More teacher strikes, Thursday 27th April, Tuesday 2nd May

[noblegiraffe]

Fair warning, the NEU have said that if their members vote to reject the derisory government pay offer, they will immediately announce two further strike dates.

"If you vote to reject this offer, the executive has agreed to notify two further days of strike action on Thursday, 27 April and Tuesday, 2 May. The executive has agreed to seek local agreements with head teachers to ensure exam preparation is not interrupted for Years 11 and 13."

From the response on edutwitter and from colleagues, I think the offer will be rejected.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/4772501-up-yours-gillian-keegan-teacher-pay-offer

A plague on both their houses!

So you're admitting that the Tory money is shit, Clav?

Which is the important bit right now?

I also think we need to reballot support staff- in many schools, it's support staff keeping them open (I am not blaming support staff for this, I know it's difficult for them to say no).

You'd be asking people on an income mostly in the region of £1400 a month to give up pay. Yes, I know teachers are giving up pay to strike, but they have a vague chance of being able to pay their bills with what's left over - unlike the TAs, receptionists (Exams Officers will refuse point blank), Lunchtime supervisors, Finance and site staff. And if they are dependent upon Universal Credit to cover childcare or rent, it will not increase to make up the difference.

'56. A person who has had employed earnings and has withdrawn their labour in furtherance of a trade dispute is, unless their contract of service has been terminated, to be assumed to have employed earnings at the same level as they would have had were it not for the trade dispute.' (Source: The Universal Credit Regulations 2013 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/376/regulation/56 )

It's too much to ask of the most financially (and legally) vulnerable members of school staff.

UNISON are balloting school support staff members, papers are being sent out in May. https://www.unison.org.uk/our-campaigns/fair-pay-now-council-school-workers/

I support the strikes and believe that the teachers are right to strike. But the first date is midway through a school residential trip that my dd has been looking forward to the entire year! I'm absolutely gutted for her as this will probably mean it'll be called off and who knows if it'll be able to be rescheduled! 😭(Yes my anger is directed at the government and not at the school/teaching staff, but I'm still gutted for her - haven't had the heart to tell her until we hear officially).

noblegiraffe
So you're admitting that the Tory money is .... Clav?

It was more than Starmer's pledge - his offering came first.

But Starmer isn't in power.

Why is the Tory government underfunding schools? We've got to the point where you really can't blame the last Labour government so you're trying to blame the next one?

She really is that desperate 😂

But Starmer isn't in power

Thank goodness for that!

Yet.

Why is the Tory government underfunding schools?

Are they? Also from the Schools Week article;
“This means that school funding is now forecast to exceed growth in school costs, such as growth in teacher and support staff pay levels,” an IFS spokesperson said.

Schools have been underfunded for years. It's irrelevant what spin or lies they come up with to claim otherwise.

ilovesooty
Schools have been underfunded for years. It's irrelevant what spin or lies they come up with to claim otherwise.

an IFS spokesperson said - The Institute for Fiscal Studies

Yes, they are.

School funding is, per pupil, even with the £2 billion, below 2010 levels, and has been for the last 13 years.

School funding increasing per growth costs is only fine if the original funding was adequate. And it wasn't. So more money needs to be put into the system.

The IFS spokesperson wasn't commenting on whether schools had been underfunded for years. That's clear - even the Tories admit that they have yet to return to 2010 levels of per pupil funding.

noblegiraffe
School funding increasing per growth costs is only fine if the original funding was adequate. And it wasn't. So more money needs to be put into the system

Like Starmer's £1.7billion - raided from private school pupils?

Also, If Starmer has pledged to restore the overseas aid spending - where is he going to get this extra money from?

The IFS said the [surprise extra funding for schools announced in November] was in large part from “recycling £5 billion previously earmarked for increasing overseas aid spending to 0.7% of national income”. Instead, it will remain at 0.5 per cent.

Here Clav, work your way through the details in this thread. Should take you a while.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/4777266-the-government-is-banking-on-parents-not-caring-about-children-or-education

noblegiraffe
Here Clav, work your way through the details in this thread. Should take you a while

Ah, yes - you have linked to the IFS. Also from their website (Jan 2023);
School funding
The funding picture has become more positive for schools.
...total school spending per pupil in England fell by 9% between 2010 and 2019. Since then, it has started to increase again. Furthermore, the government allocated an extra £2.3 billion per year to the schools budget in England in the 2022 Autumn Statement. Based on current forecasts, this will allow school spending per pupil in England to return to 2010 levels by 2024.^
Importantly, this remains true even after we account for the specific increases in costs faced by schools. In cash-terms, school spending per pupil is due to increase by about 8% per year in both 2022–23 and 2023–24. This is above our estimates of the likely increases in the specific costs faced by schools, which we estimate will increase by about 6% in 2022–23 and about 4% in 2023–24. These estimates include the effect of the 5% increase in teacher pay in September 2022, the STRB recommendation for 3% increases in September 2023, the 8-9% increase in support staff pay in 2022–23, as well as rises in non-staff costs such as rising energy and food prices.

Thanks for confirming, Clav, what I was saying

"Based on current forecasts, this will allow school spending per pupil in England to return to 2010 levels by 2024"

'return to 2010 levels, and not for September."

Underfunded for 13 years.

"Furthermore, the government allocated an extra £2.3 billion per year to the schools budget in England in the 2022 Autumn Statement. Based on current forecasts, this will allow school spending per pupil in England to return to 2010 levels by 2024.^ "

"That being said, no real-terms growth in school spending per pupil over a 14-year period still represents a significant squeeze on school resources. The only near precedent is the lack of real-terms growth in secondary school spending per pupil over the 1990s (see Figure 5.3)."

I don't think bragging that its taken 14 years to get back to where the funding was in 2010 is all that winning.
What about the damage caused (to staff morale & infrastructure and corresponding impact on children) in the meantime? That doesn't matter?

noblegiraffe
Thanks for confirming, Clav, what I was saying

I think you claimed the opposite of this;
These estimates include the effect of the 5% increase in teacher pay in September 2022, the STRB recommendation for 3% increases in September 2023, the 8-9% increase in support staff pay in 2022–23, as well as rises in non-staff costs such as rising energy and food prices.

You also claimed that the £1,000 one-off payment offered to teachers was unfunded - it wasn't.

And you implied in your linked thread that the government 'doesn't care about education' - clearly they do;
In cash-terms, school spending per pupil is due to increase by about 8% per year in both 2022–23 and 2023–24.

You also claimed that the £1,000 one-off payment offered to teachers was unfunded - it wasn't.

No I didn't.

And you implied in your linked thread that the government 'doesn't care about education' - clearly they do

Mate, if you've read the thread, you can clearly see they don't give a shit about any of it.

Trying to go into a General Election with school funding levels still lower than they were when you first came into power 14 years ago would make you look incompetent, economically, wouldn't it?

Do you think they put the money up because they care about schools? Bloody hell, look at their record.

noblegiraffe
No I didn't

Implied then;
Gillian Keegan is very disappointed that now teachers won't get £1000.
What she failed to acknowledge is that school finances will be better off with teachers voting to reject.

3rd reply down on the tweet you highlighted;
Secret School Business Manager
"That’s because this means the UNFUNDED offer of £1,000 one off (2.4%) for this year will be withdrawn"

Trying to go into a General Election with school funding levels still lower than they were when you first came into power 14 years ago would make you look incompetent, economically, wouldn't it?

The Labour Party heralding a 'learning revolution' for state-educated ­children with 'only' £1.7billion sounds far-fetched - especially if Labour restore the overseas aid spending - thereby 'losing' £2billion already allocated to schools by the government.

😂 you're trying to blame me for a tweet on a tweet thread that I didn't write?

School finances will be better off if teachers don't accept the unfunded pay rise next year. 3% is the government recommendation, rather than the 4.5% they offered. That would put money back into school budgets, yes, as that's where 4% of the 4.5% was supposed to come from, right?

I'm assuming you can do the maths.