| 1: Overview: Nationally the year of
2000-2001 was the year of the threshold fiasco and saw a dawning of realisation
that the years of demoralisation and overwork might possibly lead to teacher
shortages. The introduction of the long-awaited and ultimately disappointing
General Teaching Council came at a time of suspicion that the "Education,
Education, Education" theme of the Government is wearing very thin and
that, as the commonest form of criticism of New Labour has it, the reality is
far different from the policy spin and public relations exercises. It is clear
that Government is not listening to teachers, any more than any other sector of
the population. This intolerance of constructive criticism and the general
arrogance could well be Labour's downfall, at least locally. Over EBD and
teacher shortages, Suffolk County Council has shown itself just as incapable of
admitting it could be wrong, and just as arrogant as Central Government. Is
this the meaning of the "modernisation" of Government? |
| 2: Threshold: The Union locally and
nationally resisted the imposition of what all could see was a fundamentally
unfair system, legally flawed in its personnel implications and deeply divisive
in the staffroom. For a start, only those with 9 experience/qualification
points could apply: how was this going to bring in new recruits to the
profession and stop NQTs getting out to better paid, and less stressful, jobs
as soon as they can? The Government was oblivious to all criticism: David
Blunkett and Estelle Morris pushed these unwelcome and ill-considered
"reforms" through with messianic zeal. Then they were checked by the
Union's legal action which removed the requirement of all teachers to
take part in the appraisal of any colleague, won important extensions of
deadlines and the right to appeal, although the DfEE could only bring
themselves to refer to a "review". The threshold application forms
were themselves flawed, particularly if you tried to use the DfEE website.
Heads' threshold training was by all accounts poorly presented and raised more
questions they it answered. We are still now getting reports of Heads
mis-informing members and discouraging or incorrectly barring them from
applying. In short, it was a mess. The Union at County and National level came
under some pressure to advise members not to apply, on philosophical grounds,
but both the National Executive and Division Council, while understanding those
who decided not to apply on grounds of principle, refrained from suggesting to
eligible members that they should forego a well-deserved pay increase. Instead,
we called for the £2000 increase to be paid to all teachers immediately,
without applications and thresholds. The Regional Office and Local Officers all
assisted members with casework arising from applications. |
| 3: Threshold Assessment: After
considerable delay (assessors had to be laid off and then re-appointed!) the
threshold assessment began in January. True to form, the assessors were not
well prepared and there were immediate irregularities and a complete lack of
consistency of approach. The Division pursued areas of poor practice with the
CEA both directly and via RO/HQ. This resulted in several useful statements
from CEA which were forwarded to schools. What a surprise to the assessor to
find out from the NUT that they should not be asking for extra evidence from
the sample, unless they had fundamental concerns about the headteacher's
methodology! The Union's circulars to School Reps/Members have been the only
reliable source of information on protecting members from the extra work of
collating evidence for assessors. |
| While the National Union's challenges to
Threshold and Performance Management were taking place, the Suffolk Division
supported the STOPP campaign (School Teachers Opposed to Performance
Pay). In Febuary, the Division Council agreed not to affiliate further but to
pursue the Union's objectives through the normal, in-house
channels. |
| "Not Yet Met": With the
first threshold assessments have come the first examples of those deemed not to
have met the standards. Of the first 4 examples known to the Division, three
involved Union activists and the fourth had been represented by the Union in a
"family friendly policies" issue some time ago. This illustrates the
dangers of a system based on headteacher's gut reaction, with no open
representations or appeal hearings. The assessors have shown themselves
incapable of spotting bias and vindictiveness from headteachers settling old
scores, just as our Summer Briefing 2000 predicted. Practices which they do not
spot include: |
- Hearsay comment from informers without actual
evidence
- Interpreting "inspiring confidence in pupils"
as agreeing with the head's views
- judging classroom performance by reporting on cover
lessons
- ignoring Heads of Department recommendations and
views
- ignoring evidence submitted and substituting alternative
evidence
- attributing good results to previous teachers and other
team members
- ignoring "overall standard" and picking on
individual incidents
- inconsistency and clear bias in approach
- Highlighting lack of documentation when the teacher is
on long-term sick leave..
|
| The Division has been assisting
members in this situation with advice and practical assistance, including
gathering evidence for review, and helping with the wording of reviews. The
avenues of appeal are that you would have crossed the threshold if the Head had
taken into account the relevant evidence, had not considered irrelevant
evidence, and had not shown bias against you. At the present time there is no
right to be represented in any review, although the Union's continuing legal
challenges mean that some cases may well be referred to employment tribunals.
The interesting legal situation is that neither the Headteacher (who makes the
threshold decision) or the assessor (who can overturn it) is the legal
employer. The resulting legal situation is quite untenable: in all other
situations, the Governors exercise their discretion and are open to scrutiny
and to personnel grievance procedures. The point of the Union's legal
challenges is that neither have the legal right to make decisions affecting
pay. HQ's did point this out to the Government in April 2000, as did the judge.
Watch this space. |
| 4: Performance Management: While all
this activity has been diverting teachers from the day-to-day job, Performance
management has also been forced upon us. Another ton of straw on the camel's
back. By February, teachers had to have agreed up to three targets, one of
which has to be related to "pupil progress". Payment by results is
back. The Division has again circulated School Reps with advice on Performance
Management Policies, seeking to promote the Union's more teacher-friendly and
professionally developmental model than that produced by the DfEE and, rather
worse, by SHA in tandem with the NASUWT. Many Reps fought a battle at school
level to dissuade staff from accepting some of the elements supported by SHA,
including an acceptance of more than one classroom observation for each
appraisal year. The Government has refused to take on board the workload
implications of this imposed appraisal system and we wait to see how much, in
practice, it will be allowed to distract individual classroom teachers and
their line managers from the basic task of teaching children. |
| All for nothing?It seems likely that
the whole Performance Management edifice could go the same direction as the old
appraisal system, at least for classroom teachers, because the big pay
discretions are not related to Performance Management Outcomes. We are already
seeing Headteacher and Deputy members denied any pay increase despite meeting
all their PM targets; below the threshold, progression up the classroom
teachers' scale will be automatic unless there is some capability action or
similar; the threshold standard is a completely independent assessment from the
annual PM appraisal and, post threshold, the STRB has made it clear that a
biennial application can be made for the next post-threshold scale point,
but that this is entirely discretionary, is not automatic if you meet your PM
targets, and can only be entertained to "recognise substantial and
sustained performance and contribution to the school as a teacher. This should
take account not only of a particular performance objectives but also the
totality of the teacher's work looking at all of the elements covered by the
threshold standards". |
| 5: OFSTED: Woodhead's departure came
too late and after too much demoralising undermining of public confidence in
the Education system for it to have made any difference, beyond the DfEE trying
to signal that it was softening its rhetoric. Beyond that, nothing has changed.
The insensitive, judgemental and all-pervasive blame culture which OFSTED
epitomises still stalks the system and haunts the teams who are trying to cope
with still more changes from Government and still less support from LEA and
society as a whole. The Division is again having to support members reduced to
breakdown and despair, as much by Head's reaction to OFSTED criticism than by
that criticism itself. Suffolk experienced more Special Measures or Serious
Weaknesses this year, including its first Secondary school in such trouble. In
no case has the inspection turned the situation around dramatically: instead we
see our members faced with more demoralisation, more planning and target
setting, more work, and of course, more criticism of what they do and less
parental confidence. |
| 6: Workload and Bureaucracy: Joint
guidelines from NUT and NASUWT were published by HQ. The impact in schools is
still very patchy and members are still clearly doing much more than is
required if following both Union and even DfEE guidelines. Some Reps are
beginning to use the provisions to help protect members from unacceptable work
levels. The Division reinforced this with items in the Summer and Autumn
briefings, encouraging members not to accept ever increasing workload without
challenge. The Union can intervene and more and more Reps are asking us to do
so. |
| 7: Section 199 Notices (Potential
Redundancy): Very many fewer section 188 notices have been received this
year, at least before the March 14th deadline. There could however be selection
in one of those few schools, because none of the staff wish to make a
move. |
| 8: Orwell High School: The Union
supported members through an extremely difficult period which included two
grievances, a harassment complaint which went to appeal, a withdrawal from
lunchtime supervision, a Regional Deputation and a general complaint against
the conduct of the school. The Governors and LEA ignored the complaint from
October 1999 to April 2000 but eventually agreed to an LEA review of management
at the school. The Principal resigned, and in September 2000 the school began
to rebuild under a temporary, but very effective, headteacher. The troubles had
made it difficult to recruit new staff and the timetable started off with a
number of gaps in it. It remains to be seen whether the Governing Body (or
LEA!) have learnt anything from the experience. Several staff remain badly
affected by the delays in addressing the personnel issues to which the Division
had alerted Governors and LEA. |
| 9: Holywells High School: The
Division was called in to assist with behaviour and morale problems in the
Summer of 2000. It was clear that staff needed more effective leadership from
the SMT if staffing problems were not to get worse. Although the introduction
of an "assertive discipline" régime in September 2000 did have
some effect for a short period, a number of staff (including a number of NUT
Members) left at Christmas. One had been subjected to capability action,
another was too ill to continue at that school, others simply moved on as soon
as they could. There were 6 gaps in the timetable after Christmas. The Division
urged the LEA to make a county-wide statement re. teacher supply and to prepare
parents for the possibility of children being asked to stay at home on
particular days. The LEA refused to do this and instead claimed that there was
no problem with teacher supply in Suffolk. This had the effect of highlighting
Holywells, even though we knew that other schools in Ipswich, Lowestoft and
Sudbury/Haverhill were having very similar problems. The LEA refused to allow
Holywells to go on a 4-day week, beyond the first 2 days of the Spring term,
threatening dire consequences, including Special Measures. As a result of the
desperate measures to cover up the lack of staff and to force members to cover
for vacancies, the NUT and NASUWT held a successful ballot (over 90% in favour)
to refuse to work beyond contract. This caused the school to go onto a 4-day
pupil week for some, after all. In the meantime, HMI came in and made the
situation worse by putting the school into Special Measures. |
| 10: EBD in Suffolk: Despite the gaps
left by the closure of Oakwood, there has been no urgency in replacing this
provision and in setting up new Units for KS 2 and 3. Some development of the
existing KS4 PRUs has begun, but is being frustrated by teacher shortages and
long-term illness. Some town schools experimented with Behaviour Support Staff
but found it difficult to recruit and retain suitable personnel. The initiative
appears to have made little impact so far. The Division has continued to press
for proper remuneration for all involved in behaviour support, including
proposing a SEN allowance for all PRU staff and the equivalent of headteacher
salaries for teachers in charge of PRUs. The LEA continues to resist, with a
consequential loss of morale and actual staff from this sector. |
| 11: Progress Centres: In May 2000,
Suffolk received over £300,000 extra grant for "progress
centres", a kind of EBD PRU attached to schools. The DfEE came up with
this idea to salvage its inclusion programme, which was coming under heavy
attack. The Division proposed immediately that this grant should be applied
first to the Kirkley and Holywells areas. They refused and allocated small
amounts to lots of schools, on a bidding basis. A more selective programme
could have avoided some of the problems that were already evident at
Holywells. |
| 12: Oakwood: Most staff had been made
redundant or had moved on by September 1st 2000 but two teachers, who wished to
apply for posts in the new KS2/3 Unit, were retained on the Oakwood payroll,
taking in a diminishing number of ex-Oakwood pupils, on "home
tuition". The Division continued to press the LEA to re-open the premises
and trial the KS2/3 PRU with existing staff. They steadfastly refused to do so.
Come January 2001, there was still no sign of the new Unit. The two members'
contracts were extended, but this time they were attached to the NTAS, a
private outfit to which the LEA had handed over educating the most challenging
of EBD pupils (those who would otherwise have been at Oakwood). The LEA now
intend to open the new Unit in September 2001, nearly two years after the
emergency closure of the school. The Division has continued to point out to the
LEA, in press and elsewhere, that the closure of Oakwood has left the County
with no provision outside mainstream schools for children with EBD at KS 2 and
3. |
| 13: SEN Audit: The LEA is to consult
shortly on a scheme, already piloted, to devolve SEN monies to schools. The
principle will be that additional funding "follows the child". This
would replace the current funding of places for ASCs and, of course, place the
responsibility for ensuring a child receives the education required by his/her
statement on the school which the parent can choose. So a small village school
will have to provide the same kind of specialist help for a child with special
needs as used to be available in the Area Support Centres. The Division has
expressed its concern that this goes against economies of scale and undervalues
the extra help pupils can receive from highly specialised, trained and
experienced Special Needs teachers. It can also overload the already
hard-pressed class teacher. |
| 14: Early Retirement, etc. The
Division circulated all schools in October 2000 to inform members of the
arrangements for Premature Retirement with effect from 31st August 2001 on the
grounds of efficiency. Because of a relatively small number of Section 188
notices last and particularly this year, the LEA signalled that more
retirements might be forthcoming. We await the final statistics but anecdotal
evidence suggests that the situation has indeed eased. However, the number who
might be allowed to retire will alter each year, depending on the financial and
other conditions at the time. It remains to be seen whether the teacher
shortages make the LEA and Governors less keen to agree. We have also had our
first case of a teacher being offered retirement, who had not requested
it! |
| 15: Unattached Teachers: Pay and
Conditions:the Division initiated negotiations with the LEA over salary
determinations for various unattached staff paid on Teachers' Pay Scales
because the LEA itself had done nothing to assimilate their pay in accordance
with the 2001 Pay and Conditions Document. Discussions continue and will be
back-paid to September 1st 2000 on completion. The largest group affected are
Advisory Teachers and Headteachers, formally paid spot salaries on Heads or
Deputies scales. The LEA failed to assimilate these posts to the Leadership
Spine in accordance with the Document. The Division held consultation meetings
with members in the three LEA areas and lodged proposals. The LEA first
suggested assimilating Advisory Headteachers to the leadership spine but wanted
to put Advisory Teachers on the Advanced Skills Teacher Scale. This would not
have matched the kind of pay increases inherent in the threshold and leadership
structure in schools and would mean that some teachers for whom they are
responsible, would be earning more than their line manager. The LEA is now
proposing to put advisory teachers on to the Soulbury scale. Although this is
financially better than the Advanced Skills scale, there are conditions of
service implications. The Division is therefore reiterating its original
proposal for these staff to be placed on the appropriate points of the
Leadership Spine. |
| 16: Lawrence Enquiry, implications for
Suffolk: The Division Council has agreed to set up a working party to
examine both the Union's and the LEA's practice in the light of the findings of
the Lawrence Enquiry. One concern was the high rate of casework amongst the
relatively small number of black members of the Division. The working party
will involve invited representatives of ethnic minority groups as well as
experts in the field of race relations and will make recommendations to the
Division Council, for implementation and monitoring. |
| 17: Injury and Assault: Arising from
some alarming cases of assault, verbal and physical, in Suffolk schools, the
Division had been pressing the LEA to codify and distribute good practice on
dealing with injuries to school staff and particularly for cases of assault by
children or parents. The LEA made helpful noises, but produced nothing. The NUT
worked with a former UNISON shop steward to produce our own draft which was
submitted to the County Council for endorsement. We made several amendments at
the suggestion of the County Council but they still refused to adopt or publish
it themselves. Accordingly, the Division Council agreed to fund the printing
and publishing of the booklet, entitled "What to do when a member of staff
is injured at school", which was distributed to schools in January 2001
for headteachers and school representatives. It includes advice on prosecution
of assailants and a model school policy on assault by pupils. The LEA now
claims that, if the police do not prosecute, the LEA is legally unable to come
to the defence of its employee and pursue a case on his/her behalf. This
contention contradicts Home Office advice and is currently under investigation
via Regional Office and Headquarters. |
| 18: Harassment Procedures: In the
first year of operation of the LEA's harassment procedure for schools the
Division was involved in three important cases against headteachers. These
showed the difficulty in relying on Governors in cases involving headteachers.
Furthermore, the lack of any binding time scale and a particularly vague
procedure over appeals and rights to information meant that the procedure
clearly failed to achieve its objective of putting an end to any harassment.
Although in all three cases, the harassment stopped eventually, it was because
one or other party left the school. The Secretary produced a report on the
failings of the procedure. The February JNC was informed that the LEA had
considered the report and would be consulting shortly on an amended
version. |
| 19: Allegations of abuse / unprofessional
conduct: The Marjorie Evans case highlighted nationally a situation which
has also blighted Suffolk teacher's careers. There are examples of either
entirely innocent or at worst unwise actions or comments which are taken by
parents or police to child protection procedures. The Division and LEA had
attempted to adopt a low-profile approach which allowed the Education Authority
to filter allegations, in accordance with the LMS Allegations procedure, to
avoid over-reaction and the consequential devastating effect on teachers. This
approach has broken down somewhat over the last year, due sometimes to parental
pressure and actions (eg. taking an allegation to the police initially) and
sometimes due to police or social services procedures taking precedence. The
effect on members falsely accused is intense, and the Secretary feels that the
lack of information about accusations is a denial of human rights. Arising from
a recent NUT case, the LEA has now re-opened discussions with the police to
seek to minimise the risk of malicious or frivolous allegations leading to a
disproportionate response by child protection agencies. In particular, the
Division is concerned to stop the suspension of a teacher in situations where
the child is not a continued risk and there is no danger of "tampering
with evidence". |
| 20: Conference Motion on Part Timers'
Rights: Division Council submitted a resolution for conference (No 62)
which has received some Association support in the priority voting, although a
long way down the agenda. The motion concerns conditions of service for
part-timers, including what the Division believes to be an illegal
discrimination by Teachers' Pensions, in that part-timers are not automatically
members of the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme. |
| 21: Teacher Representatives: Now 3 of
the 4 Teacher Representatives are NUT members and are members of the Division
Council, following a bye-election for the post of Special Sector Rep. The
Division officially sponsored an alternative candidate but the successful
candidate was also an NUT member. The situation of Teacher Representatives in
the "modernised" County Council setting is worrying. There are two
TRs (Colin Stabler and *Alan Draper) on the "Learning for Life" Theme
Panel, a third on the Executive Committee (Andrew Guite, very important to
retain a seat here) and the fourth (Judith Palmer) is rather side-lined only
being able to serve on the Scrutiny Committee. Although this can be a
significant committee, we have the situation where the person elected to
represent Special Education teachers has no part to play in any of the
decisions concerning SEN and EBD policies, of which there have been many during
the year. [*Alan Draper is the non-NUT TR.] |
| 22: Stress: Division Council received
reports from Ipswich and Bury St Edmunds Associations on their respective
surveys on stress in schools. Both received publicity in the local and some
national outlets, including featuring the Ipswich report in "The
Teacher". There has been much media interest about teacher stress and
teacher morale, to which these reports contributed significantly in the county.
The LEA has agreed to appoint an officer to lead stress management, but has
otherwise been very slow to implement any effective measures to reduce stress.
The report of the Stress Working Party (which originally reported some three
years ago) has never been considered in the Council Chamber, although the
Teacher Representatives were given time to make a presentation in March. The
LEA are now seeking a partnership arrangement with Teacher Line (TBF) to
develop a well-being policy. This is what we suggested to the LEA in 1998,
following the successful pilot in Norfolk. |
| 23: School Representatives' Training:
Training took place on April 7th 2000 and the next is due on March 30th 2001.
Both were organised by Ipswich and SE Suffolk Associations and tutors included
the Secretary and Regional Officials (John Dixon and then Hilary Bucky). Colin
Exworth also led a session on Health and Safety matters on each
occasion. |
| 24: Complaint from Ipswich Association:
In the summer the Division Council was divided over the issue of threshold
application and the extent of financial support for delegates to the Prague
Jubilee 2000 event. The President ruled out of order the motion on Jubilee 2000
passed at the July meeting and gave his reasons in writing. The Secretary wrote
to members of the Ipswich Association regarding the motion passed on threshold
applications. A special meeting was held in September to seek to resolve the
problems. The Secretary subsequently replied to the Ipswich Association
President and trusts and understands that fraternal relations are now restored.
|
| 25: Membership: The Membership Meeting
was held on 4th July 2000: The common Local Association Fee for the
Division for 2001 was agreed at £11.00 for full members, an increase of
60p. The total in-service member of the Division rose to 2407, which safely
preserves the NUT as the largest teachers' organisation in the
County. |
| 26: Suffolk SCITT: September 2000 saw
the first teacher initial teacher training undertaken in the County. Based at
the SSPDC a Primary SCITT began work. Ipswich Association made the first NUT
contact and this was followed by in-put from County and Regional NUT. Christine
Lloyd agreed to act as Student Recruitment Officer and coordinated our
approaches. The Union was well received and appears to have recruited the
majority of trainees on the scheme. |
| 27: National Advisory Reports: |
a) Disability. Wendy Stapleton represented the
Eastern Region on the National Disability Working Party and attended an Equal
Opportunities conference on Disability for the Union. She has reported to
Division and Regional Councils. |
| |
b) Primary: Amanda Warren is Regional Delegate
for the National Primary Advisory Committee and has tabled reports for Division
and Regional Council. |
| |
c) Andrew Rowe is Regional Delegate to the National
Heads and Deputies Advisory Committee and his reports have also been
received by Council and forwarded to Eastern Regional Council. |
| |
d) Retired: Roger Mackay is Regional Delegate on
the National Advisory Committee and he has reported to Division and Regional
Councils. |
| 28: Liaison with NATFHE on Community
Education: The Division has been working with NATFHE and the newly
re-formed CYWU on proposals to reorganise Community Education once again. The
LEA has difficulty in recognising any Union other than NATFHE for Community
Education, despite our membership, relationship with CYWU and the make-up of
the equivalent national negotiating body. |
| 29: Financial Support for Organisations
and Campaigns: The September meeting of the Division Council resolved to
limit donations and subscriptions to outside bodies to 1.5% of the income of
the Division. (Details in Minute 104.00). The limit does not affect supporting
official NUT and TUC activities, including the TBF and conferences organised by
the Union, but would include such activities as STOPP and support for the Handy
One Project (Staffordshire University). |
| 30: The Division was
represented at Annual Conference 2000 by the Secretary and the President,
Ray Frowd.The Division also sponsored delegates to the Black
Teachers' Conference (Ahmed Khiat), A Conference on Privatisation (Amanda
Warren); the Teaching & Learning Conference (Christine Lloyd), and on
Health & Safety training (Colin Exworth). The facilities budget has support
several school Representatives (including H&S Reps) on courses at Stoke
Rochford. |
| 31: Computer Equipment: The
Division's website (www.suffolknut.org.uk) continues to grow and received a
"Highly recommended" accolade from Lycos. The Secretary is
re-publishing all NUT News and Executive Reports on the site, as a valuable
filing/retrieval resource. Headquarters have just begun sending Circulars to
Division Secretaries by e-mail which will further assist the preparation of
agendas and the retrieval of information. The Division's computer technology
was up-graded to Windows NT 4 in December-January and the assistant secretary
acquired the Division's FAX and answering machines. Further work needs to be
done to protect data and the system from any possible malicious interference.
In October, the Division Secretary's laptop (also used for Union
communications) was infected with an undetected virus which fortunately did not
spread to the desktop but which caused considerable inconvenience and concern
for those cross-contaminated. The Division should seek to subscribe to an
automatic system of protection which does not require constant up-grading by
the user. A firewall, such as is used by the County Council, might also be
advisable. The Executive Committee has agreed in principle to the purchase of a
laser printer (double-sided facility). Ray Frowd has undertaken to print copies
of longer run publications for the Division which has been most
helpful. |
| 32: Donations, financial support and
charitable activity: The Division has contributed financially to, or
otherwise supported: Stonewall, Anti-Nazi League (affiliation and donation re.
Haider campaign), Oxfam (Education Now Campaign); TBF; Cuban Solidarity
Campaign; Toys for the children of asylum seekers; Robotic Aid (Staffordshire
University); Skychefs dispute); transport to Asylum seekers' rally, CASE
(subscription), Burston Rally (stall and donation); STOPP Conference, rally and
lobby of DfEE. |
| 33: Regional Office: John Dixon took
over Suffolk affairs just before the 2000 AGM but was later appointed Regional
Secretary. John Burns filled in very energetically up to Christmas when we
welcomed Hilary Bucky as the new Regional Officer with responsibility for
Suffolk. Hilary got down to work in our area very quickly and already has quite
a few Suffolk files on her desk. Our thanks to all three who have served our
members and their local secretaries so ably and willingly. We are pleased to
see the Office up to (enhanced) strength after some lengthy understaffing
problems, with consequential strain on all in the Newmarket Office. We wish
John and his enlarged team every success. |
| Martin Goold, Division
Secretary 21/3/1 |
