We have been asked to publish this account of events in St Paul’s Way School in east London by a group of union members who used to work there.

On 30th March 2009 the St Paul’s Way (SPW) Head teacher issued a ‘restructuring’ document to all staff at the school. This document proposed more than 20 teacher redundancies and was premised on a narrowing of the curriculum. The school National Union of Teachers NUT group passed a resolution the following day rejecting the restructuring document and calling for a ballot for strike action early in the summer term. The school NUT group had indicated its willingness to fight from the outset but this was not reflected in the actions of the wider Union, either at a national or local level.

The ELTA Secretary met with the school NUT group on 2nd April saying there was a problem getting things to happen over Easter. The school NUT group started the campaign straight away, producing materials and sending out mailings. The Secretary met the Action Committee at the NUT Conference but they did not agree to ballot us for action. The ELTA leadership chose not to offer any public criticism of this decision.
A London NUT deputation met with Tower Hamlets instead. The Authority agreed not to issue redundancy notices until the autumn term. Whilst the Authority had merely offered to delay the issuing of redundancy notices, the Union decided not to proceed with the ballot. The following morning, the headteacher announced at a whole staff meeting that teachers would be made redundant next term instead of this term.

It is important to note that the ‘restructuring’ was also a disaster for the kids at SPW. The biggest redundancies were in support departments, with half the SEN and EAL departments’ jobs going - in a school that has 97.5% of its children with English as an additional language. In a school with 86% Bengali speakers, the Bengali department was to be reduced to a staff of one. All of these cuts were being proposed for a school with the highest number of beginner EAL students in the borough and the highest number of casual admissions in the country.

Whilst the Union was in negotiation to modify aspects of the restructuring plan, it was clear to us that this did not deal with the fundamental attacks we faced. In May the school NUT group passed a resolution repeating our call for an immediate ballot for strike action.
Whilst the Union delayed, the day to day situation at the school had deteriorated. Bullying of staff had increased and members faced huge attacks in terms of workload and working conditions. In addition, deeply reactionary pedagogical systems and practices were being imposed against departments’ wishes. Some members had doubts about the Union supporting us and as the attacks increased, teachers were starting to leave.

Eventually (in June, three months after the restructuring plan was announced), the Union did agree to ballot us. By this stage even the National Union had become aware of intransigence of the Authority and the school’s Interim Executive Board and management. In the ballot, 91% voted for strike action, on an 83% turnout. The school NUT group called for four strike days before the end of the summer term and eight at the beginning of the autumn term. We wanted to make clear our determination to defeat the proposed redundancies through a commitment to extensive strike action. The Union agreed to two strike days in July and two in September. During the discussion on strike days, the school NUT group passed a resolution reminding the Union that: “The objective of the action must be the assimilation of all staff who wish to remain at the school. We insist that the NUT does not call off action until this objective has been achieved in full.”

Two days before the first strike day (7th July), the LEA called a meeting where they made an offer to delay the issuing of redundancy notices by another term. The ELTA Secretary, the SPW NUT Rep and the London Regional Official were present at this meeting. After the meeting, the school NUT Rep made it clear to them that he did not think this was an acceptable offer and insisted members would need to be consulted before any decisions were made. This was a crucial moment in the dispute.

Despite the school Rep’s views, the Regional Official said he would contact members recommending acceptance of the offer, saying that it would not be the first time he had upset SPW NUT group. The NUT Rep was so concerned about what was happening that he texted the ELTA Secretary: “Effectively, all they are offering is to delay things by a term. So far, delaying things has just led to people being pushed into ‘voluntary’ redundancy. We must put up a better fight.” A second text said: “I think what they are offering falls way short of what we want. I strongly believe we should go ahead with the action. We have come so far - we shouldn’t back down now. I think we can do much better.”
The next day (7th July) the ELTA Secretary attended a school NUT meeting with 40 members present. He attempted to persuade them that they should accept the offer and agree to the calling off of strike action. Significantly, though, he acknowledged in his opening remarks that the Union’s objectives had not been met. Many members (25) spoke in the subsequent debate. They spoke with passion and commitment, and all of them argued for strike action to continue. At the end of the meeting members voted unanimously for the strike action to go ahead. Such was the level of feeling that there was spontaneous applause when the result of the vote was announced. There was a feeling among ordinary members that their voices had been heard and that, at last, we would have strike action and the fightback would begin.

Three hours later the Action Committee took the decision to ignore the views of virtually all our members and call off the planned strike action.
This decision was a devastating blow to members. They knew the reality of what the pulling of the strike action would mean to their everyday life at the school. We were at the end of our tether. Delaying the redundancies had not worked the first time - we knew it would not work this time. Members did not need anyone to tell them that it was a ‘defeat’. It was something that was spontaneously felt. Ordinary members knew that postponing redundancies would lead to management intensifying their efforts to force people out of their jobs by increasing observations and putting people on capability.
To understand why members characterised this as a defeat it is essential to understand the context we were working in. To separate the situation from the context is meaningless. During the restructuring process teachers were being made to compete for jobs with their friends and colleagues. Those who had been interviewed were asked questions about ‘loyalty’ to the headteacher’s new ‘vision’. Candidates were being asked in interview about their willingness to put teachers on capability procedures. It was clear that people were being expected to fight with people that they had worked alongside for many years. This was already happening and it was clear it would intensify.

The restructuring process was riddled with inconsistencies and lack of equal opportunities. The headteacher’s friends were being given jobs, some of them without interview, outside people were being interviewed before internal candidates had been given the results of their interviews. There was no staff or parent representation on the interview panel, staff appeals on the ‘assimilation’ process were heard by the unelected IEB and there was a clear agenda to rid the school of the strong NUT group in order to prepare the ground for an easy transition to Trust status.

120 SPW staff signed a letter to the headteacher stating their “lack of faith in the integrity of the process used to appoint people to posts in the new structure”, protesting against the lack of “basic standards of transparency, fairness and courtesy.”

The school’s NUT, NASUWT and UNISON groups each passed a motion of no confidence in the headteacher and the IEB, noting that “a culture of management bullying” had “led to unprecedented levels of demoralisation amongst staff”.

It is also meaningless to separate the situation around the dispute over the ‘restructuring’ and its process from the general context of the school. The Governing Body had been dismissed and the school had been under an unelected Interim Executive Board for a year. The school had had three headteachers in the space of 18 months. The current headteacher himself was appointed by this same unelected body, the IEB. Turnover of the Senior Leadership Team was rapid and systems in the school were falling apart. Each head and SLT changed things and nothing was consistent. Student behaviour and internal truancy were consequently becoming extremely problematic. Focus was put on the C/D borderline students - other students felt abandoned and disaffected.

Observations were increasing and their frequency broke the school’s negotiated observation protocol and NUT policy. Capability procedures were being used as a bullying tactic - one member was put on ‘informal capability’ without being told. Earlier in the year one member was forced to leave or face fast track capability. The school staff had had an arbitrary dress code imposed by an acting headteacher without consultation. Our previous school NUT Rep had been sacked from the school over this.

Behind all this was the Authority’s determination to create a Trust. With a £40 million rebuild and the move towards Trust status, the management and borough did not want a strong school NUT group, committed to community comprehensive education.

Whilst we were determined to fight the creation of a Trust, we received little in the way of support for such a fight from the ELTA leadership. The SPW NUT group took a resolution to ELTA on 26th June calling for a campaign to fight “by strike action if necessary”, any moves to give our school Trust status. The resolution called for the ELTA Secretary to issue a public statement against SPW becoming a Trust. We did not receive a copy of this and are not aware of it having been issued anywhere. As a result, we had to call for it again at the ELTA meeting of 28th September. In members’ views there seemed to be a lack of urgency on the part of the ELTA leadership to launch a campaign, despite the school NUT group’s efforts.

There was a terrible feeling of isolation and vulnerability after the strike action was pulled. NUT members decided, individually, they could not take any more without the visible and active support from their Union that a strike would have provided. By the end of term, 30 teachers left the school, including 24 NUT members. Many had been at the school for decades - some had arrived in the last few years. No-one took the decision lightly, nor were they ‘urged’ to leave.

This is not an exhaustive statement and there is much more to say. All can be supported by documentary evidence. There has been much inaccurate caricaturing of the SPW NUT group, but we were a diverse group of people. With a membership of 60, no one voice predominated. It was a thoroughly democratic school Union group. But you would be hard pressed to find anyone who did not feel let down by the National Union and, sadly, by the ELTA Secretary and the local leadership.
In our view:

1) The Action Committee completely ignored the views of virtually all union members at SPW by pulling the action. We condemn this decision and their clear disdain for union democracy. What is the point of union members attending meetings to discuss issues, vote on resolutions and participate in ballots when their views will ultimately be ignored? We want to see a Union controlled by its membership who can decide when to take action against the attacks that they face.

2) Virtually all members independently characterised what happened as a defeat. To suggest, as some documents have done, that they were somehow persuaded of this characterisation is both absurd and patronising. Members were aware that they faced, alongside the continuing threat of redundancies, deterioration of working conditions and increased monitoring, followed by many people being placed on capability procedures by senior managers emboldened by the withdrawal of industrial action in July.

3) Crucially, and simply at the level of Union democracy, the ELTA Secretary should have done much more to insist to both the Regional Official and the Action Committee that, before any decisions were made, members’ views must be listened to. Instead of doing this, he indicated to them that he agreed that the deal was ‘acceptable’ and helped facilitate the sell out that occurred.

Alex Salva, Amanda Bentham, Dave Gay, Bronwen Evans, Ammar Al-Ghabban -
former SPW NUT Committee