers have legitimate, deep and enduring concerns. I call on him to accept that those concerns cannot be sidestepped nor can they be addressed by sound bites and media spin.

The SSTA's message to Mike Russell is: talk to us in an honest attempt to resolve the issues our members have identified. Our members, but more importantly our pupils and their parents deserve no less. The alternative to this is to abandon CfE altogether in secondary schools. The consequences of that would be serious but by no means unthinkable.

In other words, with regard to Curriculum for Excellence, the message from the SSTA is ...

"Mr Russell: fix it or ditch it."

This newsletter contains an overview of events at the Assoications annual Congress held in Peebles on 15/16 May 2009.   The full text of the motions passed at Congress can be seen in the May 2009 Bulletin.

President's Address

Peebles

15 May 2009

Congress, Guests, Colleagues,

Congress may recall that last year the part of my speech reported in the press was the section on bullying. I discussed the effect bullying had on staff and the need for all of us to stand up to bullies and support victims. Although I was prepared for the response in the press, particularly from those who have a vested interest in denying that such problems could every exist, I was not, indeed could not have been, prepared for the response from teachers across Scotland. Letters arrived from teachers in every sector (and their families) recounting tales of dreadful bullying, of weekends and holidays spent steeling themselves to return to work and of the despair felt when the only option open was to resign and look for a job outwith the profession. Far too many have retired early, exhausted by the workload, made ill by the stress and, in some cases, unable to function due to fear.

As I read these letters and emails a common theme began to emerge. Every letter described being forced to accept additional tasks, or rather, being afraid to refuse. Working weeks of 50 or 60 hours became the norm and weekends were spent catching up on admin tasks or marking. I'll leave you to imagine the effect of the additional strain on their family relationships. As a result, this last year I have paid particular attention to the amount of hours being worked by teachers and once again this trend has begun to emerge. Increasingly, teachers are working beyond 60 hours every week despite the contract, and the salary, stipulating a 35 hour working week, simply to complete the tasks they are assigned and to ensure that their pupils receive the best possible learning experience.

Additionally, some teachers participate in sporting or fun events because they enjoy the contact with colleagues and pupils, because they believe that being seen as a real person helps them encourage young people to learn. The benefit to pupils and to teachers on these occasions is enormous.

Not all teachers, however, participate willingly! Far too many report being informed that participation in extra-curricular activities or Easter revision classes is essential if they want promotion, or that competent teachers have no problems participating in out of hours events. The insinuation here is too obvious to mention! No matter how exhausted they are, these teachers believe they have no choice Others report that they participate solely to support colleagues who "have to offer revision classes every day because parents are demanding extra support and the head teacher says I have to improve departmental statistics." Is it any wonder that teachers are exhausted and at the end of their tether?

At the SNCT event last spring we were informed that a classroom teacher's job simply cannot be completed in 35 hours. Everyone in Education knows, apparently, that it takes about 45 hours to complete an average teacher's tasks. Every teacher in Scotland subsidises the education budget to the tune of 400 unpaid hours every year. Is anyone surprised that so many teachers approaching the end of their careers are exhausted and desperate to retire? That stress related illness is on the increase? Or that, faced with a new initiative, we respond by wondering how many extra hours will be squeezed out of us this time?

This year schools are being asked to begin the process of preparing for a change to the way pupils are taught. There are aspects to Curriculum for Excellence which teachers welcome. In particular, changing the curriculum to improve the learning experience of young people is welcomed by all teachers. Every one of us has experience of a topic which captures the interest of our pupils and which we'd love to spend more time on, but which we have to set aside after a few minutes because of time constraints resulting from a crowded curriculum and the needs of exam prep. The opportunity to collaborate with colleagues on meaningful projects which enhance understanding is particularly welcome if it fulfils the criteria, in other words if it is meaningful and it does enhance understanding. Cross curricular projects on the �tick box system' will do neither!

To be of any educational value, learning, and teaching, has to be planned, prepared by a specialist, a teacher who understands the needs of pupils and staff, who uses appropriate material and who has a commitment to the subject being taught. Had we been furnished with a list of teachers involved in the preparation of Curriculum for Excellence we'd have been much more confident about its appropriateness. As it stands we have outcomes and experiences which are little improvement on those we criticised previously, a lost opportunity to build on the expertise readily available in Scottish schools and, of course, the Unintended Consequences of the exam reform. Those unintended consequences include causing a contraction in the breadth of Scottish education so admired by colleagues worldwide, a reduction in opportunity within post 16 education and possibly the removal of the external verification which gives Scottish qualifications their deserved reputation for consistent quality. It quite simply beggars belief that any group charged with the task of reforming the structure of Scottish qualifications did not fully consider the implications of the changes they were recommending.

If the 3 year phase of general education does go ahead as planned, and pupil choice is reduced to 5 subjects in S4, this will limit pupil choice at S5 & 6. Only the brightest pupils will be able to cope with a Higher in a subject they haven't studied since S1 or S2. Whether unintended or not, this will seriously damage the potential achievement of less able pupils, exactly those young people who would be adversely affected by a move away from external assessment at S4. Another unintended consequence will be a reduction in their motivation and engagement with learning.

Internally assessed qualifications, no matter how rigorously applied, simply do not have the reputation or the guarantee of quality common to all Scottish externally assessed and marked qualifications. Leaving aside the obvious question of what is to be removed from the working time agreement to allow time for these internal assessments, we must have guarantees of national standards rigorously applied to ensure that no teacher faces pressure to massage the results from either a pushy parent on the school board, from a head teacher under pressure from HMIe, or from a misguided local authority concerned solely with league tables.

Is it any wonder teachers have little confidence in those charged with guiding the future of their profession?

Let me suggest a few solutions to our current quandary, lest anyone out there fear that teaching unions have no interest in solutions.

Invite teachers to get involved in educational developments. Second the best teachers (nominated by their colleagues) to write outcomes and experiences and develop new exam structures. Use young teachers to cover their classes for the period of the secondment, giving these newly qualified teachers some much needed employment and some experience to take with them to the next job. This would have the additional benefit of saving money, teachers' salaries being much smaller than those of �experts'.

By all means continue to train new teachers but, after their probation year, try a novel approach to the problem of too many teachers and not enough jobs. Employ them to work in their chosen profession instead of paying them jobseekers' allowance. Use their training and growing expertise to enhance the education of the next generation of Scots, to reduce the number of hours our ageing profession has to work (down to somewhere near the hours we're paid to work will do nicely) and allow them to gain the experience so vital to the continued success of Scottish education, to our young people and to our future.

This would have the added benefit of enabling older, experienced teachers to continue working for longer, passing on their skills to a new generation. It would enhance learning and teaching in the classroom and encourage people to get involved in extra curricular activities, not because they're forced to but because they want to enhance the learning opportunities of their pupils.

Easter schools, if they're necessary at all, could be staffed by young unemployed teachers. A new approach to a topic might be just what a pupil needs to make sense of it. Properly organised, with the temporary teacher in school for a few days to liaise with the class teacher, this could be beneficial to everyone involved.

All of these solutions require extra funding, a resource in very short supply this year, and even shorter next. There is, however, a radical solution which requires no additional funding, would be universally welcomed by teachers and has the benefit of being very simple. Teachers spend at least 20% of their working time dealing with administration, largely �annex E' tasks theoretically removed from our remit in the McCrone agreement. We are quality improved, professionally reviewed and developed, required to grade pupil potential achievement, given multiple forms to complete and required to replicate all of this administration at regular intervals throughout the year. In addition, there are regular reviews of initiatives and CPD opportunities before we can begin to tackle the �day job' of teaching pupils and marking their work. A government initiative which rigorously examined all of this paper work, decided what was actually useful and essential and removed all duplication and unnecessary form filling would save money, reduce our workload and earn the respect of the whole profession.

Additional savings could be made by asking teachers what needs reviewed and what works well. The GTCS is a professional regulatory body with a reputation envied across Europe, which works exceptionally well. The current system of a council, comprising elected and nominated members, regulates the profession fairly and honestly. The current proposals will, if implemented, replace this body with a nominated management board the members of which will be subject to allegations of cronyism or, at the very least, lack of impartiality. Why are we wasting money attempting to restructure it into an organisation which will be less representative, less effective and less democratic? For once the answer is not additional funding! Scottish teachers wholly fund the Council and, under the new proposals will continue to do so. Is it too much to expect that we who pay the piper should call the tune?

If you're listening to this and thinking that teachers do nothing but complain, let me ask you a question. If your child needed some extra revision, essential for their chosen career, was a reluctant learner in need of support or was planning a potentially life enhancing trip somewhere, would you prefer them to be with an enthusiastic, experienced practitioner who had volunteered or with an exhausted conscript? I know which I'd choose for my child!

Congress, Guests

President, Colleagues, those of you who were assiduously watching the pictures you have just seen, will have faced a test of recognition. In the bye going, you will also have faced a test of gender and race awareness, but I'm sure you passed that with flying colours.

However, recognition is a much more complex task than one would imagine. For 30 years, the UK and USA failed to recognise "Red China" as they called it. It was clearly the most populous nation on earth with close to one billion inhabitants at that time, and it formed a huge land wedge between the Soviet Union, India and South East Asia, but still we couldn't recognise it. Or more precisely, we denied it recognition. It was rather like some Jane Austen classic where two strangers cannot introduce themselves and need to wait for a mutual acquaintance to "name" them, before falling madly in love.

50 years later, we recognise China, not least every time we use any electrical apparatus or tool.

Evidently, then, we can fail to recognise that which is as obvious as can be, either because of our short sightedness, or our refusal to recognise that which we see.

As a nation, we in Scotland have a very mixed record on recognition. Historically, we adhered to a fairly strict code of recognition of the kind which could embrace a Christmas Day truce and football match between two sets of armies hell bent on the other 364 days, on annihilating each other.

My grandmother used to tell me of her father's funeral on the South side of Glasgow in the 1930s. It was held on a Saturday at 3pm, on the day of the Scottish Cup Final at Hampden, and the cortege had to pass through Mount Florida on route to the cemetery.

She told me that on the crowded streets as the funeral cortege passed, every bunnet was in a hand, and not one on a head. The milling crowds had no idea who my great grandfather was, but the code of recognition said "hats off", and for that brief interlude in a raw, competitive Cup Final day, respect was paid to the unknown occupant of the hearse. I am not so sure of what the reception would be in similar circumstances today, but a re-routing or re-timing might well be called for.

A tale of two Johns. I am privileged to have been a member of the same 237th Glasgow Boys' Brigade Company as, not only Alan Rough and Kenny Calman, but also John Hannah. While you may well have heard of big Alan and Sir Kenneth, you are less likely to have heard of John Hannah.

Educated, as was I, at Bankhead Primary and Victoria Drive Secondary, John Hannah was a Sergeant in the RAF when, in 1940, his Hampden bomber was severely damaged over Antwerp. Hannah could have bailed out, but instead chose to try to save the remaining crew and aircraft by tackling the blaze on board, with extinguishers, the log books, and finally his hands, as well as throwing the ammunition overboard, and then helping navigate the plane home to base.

For valour, John Hannah was awarded the Victoria Cross by King George on 10 October 1940.

Quite rightly, John Hannah was seen as a hero in my part of the world, but in keeping with the times and mores, his heroism is relatively little known. All I knew of him was a single photograph on the wall in Victoria Drive, with the simple legend "Sgt John Hannah, VC".

On 30th June 2007, another John from the West of Scotland was working as a baggage handler at Glasgow Airport, when a terrorist attack took place. You will all be fully aware of those events, and will know that John Smeaton helped the authorities in tackling the situation. John Smeaton was awarded the Queen's Gallantry Medal which was presented to him by Queen Elizabeth on the 4th March 2008.

We could argue for ever about the two men, but what is most striking is that in our modern age, John Smeaton has received immense and intense media coverage, and is now a celebrity on the world stage. Equally, he has been vilified and has had his participation called into question. These are the twin signs of our times - an overzealous approach to fame, and a ready willingness to attack and destroy reputation, and neither is a healthy sign for society.

Whatever else we can be sure of, John Smeaton did not set out for work with the intention of manhandling terrorists, just suitcases. He did what he did, would say that he would do the same again in the same circumstances, and accepted the commendations which followed. What we have done is to impose the cult of celebrity on him instead of the badge of honour, and therein lies the current Scottish dilemma.

How do we recognise and celebrate success and achievement, whilst doing so in accord with our long held Scottish traditions? I give you two examples.

Some years ago, I was contacted by a reputable media organisation to be informed that I had been selected as one of the 300 most significant figures in Scotland. I was staggered, and felt vaguely elated, until I heard that the sponsoring organisation was......Scottish Slimmers. No seriously, it was Kirsty Wark! They wanted me to provide CV details with a view to being further selected to be in the 100 most significant people in Scotland. I laughed uncontrollably, and then put the phone down. Imagine the annual chart - down 3 places, up 10 - relegation scrap for 99th place with Daniel Cousin or Neil Lennon. What a ridiculous notion - that you can rank people in order of importance or influence. If people have influence, they should just get on and use it, not be celebrated for it. That is, and should remain, the Scottish way.

The second example is in the Teaching Awards Ceremonies and their ilk, and this finds us on the horns of a real dilemma.

I believe it is invidious to suggest that one can isolate a single teacher and deem them the "best teacher in Scotland". It simply does not stand up to scrutiny as a relevant concept, is totally subjective and based on the reality TV genre. Such "contests" should play no part in celebrating success in Scottish education. And yet celebrate success we must. We have one of the best education systems in the world - the OECD has just confirmed this. We have some of the most talented and gifted young people in the world being taught by some of the most gifted teachers in the world. Our international reputation is huge and the respect for and recognition of our systems, our curriculum and our assessment is global.

So how, then, do we deal with recognition of this outstanding achievement in a typically Scottish way. In this dilemma we have the seeds of a solution. We have the opportunity to be innovative and world leading once again. What we require to do is to look at ways in which the totality of achievement can be celebrated, not by examination data or a tacky talent show, but by the holistic achievements of our young people. We need to showcase the talent which is there, without subscribing to the cult of idolising the individual.

I call, therefore, on the Scottish Government, to set up a group to look at the best ways of making this happen. The group should look at what happens in other relatively similar cultures to ours, at previous "showcasing" carried out in partnerships between stakeholders including ADES, the CBI and parent groups, and at devising radical new ways of identifying and celebrating success within our system in all its guises.

Such an initiative would not be easy to carry out, but if we are to promulgate recognition in the Scottish way, then it is not only necessary but essential that we do this. For a country which has lived for generations on its wit and inventiveness, it ill behoves us to simply ape transatlantic culture. Surely, we can do better than this? If we do not, then we will have failed to bring that element of genius, for which our nation is rightly famed, to bear on the creation of a meaningful and effective presentation of the success of our education system.

In conclusion, let me tell you of the wonderful incident which I experienced last year. I entered a small rural tearoom, to see seated in front of me my old secondary school Head Teacher, James Imrie (JT behind his back!) with his wife and family. I approached the group and introduced myself as a former school captain, male lead in school operas and librarian. JT boldly informed me that he was now 99 and would celebrate his 100th birthday in a few weeks. He waxed typical about the good old days in Victoria Drive and the many weel kent characters therein. And then he fixed his bright blue eyes on me, and said (and I will never ever forget his words) "So who are you, then?" Sic transit gloria mundi as a recognitionist might say.

President, colleagues, I present my report

Congress, Guests, Colleagues,

You may have noticed an increasing emphasis on rights this year. People would seem to have an absolute right to do whatever they wish and be fully protected from the results of their actions. You may even have shared my wry smile over the gambling addict who tried claiming damages from the bookmaker he donated his money to.

Scottish society has apparently changed. We no longer have a community whose ethics are based on the canny reticence and hard work of the past but on a vision of the world where our rights are somehow suspended from any notion of personal responsibility. Someone else is to blame and is therefore responsible for taking any action necessary to protect us.

A colleague recently told the tale of a S1 pupil who was asked where his textbook was. His response, "I've left it at home and it's your fault", left her wondering if she'd missed the amendment to her contract stipulating her duty to remind her pupils to get up, wash and collect their books every morning before school! However the situation was immediately clarified by the charming child who then stated, "You shouldn't have made me take it home and forget it".

What does this mean for teachers in Scottish Schools? Well we'll have to get up very early if we have to contact every pupil before they leave home to remind them about books, jotters and homework! We'll also spend an increasing amount of time dealing with disruption caused by pupils who, when asked to undertake a task, or punishment or detention respond loudly with, "You can't make me, I have rights". How many of us I wonder have retorted to that with, "So have I and I'm exercising them now!"

An increasing amount of time is taken up in schools dealing with pupils who have rights and with their parents who demand action against teachers depriving their little angel of his or her rights. At the same time, some Local Authorities are giving in to the ‘I have rights' argument and instructing schools not to confront the problem but to appease complaining parents.

Vociferous exponents of this lifestyle usually base their claims on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN in Dec 1948, then by the EU in 1950. What a pity they didn't read it through to the end! The 30th article of the Universal Declaration (and 17th of the European Convention) states quite simply that no State, group or person has the right to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. In other words you cannot exercise your rights by depriving me of mine.

Maybe then they would have realised what we all know, that with rights come responsibilities. In fact, without responsibility, rights become meaningless, since there is then no someone else to be responsible and protect you or safeguard your rights.

By now you're probably wondering what on earth you've done to deserve the lecture on rights and responsibilities. There is a purpose to this but it most definitely is not to suggest that teachers have sole responsibility for the education of young people about either rights or responsibility. Certainly as educators we should reinforce this message but the prime responsibility lies with parents, and with wider society. Parents have a duty to provide their children with a moral code, of which this is only one small part, and society has a responsibility to provide examples of good behaviour to our children.

We, of course, are also part of society, a devalued and under-respected part, but still a part. We too have a responsibility to provide the good examples our children need. Maybe we could start by refusing to accept treatment which devalues us and our contribution to society. We are not, I repeat, not to blame for every ill which befalls our community but how often do we say that? Or do we just accept that society blames us and move on?

During this last year I've had the opportunity to meet teachers from many different countries and, time and again, have been struck by their differing perception of their status in society. Many of these teachers work in difficult situations with few, if any resources, but they are respected and valued members of their communities, although not all of them are valued by their governments. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could regain that support in Scotland and be confident of our position as valued members of our community?

We are already responsible members of society. We obey the law, pay our taxes and behave in an appropriate manner. We work hard and the job we do is arguably the most important in the country since every aspect of our future depends on education. Where will our future doctors, lecturers, nurses, vets, solicitors, train drivers and even government ministers come from if children are not taught to read, write, count, think and question?

But..........and there is always a but.....................! How many of us would act to remedy a problem or would we leave it for that other person, ‘the someone' who should do something? Even when we believe it's important, when a colleague depends on our support, do we sometimes take the easy way out and ‘see no evil.' How many of us are aware of a case against a bully which has collapsed because colleagues who could support the victim are unwilling, or perhaps unable, to raise their heads above the parapet? One of the privileges of being President is being able to work closely with our excellent officials and become increasingly involved in discussion about the problems faced by teachers in Scottish schools, far too many of whom are bullied. Some schools have a management system based entirely on bullying and, should a member of staff be daft enough to question a decision made, have no hesitation in crushing that teacher beneath the collective boot. Since bullies tend to be appointed by bullies, there is frequently little to be gained by approaching the local authority and the only possible remedy is legal action. In a school operating this style of management a victim has to be extremely brave and very well supported, to contemplate such action.

As individuals we may be vulnerable but as a group we have a very loud voice which demands to be heard. We have rights, the right to work unhindered by violence, or the threat of violence; to a workplace free from bullying and harassment; and to the protection of the employment rights we have long campaigned for. In demanding these rights we have to also accept our responsibilities; the responsibility to protect more vulnerable colleagues, to object to situations which are clearly detrimental to ourselves, colleagues and pupils; and above all to insist that, as the voice of experienced professionals, we have the right to be not only heard but actively listened to, and our advice acted on.

Despite our long summer holidays, teachers work more hours every year than most other employees. Can anyone explain to me why, when we have an agreed 35 hour working week, we are still working in excess of 45 hours every week? I asked this question at a recent SNCT event and was informed that "Changing it would cost too much. We would need max class sizes of 15 and increased non-contact time to have any hope of completing our work in the agreed 35 hrs." This would simply be too expensive because of the number of additional teachers that would be needed.

At the SNCT event I listened in disbelief as a national TU official informed the group that the 45 hour working week is not only the norm but essential if teachers are to have any hope of completing their assigned tasks. Clearly the concept of a life-work balance and the risks to health from overwork simply do not apply to teachers. The resulting decrease in quality teaching and learning are, apparently, an unavoidable result and a handy weapon for forcing yet more hours of work from us. What concerned me most was the calm acceptance by others in the group that this situation is unavoidable.

Newly qualified teachers, finishing their probationary year, find it almost impossible to find full-time employment in central Scotland, although I do appreciate the situation is better in other areas. (Or should that be worse, when the shortage of staff results in an even longer working week for teachers?)

Even someone with my vague grasp of economic policy can see the paradox here. We have an aging profession with a huge percentage of retirements imminent, qualified teachers moving into other professions because they can't find work as teachers, and those in work collapsing with exhaustion and stress. Is it just possible that, with a little bit of creative thinking, we could solve this problem? Finding posts for young teachers and, co-incidentally, giving them reason to remain in the profession, would help reduce the working hours of all teachers to the contractual 35. This would avoid teacher ill-health due to exhaustion and thus retain the experienced teachers our schools need if they really are going to be Excellent in the 21st Century. This can only improve the quality of education for our young people and may even have the additional effect of filling our schools with smiley, happy pupils and staff.

Edmund Burke claimed that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for all good men to do nothing. Teachers are very bad at doing nothing and together we can start the process of changing Scottish society.

Ann Ballinger President

16 May 2008

The Association's Annual Congress was held on the 16 & 17 May at the Peeble Hotel Hydo. The President's Address and the General Secretary's Report are now available for your information

Shortly after his birth, someone said to me "You have now seen the face of the future", and these words remained uppermost in my mind as I finalised what I would say to you today. In essence, this is what we are all about - we help to secure the future for all the Isaacs and Kates of today and tomorrow. We are the guardians and guarantors of the future that they will achieve, a future far beyond our capacity or imagination. But until those faces of the future are the teachers of the future, the responsibility lies in our hands to make their future as positive and productive as we possibly can. This has been the year of the retrospective so beloved of the arts community. Our retrospective in 2007 has been on the work of Gavin McCrone, or to be more accurate the McCrone School of Artists, of whom very few remain active in their field. The two major exhibitions have been held in the galleries of Audit Scotland and HMIE in Livingston with a follow up in the Holyrood galleries and debating chamber, all featuring the post McCrone impressionists. What we have learned from the retrospectives is this - "if we had been there, then we would have done things differently". Well, there are only two things wrong with this hindsight philosophy. First, you weren't there, and second, you fail to recognise and understand just what was taking place in the context of the negotiations at that time. We were replacing decades of "boom and bust" pay reviews with concomitant industrial action. We were seeking to repair the damage to the status of the profession and to make it attractive to the desperately needed potential recruits. We were working against monumental constraints of time and resources - the deal reached in early 2001 would never have been on offer in mid or late 2001. What the three sides sought to do was to conclude the best possible deal in the available time, and if we didn't seek to insert performance analysis measures, and expected learning outcomes then - sorry! What is a pointless exercise in sophistry at this stage is to seek to analyse and criticise a deal which has brought pay enhancement and stability to our teachers and schools in terms of post hoc data or rationalisation. The flaws - and there have been flaws - in the Agreement are sins of omission, not commission. They reflect the haste in concluding the deal, not a failure to expand the terms even further. If we ever have to conclude such an Agreement again, then perhaps we should include some of these analytical factors. If we do, they require to be part of an agreed, pre-planned, joint and clarified approach, for only in this way can they be valid. The issue of Disclosure checks has been with us for sometime now, but regrettably it will increase in significance in coming years. We live in a world now where nothing can be taken at face value - the internet chat room with 40 year olds masquerading as 15, the "Brandon Lee" schoolboy, fake trading online. Whereas in generations gone by the priest, the police officer, the nurse, the teacher, were figures automatically beyond reproach, sadly this is no longer the case. In our brave new world, technology has enabled us to run checks on an infinite range of people and so now we face not only checks on entry to TEI's, and by GTCS, but also on taking up any new employment, or even a new post with an existing employer. To this will now be added checks for everyone - and not of the monetary value kind. The inexorable spread of computer checks is here to stay. So will the world of education in Isaac's day be wholly secure? Sadly, the answer is no. Firstly, despite the huge burden and cost of Disclosure checks on teachers, they do no more than make a single statement of fact. They provide no help as to inclination or intent, no surety as to conduct in the future. Like the investment warning says, "past performance is no guarantee of future returns". Secondly, like any other such system it will suffer from weaknesses and inaccuracies. It cannot guarantee 100% accuracy or consistency. Thus some may escape detection, while others are erroneously listed. The system will become like so many in our day and age - we rely on it automatically and tick the "job done" box. We sit back complacently and vigilance decreases. If and when the system fails we are unprepared for the consequences ("Cullen Locks") The only way to ensure the safety and wellbeing of our young people is for perpetual vigilance by the regulatory body - the GTCS, by education authorities, by schools and by teachers themselves. We must never allow harm to befall any young person in our care, and must never allow blind reliance on a database to do this job for us. We are the professionals. I turn now to the vexed question, "How does a union which is avowedly non-political take a stance on political issues?" We have been faced with this challenge before and failed to rise to meet it. For decades the question of whether there should be devolved government in Scotland was debated by Congress, but we never reached a conclusion. The late Alex Stanley observed that we were not sure if we wanted a Scottish Parliament, but we were sure if there was, we wanted it elected by proportional representation. Well, we got our way - or did we? Almost as sure as day follows night, the birth of a Scottish Parliament has led to discussion of a referendum on independence for Scotland. This is not the time for sound bites, but once again we feel the hand of history on our shoulder! What will be our attitude some 20 years on. Would the future for Isaac and his generation be better with an independent nation, or a devolved administration? Are we going to debate and examine the issue or will our fence-building skills be called into action again? I'm calling today for this union to be pro-active in any debate to come - not by supporting any party or parties, but by examining the proposition in an open and balanced way, rather than waiting for the outcome of a referendum and the responding to whatever new political reality exists thereafter. We need to stand up for education in Scotland, without fear or favour from political parties or other groups. A move to independence would have potentially far-reaching consequences for our education systems and thus for future generations of our young people. We have a duty to these to care to ensure that the way in which we govern ourselves is to the benefit of young people and not simply for the sake of political dogma. This whole issue is complex, but it is being raised before us now as never before. Whatever may happen and whenever, as one of the major players in Scottish Society, we have a duty to the young people of our nation to do our utmost to ensure that the governance of this land is the most fit for purpose so far as education is concerned. From a global perspective, the outlook for remuneration of teachers does not look promising. The OECD Economic Outlook for 2006 shows that wages as a share of national income in the EU, Japan and USA has fallen substantially, brought about by the process of globalisation. The effect of this is to enrich a tiny minority of the population at the expense of wage earners. In the EU the wage share percentage has dropped steadily and drastically from 68% in 1975 to 58% in 2005. This effect is most marked in the "northern European ...... deregulated market countries". Downward pressure on wages through increased automisation, export of jobs, feminisation and casualisation is a phenomenon with which we are all too familiar. Its inexorable route march through our country is well documented, and the reclaimed landscapes of Bathgate, Revenscraig and Linwood bear testimony of this. However, the fuel for this process of change requires constant renewal - the easy targets have been eliminated -the "low hanging fruits". More recently we have seen the "new dawn" industries similarly affected - Motorola no more, Compaq no more, Hewlett Packard no more. In all of this, the direct provision of education has been relatively little affected, so far. Or has it? We have seen job losses and wage cuts across support services for many years now. The thin end of the PPP wedge has fully inserted itself in the corporate body of education. So far, however, the work of agencies is providing supply teachers is about as far as the private sector has invaded the direct provision of education. Soon this will change as the analysts get to work on the algorithms for teaching tasks. More and more analysis will lead to greater and greater opportunity for alternative providers to supply the market. Producing the same final product (or pupils as we used to call them) at a lower cost using automation or lower skilled workers is the direct consequence, and I make no apology for returning to this theme once again. When the inconceivable becomes the unthinkable, and the unthinkable becomes the impossible, the journey from impossible via unlikely to highly probably becomes entirely credible. Education will be delivered in teacher free zones. Light touch supervision from the professional will be all the human input needed. The education system can then produce to the exact demands of the global economy, and can re-tool its production to deliver a modified output when required. The acceleration of this whole process is being driven not least by the rapid growth of non-regulated hedge funds and private equity. These hugely leveraged funds are exempt from any regulation and seek only one thing - maximise short term return, and then sell it off. Maximising return means lower wages, more productivity and greater profit. It also means less jobs, lower paid jobs and less societal value. We need to support EI and the newly-formed International Trade Union Confederation, whose 168 million members in 153 countries are led by Sharon Burrow, a good friend of the SSTA. All of these colleagues are in the front line of this battle, the next stage of which will be in Heiligendamn in three weeks time when the G8 meet again. We need to tell them - education is for the life of young people not a commodity. Education is far too important to subjugate to the needs of global capital. Education enables people to be free in thought and action, to grow and develop beyond the constraints of the previous generation. Without education, women would not take the vote, slavery would still exist in many nations, and fear, ignorance and superstition would rule. Education is far too valuable to give over to those who only seek to enrich themselves. Education is the heritage of which we are the current custodians - our task is to preserve it for future generations not to sell it for a mess of pottage. Isaac's birth right is not for sale. Not now, not ever, not by this Association and its members, nor our sisters and brothers across the union movement.

David Eaglesham 8 May 2007

Observers are always keen to refer back to the original McCrone report when it suits their purposes to do so - so let me do likewise.

“ One other message to emerge from the analysis of pay trends was the fact that over the past quarter of a century teachers' salaries have progressed in fits and starts, with a series of small increases, then a major upwards revision – often following an independent review – then further small increases. The Committee considers this pattern to be unsatisfactory and liable to lead to discontent.”

I would suggest that we are now well into the series of small increases phase – McCrone pay levels have already been significantly eroded and with a background of a pay award limit of around 2% or even less being imposed on other public sector groups this is set to continue. The SNCT faces difficult negotiations next session to halt, never mind reverse, this trend now that the current 4 year agreement has ended. A further multi-year deal seems unlikely in the present climate and perhaps it is time for the SNCT to invoke one of the more obscure paragraphs of the Teaching Profession for the 21st Century Agreement, Section 5.4 Research Into Salary Levels “”¦..the SNCT will have the power to commission research into pay levels or any other matter which it may agree would be helpful within its remit”.I'm sure that the secretariat, Professional Officers and District Secretaries will be glad when the new SNCT Handbook replacing the old “Yellow Book” and incorporating all SNCT circulars (52 at the last count) and other extant agreements finally comes into force in August this year. Issues surrounding Annex C of the TP21 agreement remain and these centre around collegiality and workload and the absence of clear monitoring procedures at LNCT level.I expect also that concerns about the quality of leadership and management in our schools and the review of the Chartered Teacher programme to be at the forefront of ongoing discussion and debate during next session. I had secretly hoped that for the first time in many years the serious problem of indiscipline in our secondary schools would not feature in the Presidential Address, but it ranks highly in the league table of member concerns and with close to 43,000 exclusions from state schools last session (over 80% in the secondary sector) it is clearly a major ongoing issue. Once again I must stress that this presents a serious impediment to effective learning and teaching not only because of the loss of valuable, productive time in the classroom but also when the time spent on processing discipline issues through often tortuous school systems is taken into account. The SSTA is giving a voice to the vast majority of well motivated and co-operative young people who are having their educational opportunities denied by a small but significant minority of their peers. There are some worrying trends (more than 10% of those excluded last year had been excluded more than 3 times during the session yet there were fewer than 300 permanent exclusions, exclusions for physical assault or the threat of physical violence had increased) and extra dimensions are appearing with a small but increasing number of exclusions resulting from the misuse of mobile phones and websites.I spoke last year about the Behaviour in Scottish Schools survey being carried out at the time by the National Foundation for Educational Research on behalf of the Discipline Stakeholder Group (SEED, ADES, GTCS, COSLA and Teacher Unions). The key findings of the survey report (October 2006) were that the majority of respondents considered most pupils to be well behaved in and out of class, low level indiscipline was prevalent and disruptive but teachers were confident in dealing with this. There had been no significant increase in bad behaviour but no significant improvement either since the last survey in 2004. Serious aggressive incidents between pupils do happen occasionally but violence towards teachers is rare. Head teachers have a far more positive perception of discipline issues than either teachers, support staff and particularly pupils themselves. When all staff are involved in discipline improvement and feel supported by senior staff they are more positive about discipline and more confident and effective. Strong leadership is the key to best practice developments based on the Better Behaviour, Better Learning (2001) agenda but implementation of suggested strategies is not consistent at local authority and individual school level.

How many teachers have heard of, never mind been trained in, new approaches designed to improve behaviour?

Staged Intervention, Restorative Practices, The Motivated School, The Solution Oriented School, Cool in School. Behaviour Co-ordinators?

Every council and head teacher is expected to use a suitable mix of these measures known to improve behaviour. Have you had any contact with your authority Positive Behaviour Team (formerly Regional Communication Team) member?

They work with teachers and schools to develop these approaches to positive behaviour.All of this is part of the joint Action Plan agreed by the Discipline Stakeholder Group back in October 2006 but yet to be published.

Additionally other agreed measures are;• The Executive will do more to support quality improvements in on-site and off-site behaviour units.

• New practice guidance on better behaviour in corridors and playgrounds will be developed.

• Head teachers will be expected to engage with all staff and other members of the school community to develop and sustain behaviour policies and approaches to promoting positive behaviour in school.

• The Positive Behaviour Team will develop Executive funded training for Additional Support staff who should be better integrated into school discipline systems.

• HMIe will evaluate the extent to which policies and strategies impact on the experiences of teachers and pupils in schools and classrooms.The SSTA will carefully monitor these initiatives to ensure that outcomes are delivered – only in this way can improvement occur. There may well be long term benefits flowing from these proposals but in the short term the negative effect of poorly motivated and disruptive pupils for whom repeated short term exclusion presents little deterrent will continue to undermine the ability of teachers to uphold classroom discipline, damaging the experience of the majority and causing irrevocable harm to their own life prospects. Is anyone here going to confess to completing either the Scottish Parliament or Local Council ballot form incorrectly? Statistically about 20 people from a group this size got it wrong in one way or another and this, along with the whole catalogue of events both preceding and since the election itself, have contributed to a situation which dwarfs even the fiasco surrounding the cost of the Holyrood Parliament building itself. “You couldn't make it up” - even the most talented scriptwriters would have struggled to justify the inclusion of so many “ I don't believe it” scenarios into one series, never mind one programme, of “Yes Minister”. The only consolation is that amidst all the chaos and confusion no one has got round to blaming teachers and the education system – yet!!

And it had all started so harmlessly. Party manifestos were predictable as far as education commitments were concerned and largely devoid of specific promises to the secondary sector. Class size reductions would apply in early primary, expansion of provision would be at pre-school nursery and even playgroup stages, introduction of a second language and employment of extra modern language teachers would begin earlier in primary school. In Further and Higher Education there were undertakings to investigate general funding levels and student funding and finance, to scrap the graduate endowment scheme, to provide extra money for research and to increase degree and post graduate courses in science and languages. The main policy thrust with implications for secondary schools came in the area of school / work transition with the intention to expand the Modern Apprenticeship scheme, School / College Partnerships and School / Business Partnerships and to establish Skills Academies making leaving school before 18 years of age conditional on staying in education, training or full-time volunteering. Otherwise, only those general pledges to refurbish or rebuild 250 schools, to make school premises available for community use during evenings and weekends, to give more power to Head Teachers and more choice to parents, to create a homework support service, to ensure 1 hour of physical activity for all pupils each day, to devise individual local authority strategy for teaching science and technical subjects and, most importantly, to introduce a Discipline Code with rights and responsibilities for teachers parents and pupils, impinge on SSTA members.I was intrigued by the education manifesto of one particular party which simply pledged to “restore discipline and traditional teaching methods to make sure all students are literate, numerate and well educated, instead of being fed trendy PC nonsense.” I had considered a Congress competition to “Name that Party” but couldn't think of a suitable way of rewarding the winner. Which, if any, of these manifesto commitments ever reaches fruition against a background of lost, missing and late postal votes, technical problems, software glitches and rejected ballot papers, suspended counts, legal challenges, attempted coalitions, failed coalitions, possible minority governments and deadlines for the appointment of a Presiding Officer and First Minister is beyond a mere SSTA President but the fall-out from this election has certainly undermined electorate confidence. It is now up to the members of the new Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive to restore our confidence through their actions in the months ahead. The Association owes no political allegiance to any party and whatever the personal views of individual members, is committed to working constructively with governments and Education Ministers of any and all political group. The “What's best for Scotland's schools, Scotland's pupils and Scotland's teachers?” test will always apply and we will uphold our web-site mission statement, “focusing on advancing education in Scotland and promoting the interests of Scottish secondary teachers.”

It only remains for me to thank the Association and you the members for allowing me the privilege of being your President for the past two years. I have enjoyed the experience tremendously and the opportunity to represent the Association in Scotland, elsewhere in the UK and Ireland and occasionally on a European and world stage has given me enormous personal satisfaction. The SSTA is held in high esteem in the wider education community and I hope that I have contributed at least in part to the maintenance of this enviable position. I have made many friends at home and abroad during my Presidency. I have also amassed a vast collection of ID/Security badges over the years - available to purchase on e-Bay in the next few weeks, developed an unhealthy, “train spotters” knowledge of railway timetables to and from Aberdeen and an intimate knowledge of the bends and speed cameras on the M90 / A90 between Edinburgh and Aberdeen. The General Treasurer will be enormously relieved that the President's travelling expenses will now be brought under tighter control. However, it is through the routine core work of the Association that the organisation will flourish and in this context I must thank our General Secretary, David Eaglesham, our Depute General Secretary, Jim Docherty and the team of Professional Officers, and Executive Officer, Lesley Reid-Galbraith and the admin staff at West End House for their advice, help and support since 2003 during my period as Vice-President and President.

I know that Ann has done a vast amount of work as my Vice-President and I am aware of the considerable contribution Peter has made to the Association over the years – I am confident that the Association is in safe hands and wish the Ballinger/Wright team every success during 2007 – 09. ALBERT MCKAY

11 May 2007.