In my last post, I explored the theme of professional unity, and did my best to make a case for it as the only feasible option if we want to see future success. Here, I will explore a few criticisms I have heard and come across, and explain why I don't think they will really hold up if put to the test.
"The unions are ideologically different. Some are against striking, while others support it."
Yep, that's an undeniable fact. But, is it really a barrier to professional unity?
Democratic decision-making is at the heart of the union movement. Unions exist by the grace of their members, and decisions which affect members ought to emerge from them, and of course these same decisions must be ratified by them. Yes, some unions have taken the decision that strike action isn't for them. This baffles me as I don't generally subscribe to the idea that you ought to voluntarily throw away one of the most powerful weapons in your arsenal (except of course for the cases of actual warfare, particularly nuclear warfare).
Anyway, fine, you don't currently believe that strike action is a way forward. I don't personally take that view at the minute, but I'll make you a deal: I'll give you as much time as you like to convince me that I am wrong and you are right, as long as at the end of a fair debate we both accept the way the vote goes.
If strike action is fundamentally not the way to go, then you'll find the way to convince me of that. So, are the arguments of people against unification so weak on the issue of strike that they are unwilling to test them democratically?
"A union of teachers needs to be 'of and for' teachers."
I really could just leave it there and feel quite justified, but it am feeling ranty and this is my website after all.
At the NUT Conference, one particularly poignant debate was centred around the need for qualified teachers in every classroom. This is not to suggest that others can't help a child (or an adult) to learn, but the debate drew on the very secure knowledge that trained and qualified teachers are the best at educating others. What came out of this debate, though, wasn't that teachers were just in it for themselves.
It was the love of teaching, and a love of learning, that informed the debate.
People in education are united by a core belief: that education is paramount, and nothing can better prepare someone for life than a quality education. I don't think I'll find a lot of TAs, lecturers, educational psychologists, pastoral managers, deputy heads and head teachers (and I could go on) who don't feel that this central philosophy - this "core moral purpose" (to borrow a phrase) - is central to education. This is the tie that binds, the thing we all have in common.
I know there are arguments that a union consisting of such a wide variety of professions might find common ground hard to locate, and even harder to stand on, but I simply do not agree that these so-called "divisions" should hold back a move towards real professional unity.
"A large union is only about antagonising the Department for Education, and can't possibly take individual members' concerns seriously."
My initial reaction to this argument was actually mildly sympathetic, so I will acknowledge that first. In fact, it fits with my general mantra of supporting small business, shopping locally, and avoiding too many super-corporations. It has all the emotional resonance it needs as well: we generally prefer small classes, more individualised attention for our students, and more direct support ourselves.
But no aspect of my "mantra" is written in stone. I accept that Apple makes a better computer than I could if I managed to source all the raw materials locally. I accept that I'm going to have to shop at Sainsbury's (near payday) or the Co-op (later in the month) now and then. I further accept that I prefer national sports to local sports (I like when the whole country gets behind something) and I like the Olympics even more!
So the more I thought it through, the more it was obvious that "it's too big" wouldn't quite add up. Again, it seems like an easy emotional choice. But at the start of every debate it will almost always be unions trying to converse (and occasionally negotiate) with a national government. That's a pretty powerful force on the other side of that table, with an awful lot of resources. Resources for research, publication, and public relations. Resources for dissemination of information, and collection of data. Huge, massive, comparatively unlimited resources!
So I'm spoiling for a fair fight.
Or, as fair as it can be, and not necessarily a fight, either. In fact, the fairer the discussion, the less likely the need to fight!
Beyond fighting (or "antagonising") I think that a genuine union, which has grassroots membership at its heart and professionalism at its head, need not worry about losing touch with its membership. I don't feel put out that Christine Blower probably doesn't know who I am, but I know full well that if I ever need help, my union will be there for me (though let's hope I don't see that day).
Part 3 - The Way Ahead - is coming soon!