Paula McEwan (Inverclyde and Council) delivered a powerful and urgent message to the Scottish Government and to Education Scotland to properly support and resource planned curriculum reforms. Noting that drafts of the new CFE framework and guidance are due for publication in June 2026 – when schools’ plans and working time agreements for next session would already be set – Ms McEwan warned that, “A programme of additional INSET days must be announced without delay.” She further called for “meaningful engagement across all sectors’, noting that, “Many CIC working groups thus far had been “Early Years and Primary-lite” due to difficulties in some teachers securing release during the school day.” Ms McEwan was critical of the lack of teacher oversight of the CIC work, and stated that for the project to be truly collaborative, there must be “trust in governance that we don’t currently have.”
Seconding the motion, Dominic Tollan (Renfrewshire) expressed concern that the CIC’s approach to cross-curricular competencies would not declutter the curriculum as intended.

Highlighting the demands on Primary teachers to engage in all curricular areas, Education Convener Susan Quinn (Glasgow and Council) echoed the call for a programme of additional INSET days and urged the Scottish Government to “give teachers the time and space to get it right”. Yasmin Murray (Renfrewshire) and Irvine Tait (Shetland) echoed calls for additional protected time for teachers and greater teacher voice in the CIC whilst Helen Haines (Edinburgh and Council) highlighted concerns about communication around the CIC and the preparedness of schools to engage properly with the project. The motion was carried unanimously.

In moving this motion, Susan Quinn (Glasgow and Council) highlighted Additional Support Needs (ASN) as a key tenet of our Stand up for Quality Education Campaign. She was clear that, “The policy of presumption of mainstreaming is not the problem, but rather it’s the lack of resourcing and supports available which are the issues.” Furthermore, Ms Quinn noted that, “Any recent additional funding from the Scottish Government directed towards supporting ASN has only stopped planned cuts for that financial year.” She called on the Scottish Government and local authorities to work together to ensure ASN is properly resourced, “Which includes having enough teachers to reduce class sizes so that all young people can be properly supported, and having opportunities for those who wish to train as specialists in ASL to do so.”

The motion was seconded by Gabi Warburton (Highland and Council) who noted that the unmet additional support needs of young people was an issue raised repeatedly by members in the recent ballot on reducing class contact time. Referencing the principles of Getting It Right For Every Child (GIRFEC), she questioned how one teacher in a class of up to 33 children can do this when 43% have an identified additional support need. Ms Warburton highlighted the impact on teachers’ own health and wellbeing as they strive to meet the needs of all learners within large classes, concluding that teachers and young people need to “thrive and not just survive.”

Further speakers Tom Britton (Edinburgh and Council), Jacqueline-Ann Hume (Highland and Council), Neil McLennan (Highland), Amanda Murray (Aberdeen City), Shauna Richardson (Glasgow) and Nicola Fisher (Glasgow and Council) all spoke in support of the motion. They highlighted issues around class sizes in special school settings; particular staffing challenges for rural schools; the need to move the education system away from being data driven to needs led, with testimonies highlighting the positive difference when supports are in place for children and young people and the contrasting impact when they are not. The motion was passed unanimously.

This motion was successfully moved by Mick Dolan (West Dunbartonshire and Council) who reiterated the EIS’s firm support for the presumption of mainstreaming policy with the caveat that appropriate ring-fenced funding is essential to ensure the policy is realised to its full potential. He discussed the cuts to frontline support services which have added to the challenge that teachers face when attempting to support the increasing range and complexity of additional support needs of learners in their classes. Mick finished by highlighting, “the need for a clear picture of provision across blended learning environments to ascertain the pressures upon both staff and learners in these settings.”

The motion was seconded by Andrew Berrie (West Dunbartonshire) who advised that, “Specialist provision is over-subscribed and teachers in these settings are experiencing high and sustained levels of stress due to a lack of appropriate staffing and resourcing.”

The motion received strong support, with contributions from Jane McKeown (Fife and Council), Mark Ireland (Midlothian) and Andrew McNeil (Fife and Council), and was passed unanimously.

Education Vice-Convener Colin Finlay (Falkirk and Council) successfully argued that the use of AI in schools be predicated on ethical principles and a human-centred approach to education, with teacher trade unions being central to framing local agreements. Referencing the recently published guidance and guardrails on the use of AI in schools, which the EIS had co-created with the Scottish Government, he called for the union to support members and reps with advice and professional learning on the ethical and equitable use of AI. Mr Finlay stated, “Professional learning must address data protection, safeguarding and the preservation of teacher professionalism.”

Seconding, James McIntyre (East Dunbartonshire and Council) stated that, “Education is first and foremost a human profession.” Eleni Papagiannaki (ULA) argued that AI risked exacerbating social class inequality and is “more dangerous than we think.” Douglas Haywood (Aberdeen City) was supportive of the motion but questioned whether it was possible to use AI – which he said has been “pushed onto us by a tech industry that has had no good ideas since the smartphone” – in an ethical and equitable way. Craig Macdonald (Edinburgh) saw the “global march of this technology” as a risk to democracy whilst Bill Ramsay (South Lanarkshire) highlighted the important role of the GTCS in the debate and Clackmannanshire’s Calum McInnes focussed on the environmental costs
of AI.

Jamie MacLeod (Western Isles and Council) successfully moved this amended motion, calling for Council to investigate and report on the usage of online live teaching across Scotland, with a particular focus on differentiated support, health and wellbeing, and supervision and safety in the classroom. Mr MacLeod highlighted the importance of an evidence-based approach in challenging the delivery of live online teaching. He questioned whether someone behind a screen could motivate a pupil in the same way as a teacher in the room; whether they could identify a small change in behaviour which signals that something is happening in the pupil’s life; and why pupils in rural areas should be part of an experiment that is untested, all because of subject-choice. He concluded with an impassioned plea to members to Stand Up for Quality Education. “What makes us teachers is who we are and our relationships with pupils. Just remember that your positive interaction with a pupil might be the only positive interaction they have that day.”

Seconding the motion, Phil Alexander (Midlothian and Council) emphasised the importance of having a clear picture of what’s happening across Scotland in relation to the delivery of live online teaching. Highlighting that, “The SNCT Handbook does not provide for delivery beyond the classroom setting and that national conditions of service cannot be varied by local agreement,” he was clear that the quality of learning experiences should not be determined by geography. In urging Conference to support the motion, he said, “Good teaching involves reading the room; adapting the lesson to meet learners’ needs and providing challenge and encouragement. Teachers’ national Terms and Conditions matter.”
The motion received strong support from delegates, with a number of speakers highlighting the pressures placed on teachers to ‘volunteer’ to deliver live online learning; the threats to the delivery of quality education; and the impact on pupils’ health and wellbeing.

Irvine Tait (Shetland) reminded Conference that online learning was an experiment introduced during COVID which had failed; it is no replacement for face-to-face provision and is ultimately an act of “education vandalism.”

Highlighting the importance of this motion, Education Convener, Susan Quinn (Glasgow and Council) called on members to stand together and challenge any efforts to introduce live online teaching in their areas. “We need to fight back, declare disputes and ballot members!” The motion passed with unanimous support.

Jennifer Gaffney (South Lanarkshire and Council) successfully moved a motion, calling for clear guidance from the Scottish Government on the legal consequences for teachers in relation to restraint and seclusion, when making necessary interventions or in determining not to intervene. In light of the passage of the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Act, Jennifer spoke of the imperative for “transparent legal guidelines to be produced,” with the EIS being “front and central” in its framing. Ms. Gaffney highlighted the current landscape in schools where “teachers encounter daily situations where they need to make decisions to protect both staff and pupils … and whilst de-escalation is always the primary strategy, other strategies can become necessary. Teachers need clear guidance about what they can and cannot do, without fear of legal consequences if acting reasonably and in line with national and council policy.” Ms. Gaffney also called for increased levels of funding to support the high levels of additional support needs in Scottish schools; with over 43% of all Scottish pupils having an identified additional support need, she was clear that, “Ultimately, we need greater allocation of resources so that restraint and seclusion can be minimised and restorative practice supported.”

The motion was seconded by Stephen Mungall, also of South Lanarkshire, who reminded delegates that teachers don’t have the luxury of seeking legal advice, before responding to situations which arise in the classroom. He called on the government to “listen to the profession on this” and warned that teachers “cannot be collateral damage in vague and poorly defined legislation.”

Mike Paul (Aberdeen City) echoed the sentiments of colleagues, stating, “This policy frightens staff; it can lead to hesitation, and hesitation can lead to injury… We need clarity, training, and resourcing which we and the young people deserve.”

Martin Elliott (West Lothian) also spoke in support of the motion, highlighting the importance of appropriate training to alleviate staff anxiety in relation to the implementation of the Act. The motion was carried unanimously.

Moving this amended motion, Mark Fleming (South Lanarkshire) spoke about the ripple effects of behaviour in schools and about the impact of removing GTCS registered teachers from Early Years settings, particularly in relation to preparing children for a successful transition to primary school. He finished by calling on Council to investigate the extent to which the Scottish Government’s guidance on behaviour and consequences is being implemented in schools.

Derek Brown (South Lanarkshire) seconded the motion by highlighting the importance of addressing inconsistencies in applying the guidance across different schools and local authorities. He referenced the complexities around the misapplication of some aspects of positive behaviour management strategies due to a lack of resourcing in the system, which in his view, “Could lead to situations where pupils are not always given the most useful or efficacious messages to support an improvement in their behaviour.” The motion was carried unanimously.

William Insch (Glasgow and Council) successfully moved this amended motion calling for the Scottish Government to produce guidance on how school leaders should deal with ‘in-school’ truanting. Mr Insch highlighted the challenges arising from this issue, which is affecting a significant number of pupils.
Neil Anderson (Glasgow and Council) seconded the motion, highlighting the need for national guidance to support the development of practical policies, when several locally developed initiatives have yet to have an impact.

Following further support from Mark Ireland (Midlothian) and Clare Kelly (Edinburgh), which highlighted that staff time taken to encourage pupils back into class takes away from vital support needed in classrooms, the motion was unanimously passed.

This motion was moved by Alison Beattie (Glasgow and Council) who stressed that a positive experience during a teacher’s probationary period can have a lasting impact on their whole career. She noted that, “Mentoring is an important professional responsibility for teachers and effective, high quality mentoring support is central to the success of provisionally registered teachers within the current Teacher Induction Scheme.” However, Ms Beattie described a situation where there are inconsistencies between local authorities in how mentoring is delivered. This included variances in how the 0.1 FTE funding allocation is used, with some mentors being given protected time whilst for others the mentoring role is added to their already large remits. Ms Beattie argued that, “We need a clear national picture of how mentor time is being delivered to assess whether the time is being reflected in staffing models and it would give an opportunity to engage with probationer teachers and mentors.”

Ella Van Loock (Glasgow) seconded the motion by referencing her own positive experience during her probationary year due to the experience of her mentor. She argued that mentors need to be recognised for the work that they do and suggested the work of mentors is like “time alchemy, where you are taking limited minutes and turning them into someone else’s capacity.” Ms Van Loock concluded by stating that, “We must endeavour to give teachers the best start to their careers.”

Speaking in support, Susan Quinn (Glasgow and Council) noted that this motion is “timely due to the ongoing developments and discussions around the current Teacher Induction Scheme.” She suggested that the language used to describe this group of teachers needs to change to better reflect their provisional registration status with the GTCS and that this motion will allow the opportunity and space to negotiate the future of a new system and the potential of a Graduate Teacher Pathway. In her concluding remarks, Ms Quinn noted the “commitment of mentors and the need for quality mentorship” but highlighted that budget cuts can mean that is not always the reality. She highlighted that this motion would “allow Council to press for additional funding and time for this valuable role.” The motion was passed unanimously.

Mairi Green (West Lothian) successfully moved a motion calling for a Biennial Early Career Teachers’ Conference. Mairi, who is also the Local Association Learning Representative, spoke of the “amazing things our union does for members,” referencing advice and support, Professional Learning opportunities, and the professional support and solidarity of colleagues.

She went on to tell the AGM that, “Many of our Early Career Teacher members experience high levels of precarity and insecurity; in the last academic year, 69% of Provisionally Registered Teachers were successful in finding employment, but an overwhelming majority of this was temporary contracts. This can mean that they have less access to valuable support.”

This motion seeks to build on existing work being undertaken by Learning Reps in Local Associations across Scotland, and Mairi was clear on its impact. She said, “By hosting a national conference every two years, we can provide a safe space for these colleagues to ask difficult questions; promote the work of the union; build our membership; deliver bespoke Professional Learning; and find out more about the priorities of these members.”

The motion was seconded by Allan Crosbie (Edinburgh), who told delegates that, “The conference outlined in this motion allows for us to develop the next generation of union activists, and mirror that of sister trade unions, like the National Education Union (NEU), who deliver a specific conference for young workers and new teachers. This work helps bring them into union activism, and gets them ready for eventual union leadership.”

Also speaking in support of the motion, Thom Kirkwood (Edinburgh), first time EIS delegate and speaker, echoed Allan’s sentiments about the importance of these conferences. As a former NEU activist whilst teaching in England, Thom spoke highly of the value of attending these events and called for the EIS to adopt a similar approach with the implementation of an early career teachers’ conference. They concluded by reminding Conference that early career teachers are “not the future of the union, they are its present.” The motion was carried unanimously.

Sean McNamara (North Lanarkshire) moved this motion by firstly reflecting on the decimation of support services by austerity policies and the ways in which the resulting cuts to frontline services have added considerably to the workload of teachers. He advocated powerfully for non-teaching and auxiliary staff to be recognised as important, valued colleagues and crucial to the school community, advising that their loss affects everyone – teachers, pupils and parents.

The motion was seconded by Alan Gardiner (North Lanarkshire) who discussed the ways in which teachers and other school staff experience increased workload demands when support assistant roles are lost or when office staff are cut. This impacts directly on support for vulnerable learners and on teachers who are required to complete extra administrative tasks on a daily and weekly basis. He finished by clearly linking the cuts of non-teaching and auxiliary colleagues in schools, to increased workload pressures on promoted staff, including headteachers and senior leadership teams.

The motion received strong support, with contributions from Helen Haines (Edinburgh) and Jane McKeown (Fife) and was passed unanimously.

William Insch (Glasgow) sparked a lively debate, arguing that teachers should be paid by Qualifications Scotland for elements of assessments that they carry out at National 5 and above which contribute to the final grade. Mr Insch pointed to the example of marking practical assignments in technical subjects which, he asserted, was “essentially teachers doing the work of the examination board.”

Andrew Fullwood (Glasgow and Council) seconded, arguing that performance assessments in ESOL and languages were time-consuming and were marked to Qualifications Scotland specifications. He pointed out that previously teachers were paid by the SQA for some assessments carried out in school, a point reiterated by Susan Slater (Moray). Craig Macdonald (Edinburgh) opposed the motion, deeming it inequitable in its failure to recognise the workload associated with National 4 which is internally assessed in its entirety. Graeme Cowie (Aberdeenshire) echoed this point and further argued that the motion could cause disunity among teachers in different subjects and sectors. Peter McNally (East Renfrewshire) agreed, “The crux is unity… there are other fights to fight.” After lengthy debate, Conference voted to remit the motion to Council for further consideration.

In successfully moving this motion, Michael McCallion (West Dunbartonshire) called on AGM to support a campaign to prevent HMIE inspections being scheduled in the two weeks immediately following the summer, October, Christmas and Easter holidays. Mr McCallion spoke of the physical and emotional toll which HMIE inspections have on teachers’ health and wellbeing and the pressures placed on staff and schools in the period leading up to the inspection. He argued that teachers have the right to rest and recuperate during their annual leave, but when inspections are scheduled within the first two weeks of a new term, teachers can’t do this. Instead, “The inspection looms large, preventing colleagues from genuinely switching off and impacting their wellbeing for the remainder of the term.” Mr McCallion also asserted that inspections conducted during this period were often counterproductive as pupils too are resettling and adjusting back to school life. In urging support for the motion, he said that, “It would control the worst impact of something we don’t agree with!”

As Gavin Corrigan (West Dunbartonshire) seconded the motion, Darth Vader’s Imperial March resonated in the hall, striking fear into the hearts of delegates. Using creative licence, Mr Corrigan likened the response to “the feeling of dread and doom…which runs through the vast majority of teachers when they hear their school is being inspected.” Referencing the HMIE inspection which took place in his school just after the festive break, Mr Corrigan shared the moving testimony of some of his colleagues: “Instead of enjoying Christmas with my family, I felt mentally absent when I was physically present”; “I found myself waking up in the middle of the night”; “It was exhausting”; “My holidays were spoiled and my resolve to leave the profession increased.” In summing up, he made a simple plea – “Protect staff!”

Further speakers, Paula McEwan (Inverclyde), Martyn Cheung (Edinburgh), Adela Mansur (Edinburgh) and Irvine Tait (Shetland) all spoke in support of the motion, sharing similar experiences of the inspection process and highlighting existing EIS policy to campaign against the top-down accountability measures associated with the current model of inspection and advocate for more collegiate processes, rooted in peer review.

Christina Fleming (Dundee) moved this amended motion, calling on Council to investigate the extent to which school assemblies are used to enable the delivery of non-class contact time in primary schools in Scotland. Asserting that systemic staff shortages are driving the use of whole-school assemblies for this purpose, Christina reflected on her own experience as a primary teacher and spoke about the gaps in teacher cover in this sector. She highlighted the negative impact of whole-school assemblies on teacher workload and health and wellbeing, “With limited opportunity for curriculum delivery in assemblies, primary teachers feel they have no other option but to strive to cover the curriculum in less time.” Referencing the forthcoming reduction in non-class contact time, Christina spoke of the opportunity this created to support curriculum delivery, but “only if more teachers are employed and in class to support meaningful implementation.”

The motion was formally seconded by Claire Robertson (Edinburgh).

Natasha York (Scottish Borders), speaking in opposition to the motion, questioned its purpose and suggested that it would be superseded by events.

The motion received substantial support, with contributions from Jacqueline Smith (North Ayrshire), Megan McCrossan (North Lanarkshire), Susan Quinn (Glasgow), Emma Ward (Fife), and Julie Chrystal (Fife). All referenced the importance of gathering information about the position nationally to inform next steps in the campaign to reduce teacher workload. The motion was carried by a large majority.

South Ayrshire Local Association was successful in calling for an investigation and report into Qualifications Scotland-related workload. Proposing, Iain Aitken described the selection for N4 verification by the examination authority as a “workload lottery” and outlined the online-only approval process as involving “copious” amounts of documentation to be completed and uploaded. Mr Aitken argued that teachers are unduly and severely impacted by time-consuming and bureaucratic demands of the body, and declared, “We don’t work for Qualifications Scotland; they are supposed to work for us.” David Moore, also of South Ayrshire, formally seconded and the motion was passed by a majority.

The theme of Qualifications Scotland workload was continued by South Ayrshire Local Association, but this time focussing specifically on the burden related to results day, which Iain Aitken, moving, described as “the annual festival of stress!” He pointed out that senior leadership teams and pastoral teachers were expected to respond to the results by offering immediate support and advice to learners; to reconfigure courses and classes based on results; to analyse data and to plan for appeals. Mr Aitken also argued that, increasingly, this workload impacts classroom teachers. David Moore (South Ayrshire) seconded the motion, arguing that results day was a significant source of hidden workload, and that an investigation and report could assist in !teachers’ professional boundaries being respected. The resolution passed by majority.

Iain Aitken (South Ayrshire) moved a motion to defer the earliest date when unconditional offers can be made until 1st June in any academic session. Referencing his personal experience, he suggested that unconditional offers currently have an impact on teaching and learning, on pupil attainment and on teacher workload. He argued that by deferring the release of unconditional offers until June, this would resolve the issues outlined and would still give pupils sufficient time to prepare for further or higher education.

The motion was formally seconded by Gary Laird (South Ayrshire).

Speaking in opposition to the motion, Anne-Marie Harley (FELA) cautioned that the motion may have unintended consequences for FELA colleagues and could even result in cuts to courses, cuts to opportunities for young people, and ultimately cuts to jobs. She called for a more considered debate around this issue. Following calls to remit, the motion was remitted to Council.

Moving, Susan Quinn (Glasgow) referenced the technical nature of this motion and highlighted its importance in terms of young people accessing alternative pathways of educational provision. She outlined that, “the ASN Tribunal system sits independent from both government and local authorities but receives its funding from the Scottish Government.” Ms Quinn recounted statistics which showed a significant increase in appeals to the Tribunal, with the vast majority of them relating to placing request appeals for alternative provision. She described how some recent Tribunal decisions have not taken full account of the status of teachers’ terms and conditions of service, as set out in the SNCT Handbook, and quoted a published decision which stated that the Tribunal does not accept that the SNCT has statutory status. Ms Quinn pointed out that,“The SNCT has a legal basis, but this status is not accurately reflected in Tribunal decisions.” In urging members to support the motion, she said this would allow the EIS to campaign and hold the Tribunal to account.

Seconding the motion, Catherine Brown (Glasgow) stated that class sizes and working conditions are not abstract concepts and the motion is about clarity and accountability. She argued that supporting the motion would “enable the EIS to identify patterns, challenge inaccuracies and ensure that SNCT terms and conditions are upheld.” The motion was passed unanimously.

Chiara Piacentini (Glasgow) moved an amended motion calling for investigation into the amount of time spent reporting to parents outwith that allocated in Working Time Agreements, for example: discussions at the school gate, phone calls, and emails. Ms Piacentini highlighted the need to compare and contrast the experience of primary and secondary teachers for greater understanding of the issue.

Shauna Richardson (Glasgow) seconded the motion, highlighting that these informal discussions “can lead to abusive situations, in which teachers are not properly supported.”

Des Morris (East Renfrewshire) opposed the motion, highlighting that its aim is already covered by existing policy and suggesting that the focus should instead be on changing culture and practice. He proposed that the time that would be taken to investigate and report on this motion would be better utilised in supporting individual members in line with existing policy.

Speaking in support of the motion, Vice-President Elect Valerie Inkster (Shetland) re-iterated the importance of investigating this issue to gather data and provide support to those colleagues who feel unable to say “no” when approached by parents.

Following an unsuccessful vote to remit to Council, the question was put and the motion successfully passed.

Ross Lyall (Midlothian) successfully moved a motion calling on Council to investigate and report on the impact on members’ workload of changes in access to or restrictions placed on printing facilities. In introducing the motion, Mr Lyall outlined the wide range of circumstances in which classroom teachers require access to printing facilities, including the production of differentiated materials and the celebration of pupil achievement.

Mr Lyall highlighted to Conference the detrimental effects that cuts to printing access is having on members in his authority, specifically referencing the impact on pupils with additional support needs. He continued, “This lack of access to printing creates stress for members, and the lack of easy access to printing risks dysregulation in pupils. How can we create regulation zones, safe spaces, or colourful resources without access to colour printers?” Mr Lyall also discussed the impact on members’ autonomy, and ability to make the greatest impact on their learners when they can’t easily access the facilities needed.”

The motion was formally seconded by Rachel Goddard (Midlothian).

The motion received strong support from delegates. Paula McEwan (Inverclyde) referenced recommendations 37 and 38 of the United Nations High Level Panel on the Teaching Profession, calling for an end to budget-led restrictions and increased investment from local authorities and Scottish Government to reduce teacher workload. She was clear in her address that, “Anything that restricts our ability to stand up for quality education must be challenged.”

Steven Rance (East Dunbartonshire) referenced the damage caused by ill thought-out efficiency measures, highlighting the paradoxical and confusing nature of the cuts to printing facilities. “Often, replacement printers never arrive, but there is a ban on getting toner for existing printers” – a frustration which resonated strongly with AGM. Mr Rance went on to reference the GTCS Professional Standards which call on teachers to be ‘responsive’ and adaptive to learners’ needs to ensure inclusion and equality. He questioned how this could be achieved and the achievement and attainment gap narrowed when teachers are having to spend their time, running about trying to find a computer or printer that works.
Long-time AGM delegate but first-time speaker as a recipient of the EIS’s Fellowship Award, Alan Gardiner (North Lanarkshire) delivered his speech, complete with extended Star Wars metaphors. Drawing inspiration from A New Hope, he likened access to printing facilities to the support Luke Skywalker received from R2-D2 in the film, highlighting that, “Teachers and the EIS are the greatest resource in education, but we need other resources to allow us to do our jobs well… We need the little things to do the big things – we need printers!” Alan’s speech received rousing applause, and the motion was carried unanimously.

This motion was moved by Stephen Mungall (South Lanarkshire) who began by talking about working class children in Scottish classrooms and the need to change the narrative around working class culture in education and more widely in society. He highlighted that the Curriculum Improvement Cycle provides an opportunity to redefine what happens in the curriculum and offers a chance to open up a space to teach children and young people about the history of the labour movement in Scotland and about how collective action can affect change. He drew attention to the ways in which working class culture interfaces with children’s rights and the importance of children seeing their lived experiences and their culture reflected in the Scottish Curriculum. Stephen finished by positively asserting that, “We need to celebrate working class history and give learners pride in the present – the least we can do is teach our children the value of knowledge and solidarity.”

The motion was seconded by Danielle Henshaw (South Lanarkshire), first time speaker, who referenced the narrow lens through which history is currently taught in schools, excising the history of the labour movement from education. She made an impassioned plea for the inclusion of content “forged in the heat of the shipyards;” content that demonstrates the value of being organised and unionised; content which does not deny our heritage. She concluded by posing a question, “If we don’t, how will we equip our young people for the challenges of today?”

Speaking in support of the motion, Nuzhat Uthmani (ULA and Council) highlighted the importance of adopting an inclusive approach when considering revised curricular content, whilst Irvine Tait (Shetland) advocated for a departure from the current history curriculum, which is “framed by elites.” The motion was carried unanimously.

Sunita Nayyer (South Lanarkshire and Council) successfully moved an amended a motion calling for an investigation on the extent to which teachers and lecturers are required or encouraged to utilise social media as part of their professional duties. Ms Nayyer highlighted the disparity of approaches across settings, furthermore the danger of additional duties becoming embedded without proper negotiation and recognition.

Seconding the motion, Carron McLellan (South Lanarkshire and Council) highlighted the need for awareness around the time taken to collate and update information to online platforms and the impact which this has on teacher workload.

Craig Duffy (Edinburgh and Council) opposed the motion, referencing the fact that uploading content to social media platforms is not part of teachers’ terms and conditions of service. He suggested that by investigating this matter, there was a danger that it would normalise this practice. Instead, he urged members to “just say no.”

Ex-President, Allan Crosbie (Edinburgh and Council) and Natasha York (Scottish Borders) both spoke in support of the motion, outlining the importance of data collation to support member engagement and future campaigning on workload, as part of our Stand Up to Quality Education campaign.

Moving this amended motion, Dominic Tollan (Renfrewshire) spoke about the inconsistent use of current email platforms and specifically the problems with GLOW when teachers move local authorities and lose access to the email address they have been using. He highlighted the issues facing supply teachers’ email addresses and the dangers of potentially losing valuable information, such as contacts and resources which they have built up over time. He outlined the danger and confusion which can arise when work and private emails interact due to professional demands. He finished by saying a centrally located email system for all GTCS registered teachers could provide a long-term solution to these many issues, by allowing teachers to protect their contacts and their professional digital resources over time.

The motion was seconded by Gillian McMahon (Renfrewshire) who discussed the need for a consistent email system to support teacher professionalism and collegiality.

Ross Lyall (Midlothian) opposed the motion, referencing his own experience of having multiple email addresses and cautioned against creating a further tier of email communication which may not provide effective utility. The motion was given further support by Yasmin Murray (Renfrewshire) and carried by a majority.

Moving this motion, Christopher Devlin (South Lanarkshire and Council) referenced the challenges which can arise in seeking to implement policy on the restriction or banning of mobile phones in schools. He spoke of the confrontation which class teachers experience, particularly with senior pupils and the workload drivers for senior leadership teams in striving to enforce restrictions. Addressing directly Scottish Government proposals to adopt a national ban, Mr Devlin said, “It’s not our experience that a ban on mobile phones will reduce violence and aggression or conflict in the classroom. Instead, it’s putting members directly into further conflict.” In urging Conference to support the motion, he argued that by investigating the extent to which schools and local authorities have regulated, restricted or banned mobile phones from their establishment, we can ascertain what provisions are currently in place, which local authorities have provided funding to support mobile phone regulation and the impact this is having on educational outcomes.

Derek Brown (South Lanarkshire) seconded the motion formally.

Speaking in support of the motion, Craig Duffy (Edinburgh and Council) referenced an apparent inequity across local authorities, with different policy provisions in place in relation to mobile phone use. He spoke in positive terms about the impact of a ban in his setting and hoped that the findings from such an investigation would lead to similar positive outcomes for schools across Scotland. The motion was passed unanimously.