Gay teacher wins apology and compensation for homophobia

A young gay teacher described as ‘Gay Dave’ and criticised for the way he walked by his head has won an award of £9,500 compensation and an unqualified apology from the governors of a school which formerly employed him after a landmark case for harassment under sexual orientation employment regulations. He was successfully defended in an employment tribunal by his union, the National Union of Teachers.

After a successful year at a special needs school in Winchester, David Watkins took up a new post in the Westminster borough. When he tried to promote equal opportunities within the school, and particularly spoke in favour of LGBT History Month, his head grew hostile. She accused him of ‘banging on’ and ‘drenching students’ in his sexuality and adopting a walk that aggravated older pupils; adding that he ‘didn’t walk like that when he came to interview.’ She also alleged that there was no homophobia within the school until he came along.

David, a successful teacher aware of his rights, pursued with the help of his union, a case that led to a successful admission of guilt and an unreserved public apology for the first time. This was the first case in UK law that saw a teacher taking his school to tribunal under the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003.

The Head’s hostility was possibly timed with the publication of an article that David wrote about LGBT inclusive schools, which was published in the NUT’s Teacher magazine, and on the website of LGBT education campaigners Schools Out. David was an ‘out’ teacher, clear about his support for Schools Out and LGBT History Month,

Sue Sanders, Co Chair of Schools Out and LGBT History Month, said:

“We all know that there have been teachers harassed, driven out of their posts and the profession and even constructively dismissed by homophobic behaviour. There have been bigger compensation awards too. But these have been tied to gagging orders, where the victim was not able to talk about the case. These gagging clauses have the effect, in terms of visibility, that the discrimination never happened.”

David Watkins is an active member of the Schools Out committee. He was repeatedly offered an out of court settlement but decided to go to a full employment tribunal.

At the final hour, the school’s governing body accepted guilt and made an unreserved apology before the case went to full procedure. The school made it plain that they recognised the excellence of David’s teaching and regretted that he had left. They also recognised the abuse he received was offensive, unacceptable and objectively homophobic, and that they should have intervened sooner on his behalf.

Paul Patrick co chair of Schools Out and LGBT History Month said:



“Our schools currently suffer from endemic homophobia. The DCSF guidance on homophobic bullying makes clear the importance of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) role models. Schools that care about the welfare of all their pupils should be creating the sort of environment that supports LGBT teachers so they can be honest and open about who they. This has been a great decision for all who care about community cohesion, equality of opportunity and the celebration of diversity."

Appeal from Lewisham Teachers

The Union has just notified Lewisham Council of a one-day strike on Wednesday March 12th to begin discontinuous action at Merlin Primary School in Lewisham over a threat to cut their pay.

This is not just the pay 'cut' we have been balloting about nationally - i.e compared to inflation - this is an actual pay cut for eleven teachers who are facing the withdrawal of the additional Retention payments (of £1002 or £1971) that were won for teachers in a number of Inner London boroughs several years ago.

The mood of the staff is very determined - there is no way that they can afford a cut in their salaries.

Messages of support would be appreciated - sent to the NUT rep, Kay O'Dea at kay_odea@tiscali.co.uk

Action against Academies

This is information from NAME for members and supporters, it will also be of interest to those fighting against Academies elsewhere.

At the beginning of this crucial week for the future of all schools in the Rother Valley, NAME would encourage you to contact Robert Back directly (Robert.Back@westsussex.gov.uk) expressing your concerns.

Why is this so important? We know that the consultation will offer us little room for manoeuvre. We are told "it will not be a 'referendum'", which means that majority opposition to the Academy will not alone be sufficient reason for County to change its plans. However, we know that there are doubts among some even at County Hall about the wisdom of this deeply controversial proposal. In addition to attending the consultation meetings, and filling in the forms, we should therefore also consider going directly to the people who make the decisions.

If e-mailing Robert Back, you might ask him to address these points:


* Academies were designed to bring 'choice and diversity' to urban areas. For instance, North London parents might choose a Christian Academy, or a Business Academy. The Rother Valley represents an untried experiment: as the country's first rural Academy, it does not offer a choice to parents, but demands that their children comply with the sponsor's ethos.
* Although rolls are falling in the Rother Valley, West Sussex as a whole does not have anything like the ‘surplus’ of some local authorities, and the privatisation of the secondary school system seems a rather desperate way of addressing an issue which other authorities are finding different ways to tackle.
* If the ‘consultation’ we are to be offered only allows us the ‘option’ of a privatised Academy for the Rother valley, what kind of a ‘consultation’ is this? A ‘preferred option’ is one thing, a fait accompli is quite another.

To our disbelief, the man who actually makes the final decision, cabinet member for education Cllr Mark Dunn has 'gone on leave' for the period of the consultation, presumably in order not to have to field the kind of inconvenient concerns which are sure to be expressed by local communities. Nevertheless, NAME would urge you to copy your e-mails to him (Mark.Dunn@westsussex.gov.uk); you might also consider sending your questions to your local County Council elected member (and /or Midhurst's councillor Nola.Hendon@westsussex.gov.uk), or simply copying Ms Hendon in on your questions to Mr Back.

Please forward this e-mail as widely as possible to friends, colleagues or anybody who you feel might wish to contribute to this debate. If you receive a reply from Mr Back, Mr Dunn, Ms Hendon or anybody else at County Hall, please forward it to us at NAME (namecampaign@yahoo.com): we are intrigued to see what kind of responses you get!

The Big Give Away

Statement from NAME


We couldn’t make it up. Under plans to be revealed on Wednesday, West Sussex County Council will announce its intention to hand over the land and buildings on the Midhurst Intermediate School and Midhurst Grammar School River sites to a charity, United Learning Trust, as soon as this summer. These are assets paid for out of your council taxes, yet ULT will be allowed to sell off the River site and keep the cash! This scheme bears all the hallmarks of other rushed privatisations. Like Railtrack, this can only end in disaster.



You might not like the way that West Sussex County Council have run Rother Valley schools, but at least in theory you could vote them out: you get the council you elect. However if WSCC washes its hands of the schools, they will be beyond the electorate’s control for good. In a desperate bid to gain disappearing funding, West Sussex intend to open the new Academy on the existing MIS and MGS sites in September 2008, as a temporary measure before a new school is built. New ownership – same old buildings. We say why not wait and fund the school rebuild out of the public purse, retaining democratic control over the use of our taxes.



NAME have consistently argued that the ‘consultation’ is anything but a serious effort on County’s part to gain the public’s views. Sadly this view has been confirmed this week by West Sussex’s refusal to abide by its outcome, merely to ‘have regard for views expressed’. However, we urge everybody to attend the meetings, return the forms and let West Sussex County Council know that Rother Valley residents will not see their heritage, their taxes and their democratic influence thrown away in this manner.



E-mail Robert.Back@westsussex.gov.uk and Mark.Dunn@westsussex.gov.uk and share your views!

Pay campaign information

Supply/Agency Teachers and a Two-Tier Workforce

One of the resolutions for annual conference deals with supply/agency teachers.

It reads as follows:

Conference deplores the development of a two-tier workforce within teaching, with agency and
some other supply teachers, home tutors and other peripatetic staff denied their full employment
rights, and in the case of agency teachers, their rights to national pay and pension entitlements.
Conference regrets that many teachers are engaged by Local Authorities on ‘casual’ or short
term arrangements in circumstances in which they should be treated as permanent staff.
Conference also notes with regret the growth of teacher agencies within the sector, with some
supply teachers being forced to seek work through agencies.
Conference notes the success of work undertaken by many divisions to require Local
Authorities to meet their responsibilities in relation to more vulnerable teachers, and applauds
those representatives who have been able to negotiate with their Local Authority for improved
security for such sectors of the teaching workforce.
Conference notes the failure at EU and national level to agree legislative measures to improve
the position of agency and temporary workers, and deplores the Government’s failure to give
full support to such proposals.
Conference notes the establishment by the TUC of the Commission on Vulnerable Employment
as well as other initiatives designed to collect evidence across all sectors of the workforce on
the problems caused by the denial of proper employment rights.
Conference calls upon the Executive to campaign vigorously to end the development of two-tier
teaching workforce by:
1. Continuing to promote and support strategies to enforce teachers’ rights to national pay
and pension rights and full employment protection;
2. Enhancing the promotion, support and publicity given to negotiating strategies at local
level seeking to provide security and decent pay for supply and peripatetic staff;
3. Seeking agreement at national level on recommended contractual arrangements and on
the ways in which relevant services are organised so as to ensure full employment rights
for all affected teachers;
18
4. Maintaining the Union’s support for the campaign for a Trade Union Freedom Bill and
other legislative measures seeking to end a two tier workforce;
5. Seeking to ensure that in the further changes related to cover such work is undertaken
by qualified teachers;
6. Maintaining the Union’s work to protect Overseas Trained Teachers and other vulnerable
groups;
7. Seeking support from the TUC for a lobby of Parliament for a campaign to end the twotier
workforce; and
8. Working with European trade union bodies, ETUC and ETUCE, to take forward the
Union’s campaign objectives.
Executive




A full list of resolutions for annual conference can be found here

To the 190,883+ Women NUT members

This is taken from the Classroom Teacher blog
Alison Long writes...

To the 190,883+ Women NUT members.*

* figures taken from SERTUC survey March 2004


76% of NUT members are women. Yet just 40% of the executive, and 12% of officers are women.

If you go to Conference you will see that the platform and the hall are dominated by men. Go to a fringe meeting, and chances are that once again men are making the running.


Does this matter? Consider these two facts:

*

Secondary schools have a higher ratio of TLRs/teachers than Primaries.
*

Primary schools have a higher ratio of women teachers than Secondaries.

You see what is happening here?

Most secondary teachers can get extra pay for extra responsibility. Their primary colleagues just get loaded with extra responsibly for no extra pay.

So where men are doing extra work, they tend to get paid for it. Whereas women are doing extra work for no extra money.


I could go on. Pensions. Promotion prospects. Provisions for Pregnant teachers. All too often women are keeping their heads down and doing their (pretty damn good) best while men are having discussions and making decisions on our behalf.


I believe it is time to hold our heads high, look around us and start to get active in OUR union.

Please let me know what you think. Am I just crying in the wilderness, or are there others out there who feel the same way?


Classroom Teacher will welcome views from other teachers. Email classroomteacher(at)yahoo.co.uk

And so will WSTA so email WSTAlearn(at)yahoo.co.uk

Where possible I use (at) instead of the @ sign as it prevents automated spam being sent. You just need to replace it with the @ when you email.

Teachers TV Classroom Monologues

Following the success of Staffroom Monologues 2007, Teachers TV is once again
launching this exciting scriptwriting competition, in association with the
National Union of Teachers.

This year's Writer Judge will be Ashley Pharoah, the British television writer, co-creator of the successful drama series Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes.

The competition opens on Monday 18 February.

Click here after Monday for more details.

Reps Training

The reps training course on St Valentine's Day was a big success with Kevin Courtney as the guest speaker.

Even if the union rep "only" takes the mail from the union and puts it up on the notice board he or she is a vital part of the union. Kevin also outlined many other ways in which reps can play a role in the union especially with the upcoming pay ballot.

He stressed that winning the pay ballot will encourage members to battle on issues like Academy Status and workload whereas a defeat on this ballot will encourage management to think teachers will put up with *anything*.




The course dealt with
Disciplinary Procedure
Redundancy
Sickness Policy
Competence

It is important for all union reps or potential union reps to know about these policies. The details are here

Do not hesitate to contact the helpline 01342 410805 if you have any problems.

NAME update - campaign against Academies

NAME spokesperson Lizz Tinder said

“We are delighted that people are starting to vote in our online poll. Perhaps it’s no surprise that 96% of respondents felt that the consultation we are to be offered in March is not a real consultation at all. But we should still engage in the process. In our responses we must send a really strong message to County that it’s time they looked into alternatives – and if they would take the time to ask us, we have plenty of ideas.”

NAME has called a public meeting, appropriately in Easebourne, in the Refectory on February 28th at 7 PM. Come along and help save our school, save our old town centre and oppose the Academy. “We’re hoping for a great turn out” said Ms Tinder, “be there!”

All enquiries to Lizz Tinder, 01730 821464. http://namecampaign.blogspot.com/

Have your say on the future of Boundstone

Click here to see an article by the former head and to comment yourself.

Teachers and Parents oppose academies.

Teachers and Parents oppose academies.

150 parents and teachers concerned about the threat to turn Littlehampton, Boundstone and King’s Manor into academies attended a meeting organised by the WSTA on Thursday 7th February..

The local authority's spokesman Robert Back was listened to in polite silence. He argued that although Academies had been corrupt and inefficient in the past they would be very different now. He also argued that the academy was “the only game in town.” The private sponsors Woodard Corporation declined to send anyone to speak to us.


Alistair Smith and Hank Roberts spoke on behalf of the NUT and got a very positive reception.

Alistair pointed out the dangers of Academies where historically the Local Authority has lost all say in the running of the school with the LA having one governor and the sponsors having the lion’s share.

He also stressed the social divisiveness of Academies. “Academies,” according to Lord Adonis, “are the 21st Century’s Grammar Schools.”

Hank Roberts pointed out that sponsors generously donating two million pounds can get upwards of 18 million pounds of public money for their trouble and frequently excessive profits are made through “consultancy fees” and the provision of equipment for the school. “They are not sponsors but spongers.”

Private businesses are colonising the state funded education system.

Everyone who spoke from the floor was opposed to privatisation and not taken in by any of the promises.

They rejected the arrogant assertion that "there is no alternative". This is not a spirit in which to conduct a consultation. It is undemocratic...and anyway it is something Margaret Thatcher used to say a lot.

There was also discussion about the spread of religious schools without any popular demand. Hank warned of the proliferation of separate schools for children whose parents have different religious views and the potential divisiveness this will bring about.

After an hour and half’s lively discussion people left the hall clearly disturbed by what they’d heard and still deep in discussion about the issues raised .

NAME online vote

NAME (No Academy in Midhurst or Easebourne) invites you to take part in
their online vote on an Academy for the Rother Valley. Ahead of the
consultation, Cllr Mark Dunn, West Sussex cabinet member for education
has said that the Academy 'option' is 'the only show in town'.

You can vote on their website:
Click here

NAME: No Academy in Midhurst or Easebourne

NAME: No Academy in Midhurst or Easebourne
PRESS RELEASE

For immediate release – 08:00 Tuesday February 5, 2008

Following West Sussex County Council’s disclosure of its plan to close three schools and open an Academy in Midhurst or Easebourne, some concerned members of the community – teachers and parents who recognize that an Academy is not the best solution for the Rother Valley – have formed a campaign group. NAME (No Academy in Midhurst or Easebourne) is gaining momentum daily and welcomes new members. It will engage in public meetings and produce literature, and it has established a website where the public can contribute their thoughts in a way that doesn’t have to fit into the standard ‘consultation’ boxes: http://namecampaign.blogspot.com/ .

NAME Spokesperson, Chris Boxley commented this week:

“In their briefing to the Press, West Sussex County Council claim that the idea of an Academy for Midhust ‘emerged’ during December. Strange, then that the minutes of the council’s cabinet show that they discussed the matter in May!

WSCC Cabinet member Councillor Dunn also claimed that an Academy is ‘the only show in town’. It’s true! An Academy is the only option to replace Midhurst Grammar, Herbert Shiner and the Intermediate if we demand closure of these schools now and their replacement in the next three years. This is not what the community wants. Before December, nobody was clamouring to shut these three schools immediately, despite some increasingly outdated accommodation.

If, on the other hand, we hold out for public funding to be made available (either through Building Schools for the Future, or other targeted capital funding as it comes on stream), or for County to raise the revenue, we can get the school we want, where we want it, using the detailed plans seen by governors at MGS, creating a better school around Whip Hill, Lambert’s Lane and including the existing brand new sports centre. We say, why throw away a 336 year historical legacy for a slightly longer wait?”

Academies are bad for communities, bad for school staff and bad for parents and children. Why?

1) Bad for communities because, despite what County say about representation, the rules for Academy governance are clear – even when the local authority is a co-sponsor, the private sponsor must have an absolute majority of governors to maintain control of the school: this is undemocratic and unrepresentative;
2) Bad for school staff because only existing staff will be protected by TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)) – new staff may be employed at a lower rate, eventually forcing downward pressure on wages and conditions for all workers in the Academy;
3) Bad for parents and children because there is growing evidence that established Academies carry out methods of ‘back-door selection’ – in the end, the school chooses its parents and children, not the other way around.

The real choice is not the one offered in the consultation – Academy or nothing! It is
either buy into a privatized Academy now; or
buy time for the community to debate its priorities and get the publicly funded, publicly run, publicly accountable school it deserves.

You can visit their blog:
click here

Pay offer

Details of the current pay offer are available here

Let's win the ballot

Faith McGrath, NUT rep., Adamsrill Primary School, Lewisham NUT wrote this in Classroom Teacher 2 out now Click here to download


Let’s win the ballot

Most teachers have never taken part in a ballot for strike action so be ready to answer any queries:

How do I get my ballot paper?

Ballot papers will be sent to home addresses. Make sure the NUT has the right details for all your staff.

How can I help win the ballot?

Make sure all your colleagues know about the vote. Call a school meeting to discuss it. Call or visit other nearby schools as well. Some Local NUT Associations, like mine, have set up campaign committees - help build one in your area too.

Can my school stop me striking?

No! You will be protected by our official action ballot. If the NUT gives the go-ahead, thousands of teachers will take united action. We can all join together on the day, with local rallies and meetings too.

Can I afford to take strike action?

Can you afford not to?! You will lose a day’s pay - about £60 - but you will lose thousands if these pay cuts are imposed. With all the hoops we have to jump through, you can’t even rely on going up the pay spine to earn more. We have to rely on union action instead!

Will one-day action be enough?

From a solid first day’s strike, we must build the united public sector action that can make ministers think again. So vote YES for action!