NEU's members in sixth forms know the reality. They took action again on 29 January. Photo: Lobbying Labour's Department for Education. Photo: James Ivens
NEU's members in sixth forms know the reality. They took action again on 29 January. Photo: Lobbying Labour's Department for Education. Photo: James Ivens

Sheila Caffrey, NEU Executive member, personal capacity

The NEU National Executive was given less than two weeks to consider and discuss the ‘Improving Education Together’ partnership deal between education unions, government and employers, while being told to not discuss with members – making the union discussions rather reminiscent of the tone of the whole deal.

At the November exec meeting, general secretary Daniel Kebede repeatedly said it wasn’t a partnership deal, and glossed over the elements that worried members of the Socialist Party and other members of the executive, which included:

  • the right to have a different opinion to the others but once a decision is made, all parties must abide by it
  • the need to have employers, including CEOs of academy chains, on the board with the same rights as those democratically representing half a million members of the workforce
  • the agenda only being set once a year which then cannot be deviated from, which would mean no reflection of members’ current needs

Kebede accused those who weren’t in favour of being opposed to negotiations. However, this is not a seat at the table for negotiations – there are too many conditions binding us. Socialist Party members would certainly agree with a real body looking at negotiating education workers’ pay and conditions, as well as wider issues such as curriculum, staff training opportunities and ways of learning – but this clearly isn’t it!  Any forum that says we can disagree, but if an issue is agreed by the secretary of state, the union cannot then fight on it, is not negotiations. It’s basically a staff forum, with an aim to muzzle union democracy and campaigns.

Meetings aiming to reach ‘consensus’ with CEOs of academy chains would skew any discussions around privatisation and the need to bring all schools back under local authority control. The secrecy elements would mean that the NEU wouldn’t be able to consult its own members.

In the executive sub-committee discussions, many members raised concerns about partnership, including Wales members who explained how social partnership in Wales  was of no benefit to unions – and their terms were much less prescriptive than the IET framework! But in the final vote there were only four members who voted against the proposal – the two Socialist Party exec members and two of our allies – with all others in favour.

It was then announced two days later that there hadn’t been the need for any rush after all, as the agreement wasn’t going to be signed till the end of January.  It’s unclear where this confusion came from, although other unions appeared to be aware, as they announced the partnership agreement mid-January to their members.

In the January national executive meeting, Kebede reported that he understood there was little enthusiasm for the deal in the NEU. 

This was a far cry from his speeches in November, where he had said that the perception of members was that education is being treated favourably by Labour and that they like education minister Bridget Phillipson. A long list of executive members had spoken about how important it was to take part.

This included the members of the Socialist Worker Party (SWP). Their report for South West NEU members said: “We were clear from the outset that we would accept nothing like the social partnership arrangement that existed under new Labour 20 years ago. That has been achieved. This is not the collective bargaining we want, but is a step forward. It is not a social partnership and has none of the terrible elements of the arrangements of 20 years ago.” Certainly sounds fairly enthusiastic!

Members know the reality

So, what changed between November and January?  Well, members in local authority sixth forms haven’t felt that education has been treated favourably, with pay deals that continue to give them less than their colleagues in academies.

School teacher members haven’t liked being told that any pay offer for next year would be totally unfunded.

The 18 schools in the Harris Federation who are currently balloting for strike action haven’t felt that their CEO – who made two large donations to Rachel Reeves’s election campaign – is someone they can be in partnership with.

Labour’s new education bill, published in December, shows they will not end academisation or provide full funding for education without a fight. Yet already, under pressure from the Tories and academy bosses, they have moved an amendment to water down their own plans on pay to say that academies just have to have “due regard” to national pay agreements.

This shows the importance of the leadership of unions being transparent and consulting members, as well as thinking about the implications of signing deals with political parties and academy leaders who clearly do not have the interests of children, education or education workers at the heart of their decisions.

It is the workers and the communities in which we live and work who should be making these decisions. Socialist Party members of the NEU will continue to campaign for honest, transparent negotiations, as well as fighting for adequate funding in all local authorities to ensure the education system which is needed and deserved by children and young people can be created.


NEU executive elections

To help win the fighting leadership NEU members deserve, the following Socialist Party members are seeking nomination in the National Executive elections for 2025-27:

  • Sheila Caffrey District 12 standing for re-election
  • Louise Cuffaro District 16 standing for re-election
  • Sean McCauley District 8
  • Dan Warrington District 11