A strike that played a big part in the NUT calendar was considered a flop
according to reports.
The strike only managed to shut down 1 in 8 schools for the day whereas in 2011 a strike shut nearly two thirds of England’s 25,000 state schools. This shows that the strike was not helpful and completely anonymous to others around.
Many parents were angry with the union’s decision and felt that they weren’t able to work as their
children were not at school. They also found that it affected many students education and that next time they should plan the day more thoroughly. Some felt it was an inappropriate action and that all strikes should be banned. Although the NUT insisted that it was a success and more could follow.
If more follow this will this affect a child’s education more? Well an angry parent thought that one strike was enough by telling us that:
"As a parent of two children aged 18 and 11 who are in full time education, I was somewhat disappointed with the varying responses to the strike from the schools/colleges that they attend. My son attends Richmond upon Thames College and was told to attend for lessons, upon arrival his lessons were subsequently cancelled leaving him with no lessons for the day. My daughter who attends Shaftesbury Park Primary School , on the other hand experienced no problems with her daily lessons, nor with her extra-curricular lessons at the school. I understand the frustration of teachers having to voice their opinions through the medium of strike action, but how true a representation of the whole teaching sector does the action represent?"
Figures published today on the BBC website quote that only 12% of schools in England were fully closed. Other figures state that out of the NUT member total of 326,930 the turnout was only 40%, out
of which 92% voted in favour of action. Is this an acceptable amount of voters within a union to force
strike action?
I hope that the NUT are aware of their actions and will take more thought and consideration into account before striking again.
Courtney-Mae
according to reports.
The strike only managed to shut down 1 in 8 schools for the day whereas in 2011 a strike shut nearly two thirds of England’s 25,000 state schools. This shows that the strike was not helpful and completely anonymous to others around.
Many parents were angry with the union’s decision and felt that they weren’t able to work as their
children were not at school. They also found that it affected many students education and that next time they should plan the day more thoroughly. Some felt it was an inappropriate action and that all strikes should be banned. Although the NUT insisted that it was a success and more could follow.
If more follow this will this affect a child’s education more? Well an angry parent thought that one strike was enough by telling us that:
"As a parent of two children aged 18 and 11 who are in full time education, I was somewhat disappointed with the varying responses to the strike from the schools/colleges that they attend. My son attends Richmond upon Thames College and was told to attend for lessons, upon arrival his lessons were subsequently cancelled leaving him with no lessons for the day. My daughter who attends Shaftesbury Park Primary School , on the other hand experienced no problems with her daily lessons, nor with her extra-curricular lessons at the school. I understand the frustration of teachers having to voice their opinions through the medium of strike action, but how true a representation of the whole teaching sector does the action represent?"
Figures published today on the BBC website quote that only 12% of schools in England were fully closed. Other figures state that out of the NUT member total of 326,930 the turnout was only 40%, out
of which 92% voted in favour of action. Is this an acceptable amount of voters within a union to force
strike action?
I hope that the NUT are aware of their actions and will take more thought and consideration into account before striking again.
Courtney-Mae