[No socialist] should underestimate the very real dilemma facing the Government [and] capitalism on education at th[e presen]t [moment]. [illegible]
From a general social point of view, the bourgeoisie could never allow a situation to continue where teachers, who are the [guar]dians of bourgeois values and who transmit these values to the [next] generation, are permanently disaffected [with] the [illegible] society [illegible] commensurate with what they [see] to be their important role in society.
So, Mr Short, Secretary of State for Education, echoed by large sections of the bourgeois press, has to admit that teachers should be paid "an awful lot more" and that their pay is not in keeping with their contribution to society.
But British capitalism, in its weakened condition, will find it difficult to grant a claim for an increase of £135 on the basic scale [illegible] however just the claim may be (and public sympathy is right behind the teachers in this). Alan Day in the Observer talks of "harsh economic facts" while Short maintains "the country" cannot afford it. In fact, "the country" is finding it impos[sible] to meet the increasing social costs of education as a whole, of which teachers' salaries are only a part.
[illegible] But where [he can] [meet] economic necessity, [and] meet [it] with only "mild protest", for cut-backs in educational spending which have already [illegible] school building [program]mes an[d] [illegible], he can ignore the angry [protest] of teachers only at the risk of deep crisis in the social system.
The classic way to deal with this problem facing the Government would be to [apply] a policy of "divide and rule" to the teachers' pay claim [as they] have been able to do so successfully in the past, when sections of teachers, particularly older, conservative elements, have been bribed at the expense of the basic scale and their colleagues at the lower end of the pay structure. (In the pre[sent case] the bribe may be offered to London teachers.)
[illegible] we can judge [a new] consciousness amongst teach[ers] [that has] reached a [level] [illegible] they are not prepared to sit back and allow themselves to be sold [out] [illegible].
[This] week's revolt is not going to be [el]iminated out by the bureaucracy without putting up a strong fight. It is unlikely that the National Union of Teachers' Executive, which has [illegible] to [pres]sure from the ranks, will find a sell-out as easy as in 1961. (Although brake signs have already appeared. For instance a motion to call out more schools on 2-week strike action after many more schools than expected had volunteered for such action, was defeated on the E.C.)
It is almost certain that the Government will apply a more sophisticated policy, attempting to introduce methods and concepts already developed in industry into education generally and teaching in particular. Under a new plan, teachers would get increases in some form, but they would make a deal with the government to cooperate in the modernisation and stream-lining of teaching.
Education provides the future technocrats, the highly-skilled labour force and educated populace that a modern capitalist economy demands. Paradoxically, British capitalism, in its present weakened form, is unable to make resources available to pay for what is essential for its own survival. It is forced to economise and so attack general educational standards. On the other hand, it will certainly attempt to extract the maximum from available resources. Education is very expensive in terms of manpower, say the bourgeois economists. Therefore we should not be [deceiv]ed by any moves towards greater productivity, which—let us be clear about this—can only mean an attack on the working conditions of teachers and on the quality of education children will receive in the schools. Rationalisation of the pay structure of teachers, the reorganisation of staff-pupil ratios in schools, with even larger classes and the pooling of man-power between some schools, a differentiation between teachers' salaries based only on supply and demand, where science teachers would be paid more than history or language teachers—all these concepts will be introduced, as they have been already, in an attempt to cut down on labour costs and in the last analysis, make the teachers pay with their own sweat and blood.
The attitude of socialists to any moves to apply the concept of productivity to education must be very clear. Socialist teachers working within the teachers' organisations and pressure groups must correctly analyse and fight against any attack on the working conditions of teachers, whether direct or indirect, which will inevitably mean an attack on the quality of education the children receive in the schools. (For instance, no-one can deny the detrimental effect on children of large classes, where teachers do not have time to deal with individual pupils and are continually working under emotional stress.)
[The] struggle for higher wages can be [the springboard] for better conditions and so for [illegible] teachers must look outwards [in]to [illegible] [training] colleges who will be teachers in a [illegible] most from any defeats inflicted on the teachers' movement: the link-up has already begun [illegible] support for the teachers' pay-claim coming from [illegible] students, but it needs to be organised and structured.
(of the trade union movement which should campaign for active support of the teachers' demands, and locally inform and mobilise the parents of those children who would be the main sufferers from any deterioration in educational standards - the working class. If the present struggle takes on all the signs of becoming a protracted one, teachers should organise public meetings to explain their case.
The implications of Government policy on education must be analysed and explained patiently by all socialist teachers down to the last detail of planning in the classroom. The present struggle for better pay should not be considered as an isolated issue, but must be seen in the context of the attack on educational standards generally.