So a fully funded 6.5%!

[Tuscon2]

Good news?

do we think it will be 6.5% for experienced/ leadership teachers too?

Is it a fully funded 6.5? I thought it was school fund 3.5 and the DfE give "extra money" for the 3%?

The Neu email seems positive. They are currently recommending to accept.

The table in the STRB report recommends 6.5% for everyone except starting salaries outside London which are slightly higher. My understanding is that all the figures in the report have been accepted.

Full details in Appendix D on p75 of the report.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmentdata/file/1170121/STRBB33rdReportt2023WebbAccessiblev0211.pdf

It's not fully funded. The language used by both sides is properly funded. 3.5% to come from existing budgets. I'm not sure whether I'll accept or reject, but I'm surprised the NEU seems so happy with it.

Me too. It's surely a massive fail on their behalf as schools once again must magic up money from nowhere. Really disappointed with the unions on this one.

Definitely not fully funded. Schools have to top up from any surplus they have. Apparently there is a hardship fund that schools can apply for if there is absolutely no money at all. I expect most won’t be successful in getting this though. Also, funding is allocated on pupil numbers in school. So schools with cheaper, less experienced teachers might be ok, but those who have mostly UPS 3 teachers will struggle to top up.

based on the number of people who didn't strike in teh last ones - in my school - I thnik the union are cutting their losses - I dont' think they have the support of members to 'keep' striking' - I also don't think 'money' is the big issue - workload is - and that is not being addressed.

As for the funding - I really wish all the schools in the UK created a deficit of exactly 3% of their teaching staff wages bill - it would make a nice point wouldn't it!

based on the number of people who didn't strike in teh last ones - in my school - I thnik the union are cutting their losses - I dont' think they have the support of members to 'keep' striking' - I also don't think 'money' is the big issue - workload is - and that is not being addressed.

This is an issue, in my school more and more staff drifted back as the strikes progressed because they simply couldn't afford it. Plus we have half NASUWT members and 5/6 of them didn't vote at all in the ballot this time around.

I think the NEU are being pragmatic here.

It's a rubbish offer, but the NEU have clearly lost their will for a fight. Interestingly our local rep is campaigning for us to vote

To vote no! Key word missing there!

I've just registered for the NEU webinar. Really interested to see how they put it to members and what they say about the local groups campaigning against their recommendation.

I dislike the flippant 'nothing to lose' rhetoric the 'reject' campaigners are putting out, when strikes have caused real financial hardship for many (both strikers and parents who have had to cover childcare/use holiday allowance) and the impact on children's education.

I know that school funding is an issue, and the pay rise is below inflation etc, but framing continuing to strike as a "nothing to lose" option is irresponsible.

This!

Has anyone tried to access hardship funds from a union? Just wondering.

For strike action or more generally? My experience for strike action was very positive - I got the money lost back within a week.

The NEU are recommending accept because about 2/3 of the national executive voted that way. I do think they may have misread the view of their members, I think a lot of people aren't totally happy with the offer. I do think there are a lot of different considerations at play, but I'm not sure there's a will to continue to be the only union on strike.

For me, I think the offer won't make things worse but it won't bring the drastic improvements we need either. I think we'll all be back here in a few years time if we do accept.

I do think they may have misread the view of their members

I think the members are also being whipped up by the third of national exec who voted against accepting. And I don't think some of those would have accepted anything from this government, tbh.

This deal is way better than anyone expected.

I'm a bit surprised to see some people on twitter saying 'I went on strike for a fully-funded above-inflation pay rise and so I'm going to continue striking till I get it'. I mean, that's just daft.

Thank you. That is good to know and hopefully helpful information for fellow colleagues.

My thoughts exactly. Asking for 12% and settling for half does not feel like a long term solution.

What on earth makes you think that 12% is even remotely plausible?

Do you think the junior doctors actually think they'll get 35%?

Never said anything about 12% being remotely plausible. I was agreeing with @ Postapocalypticcowgirl 'I think we'll all be back here in a few years time if we do accept.'

I don't know what junior doctors think.

Asking for 12% and settling for half is a pragmatic solution given that we won't get any more from this current lot and there'll be a different government next year.

Continuing to strike against this lot....what would be the point? Losing money, kids losing out on more school....when exactly would the NEU give up?

NFER suggest 6.5% alone isn't enough. https://nfer.ac.uk/news-events/press-releases/65-pay-rise-unlikely-to-solve-teacher-supply-problems-on-its-own-particularly-in-stem-subjects/

I don't accept that 8 days is all the strike action we can manage, but equally, I don't accept that it's worth going on strike for something that won't solve the problem.

To me, it's not a pragmatic solution, because it's not actually a solution.

For me, it's not so much about the pay offer this year, I'm not after 12%. I am after some of the things the NFER report suggests- e.g. commitments on future pay, a genuine, real commitment on workload (e.g. an extra hour of PPA a week), and a real strategy to do something to deal with the current deficit in teacher numbers.

My personal feeling on the 6.5% is that it might slow down the number of teachers leaving next year. It might help recruitment a little bit. But it won't really do anything to solve the number of teachers who have left and not been replaced, particularly post covid. There will still be a lot of schools/departments that are really short staffed next year, and that causes a lot of workload and stress- so then you get into a vicious circle, where more people leave.

I think there are numerous, complex reasons as to why people are leaving teaching, and I think we need some commitment to serious, radical change to try and resolve that.

Solving those problems are someone else's job, @Postapocalypticcowgirl

Parliament are currently running an inquiry into teacher recruitment and retention. The Education Select committee scrutinise the department and ask what they're doing about it. The STRB document won't just be chucked in the bin.

We can (and should) absolutely publicise what the situation is in schools, but the actual job of sorting the mess isn't ours.

Those problems were why I went on strike in the first place, though. The reason I chose to strike, and feel so strongly about all of this is because I've been in a very short staffed department, and it nearly broke me. And also because I didn't train that long ago, and all the physics teachers I trained with have now left teaching. Another amazing colleague has also just left the state sector, and another is moving to teach abroad (both science teachers).

I feel like we are in a vicious cycle- I'm lucky to have a job in a decent school, which isn't feeling the staffing shortages too much yet. It is feeling the funding crisis and we have been told by our head he will have to post a deficit budget next year to meet the pay offer.

I went to the vote reject zoom, because I was leaning that way anyway, and I've heard how the NEC were put under huge pressure to accept this offer- and that's in the NEU. It wasn't a free vote, and they weren't given time to properly scrutinise funding because all the unions were on a strict time limit to accept the offer or lose it. When NEU and NASUWT say "NAHT and ASCL tell us the offer is affordable", it's based on votes taken under similar conditions.

I can't, in good conscience, vote for an offer that will likely lead to support staff losing jobs, or further cuts to other essential parts of school budgets.

Maybe that's not my problem to solve, but I went on strike because I genuinely felt my striking was to make things better for future students in this country, and if I vote for this offer, I feel I've sold them out.

Those problems were why I went on strike in the first place, though

No doubt, but do you genuinely think that we are going to get any more money out of the government? We got £2 billion for the 3.5% plus other stuff and now we're getting more for the extra 3%.

They're not putting in any extra money since the March offer, the Treasury wouldn't agree to it.

I went to the start of the reject meeting and they were all utterly confident that further strike action would bring more money. Because more money had materialised since March. But it's not new money, it's Dept of Education money. Look at how they're raising money for other dept pay rises - charging migrants.

Rejecting the offer and triggering ten days of strike action in maybe a month - people saying that 6.5% isn't going to pay their mortgage, who can afford to lose 10 days pay in a month?

The reject meeting talking, I thought, quite casually about 10 days of strike action when that is a massive, massive ask, and putting a huge financial burden on people, was quite shocking, tbh.

No thought to the impact on parents either. Or the kids.