Suffolk Division of the National Union of Teachers The Division Secretary's report on the year 2001-2 Presented to the AGM on March 21st 2002

1	Overview: The year of 2001-2 was characterised by the increasing realisation that there is a crisis in teaching recruitment and, more specifically, in teacher retention. Government and LEA both paid lip-service to seeking improvements in teacher supply, but the approach has been to seek to persuade teachers to come to Suffolk rather than elsewhere. None of this stops the hemorrhage of existing teachers into premature retirement or simple resignation. The Division has stressed in all its dealings with the media and LEA that the prime causes of teacher disaffection is the way they are treated and the conditions they face, not least in the areas of unacceptable behaviour and impossible workload expectations.
	This year also marked the advent of a new challenge for the Union in its support of members: threshold review. As predicted, the system proved ridiculously biased in favour of any vindictive heads. Those who "failed" were not, in general, those who all would have expected to fail. Instead, predominant amongst the "failures" were those who had fallen out with the head, for a variety of reasons. The so-called independent review of the headteacher's assessment has simply not protected staff from bias and the appeal arrangements are just a paper exercise designed to get the Government out of a legal dilemma. The system set up to review headteacher and assessor decisions has been shown to be a sham, by our own casework. The Division will continue to campaign, through casework and lobbying, to remove the threshold assessment and all its paraphernalia.
2	Threshold: The Division supported several members deemed by their heads to have "failed" their threshold, advising with information and practical suggestions for documentation and avenues for appeal. This involved some direct involvement with CEA management, where it was clear that the rules were not being applied. In the process several headteachers with clearly malicious intent were unmasked. CEA reported to us that the worst situations were those where schools did not have proper monitoring and evaluation in place, such as established appraisal procedures. In one case, an appeal was lodged with the LEA alleging discrimination. This caught the LEA out entirely: they still have not worked out what they have to do under the Pay and Conditions Document and failed in their statutory duty to respond to the applicant.
3	Post-Threshold Performance Management and Upper Pay Spine: The Division has circulated schools on more than one occasion to seek to stop over-zealous headteachers introducing their own form of Performance Management to help "select" those who would be eligible for increments on the Upper Pay Spine. The advice was followed-up in two briefings.
4	SEN Allowance: The Division circulated to all schools via FAX and Associations in September advice on the changes made in the Conditions of Service Document regarding the wording applying to the discretionary SEN allowance. The new wording removed all mention of statementing and talked of those who made a "particular contribution" to the teaching of special needs which was "significantly" greater than the rest of the teachers in the school. The same Document made it statutory to pay the first SEN allowance to the ASC teacher.
5	Suffolk and EBD: The Division has remained highly critical of the LEA's failure to create any new EBD places to compensate for the loss of Oakwood in 1999. Even though the Kingsfield Centre was declared open in January 2002, to date it has not received any pupils. It has only undertaken outreach work within a restricted area around Stowmarket. As a result, casework includes an increasing number of schools concerned at the inclusion of pupils with EBD, especially where there have been injuries to staff or pupils in the past. The fact that the LEA has no out-of-school places for such children leads to intense pressure on headteachers to accept an unacceptable risk to other members of the school community. On occasions, we have been successful in supporting headteachers (often not our members) in resisting LEA proposals.
	The LEA now has plans to introduce a First Base centre in Ipswich and has appointed a Head of Unit. However they have sold off most of the suitable land or buildings they used to own which could be used for an expansion of PRUs. Since the plan to expand PRUs was announced in 2000, no new buildings or facilities have been found. It is therefore likely that there will be increasing delays in the setting up of any future Units.
	The Division is seeking more information on how over £600,000 grant for on-site behaviour support units has been spent in Suffolk. The information so far supplied does not always match what our representatives on the ground think has happened. It is very difficult indeed to see how this money has led to any extra facility for pupils with EBD in the County, although large sums have been accepted by individual schools. In some cases, the money has been used to help existing ASCs, which were not designed for EBD pupils. Those schools now find themselves being asked by the LEA to take EBD pupils from other areas, because they have received this extra EBD grant. It is all rather vague.
6	Unattached Staff: General: Despite Union prompting in May 2000, Suffolk LEA failed to address any of the pay and conditions issues for its directly employed staff arising from the new pay arrangements which came into force in September 2000. The problem was that, with the advent of the threshold and upper pay spine, unattached staff could find themselves paid less than those for who they were responsible (e.g. TES travellers, home tutors) or would lose out in comparison with teachers in schools, who were either going over the threshold or who placed on the Leadership Spine.
7	Unattached Staff: Advisory Teachers: These suffered the most from the lack of forward planning in County Hall. Most were on Deputy Head point 2, spot salary, in August 2000 and this should have been assimilated to a new pay range in September 2000. The LEA resisted NUT proposals to assimilate to the Leadership spine, and put forward first a low range on the Advanced Skills Teacher spine, then campaigned hard to impose a range on the Soulbury scale. NUT members (a large majority of the advisory service) firmly rejected both. The LEA prevaricated and refused to negotiate. They used this delay to move the effective date of any offer to September 2001. September 2001 came and went and there was still no progress and no increment was paid. The Division lodged a grievance on behalf of our members. The LEA failed to set up the appropriate grievance procedure and the Division made an official complaint to the Chief Executive of SCC. This provoked a new improved offer in November on the Advanced Skills Teacher Scale which was accepted by members, subject to satisfactory back-dating arrangements. The LEA continued its delaying tactics, however, and it was not until March that they answered the remaining issues, including agreeing to pay arrears to April 2001 with an increment in September 2001. Even now, we are still awaiting confirmation from the LEA in writing of the agreement made.
8	Unattached Staff: PRUs: The Division requested of the LEA a review of the long-standing stance of Suffolk LEA not to pay any SEN allowance to any PRU staff (except, curiously enough, those who work at Hampden House). They refused saying that PRUs are "education otherwise than at school" and not part of special needs provision. The Division therefore lodged a formal claim, in January, which was considered by the LEA in March. Despite written submissions clearly indicating national, regional and even Suffolk County Council supporting documentation that EBD is a special need, the LEA still refuses to accept. They did, however, agree (all that is apart from the LEA official directly responsible for EBD staffing!) that there is a problem in recruiting to existing Units, not to mention staffing any future expansion. The LEA agreed to see if the new definition of SEN allowances could apply to some teachers in PRUs, and to review the recruitment and retention needs of the Units. They undertook to do this quickly, but again, we are still awaiting the written record of what was agreed.
9	Unattached Teachers: Performance Management: The Division responded to and successfully amended the LEA's draft Performance Management Policy for unattached teachers, including music peripatetic teachers and Home Tutors. The draft was forwarded to all known unattached members involved. An attempt, supported by the NASUWT, to allow a maximum of 3 hours observation was reduced through our suggestion, to just 1 hour (with the option of a second hour at the discretion of the appraisee).
10	SEN Audit: The Division accepted the principles behind the proposal to improve the evidential basis for the payment of Special Needs money to schools. However, our response to the consultation objected to the very heavy workload involved, at least in the period of introduction and the duplication of effort, as the Audit would involve a new set of criteria and assessment of individual children, different from what was required with Records of Support and National Curriculum assessments. The Union asked for more finance to provide time for staff to undertake the training, assessment and moderation tasks involved, and recommended a delay in implementation. The LEA decided to delay implementation by one term only, and have failed to make sufficient money available to ensure adequate time for SEN and other staff to complete the tasks without undue workload.
11	Conditions of Service: Ex Gratia Payments: Another long standing issue came to a head in the summer with some high-profile cases where the LEA advised headteachers that they must not make ex-gratia payments. This advice came from Education Personnel on the advice of the County's Insurance officers. Education Personnel went so far as to claim that it had never been the practice to grant ex gratia payments to school staff for loss or damage, particularly to cars. Cars were deemed not to be personal property and parking at school during the school day was not considered to be "in the course of a teacher's duties". The Division challenged this interpretation and introduced the Insurance Officer to the Burgundy Book and its paragraph on Loss and Damage. As a result, the LEA has now drafted guidelines to schools which include ex gratia payments, refer to the Burgundy Book, and indicate under what circumstances payment made be considered for damage to motor vehicles parted on schools premises. The final wording is still awaited.
12	Cover Flexibilities: Suffolk's response to the national agreement and advice from NEOST was again slow and it was not until December that talks began. A draft produced in January, included clauses that were not part of the national agreement and had never been discussed (this is a recurring problem with negotiations with certain LEA officers). This included a move from the LEA to advise Primary Schools to circumvent the compensatory time off provision for "collapsed" classes by urging heads to make a local agreement with their staff (i.e. to ignore the national agreement). The Teachers' Panel made it absolutely clear that this would bring the Unions into conflict with those heads and the LEA. Again, the final wording is still awaited.
13	Consultation Documents:	i) Education other than at School: June 2001: Suffolk NUT Response
		ii) SEN Audit: NUT Response July 2001
		iii) Evidence to OFSTED (Suffolk LEA Inspection) September 2001
		iv) Suffolk NUT Response to discussion paper: Services to Children, Young People and others.
14	Communications to Members (by FAX or Newsletters)	i) Spring Briefing 2001 (Threshold, Performance Management, Injury and assault) March 2001
		ii) Conference Report May 2001
		iii) Memo to Reps. September 2001: Criteria for award of First SEN Allowance.
		iv) Autumn Briefing 2001 (GTC Fees, Cover for Vacancies, Threshold, Post-Threshold Performance Management, Safe Schools, Improved Supply Provision?)
		v) Circular on Early Retirement, November 2001
		vi) Teacher Rep Elections: Electoral Address for Andrew Guite (Primary). December 2001
		vii) Teacher Rep Elections: Electoral Address for Gary Gascoyne (Secondary). December 2001
		viii) FAX to NUT Representatives: STRB: Hold back from new Performance Management for Upper Spine increments.
		ix) Winter Briefing 2002: 6-term year, Post-Threshold Pay, SEN Audit, Safety and Behaviour, Cover Flexibilities, EBD Places, Exit Survey, Tax relief of Subs, Anti-Racism, Trip Troublemakers.
		x) FAX to Reps on the 6-term Year Proposal
15	6-Term Year: The Division published to school Reps the proposed dates for a 6-term year as it would affect 2003-4 and 2004-5. This has created considerable interest, and in most cases it is the NUT which has brought them the news. The arrangements for 2004-5 involve returning to school on August 24th (or 23rd for a PD Day). This has not yet been distributed by the LEA, yet the decision has been taken in principle. The consultation arrangements appear to leave out any consultation with the Teacher Unions. The Division has created a "Debates" page for comments from members. The consultation period will end at the end of May and the Division will be responding forcefully. So far, apart from a more regular Spring and Summer term length, members have indicated an almost total rejection of the proposals. It is unlikely to enhance retention and recruitment, incidentally.
16	Health and Safety Issues: The Division was involved in supporting Colin Exworth where a headteacher did not wish to "recognise" the Union's H&S involvement in some casework. The Secretary wishes to thank Colin for his work as H&S Adviser and the groundwork laid down with the LEA on the Safety Committee, before his resignation. The agenda Colin set up has now been taken over by John Osborne, who has begun his duties with great energy and commitment. There is, and will be, considerable cross-over between the H&S Adviser's work and that of the Division Secretary, not least in the areas of Personal Safety, Restraint and Stress. Continued pressure from Secretary and H&S Advisers has now resulted in the introduction this year of: Exit Surveys (with optional Exit Interviews), a new and improved Incident Form a Wellbeing project for schools (still only optional unfortunately) and the Schoolsafe training programme. The last of these has been much reduced from its original programme and is suffering from poor promotion and delivery, but it is an important initiative seeking to help staff deal with problems of challenging behaviour and actual violence.
17	Injury and Assault: The Division has circulated details of its model assault policy and alerted members to its existence in briefings. There are still too many schools that have not adopted a proper procedure for dealing with assaults on staff.
	The LEA has, rather quietly and without reference to the Union, published its own version of the Division's publication "What to do when a member of staff is injured at school". Most of this now official SCC guidance to headteachers is word-for-word identical to the Suffolk NUT's publication. Where it differs is that it omits advice to Headteachers about prosecution of offenders and expectations of the police, Crown Prosecution Service and Area Offices. Instead, all that is suggested is that Heads should contact the Area Office: we know from casework that this rarely gets an acceptable response, in the case of assault on a member of staff. However, imitation is a sincere form of flattery, even if they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the source.
	Another gap in the LEA's version is a lack of clarity over Industrial Injury. If a long-term injury can be attributed to a work-related cause, full pay continues for longer that the first 6 months of absence. In recent casework, the LEA has decided not to continue its previous practice of accepting clear evidence of work stress, etc., as a reason for the absence and they have gone to the Burgundy Book requirement of an Occupational Health Doctor "attesting" the industrial origin of the injury. However, if reference to the OH Doctor is not made until some time after the incident or incidents, the OH Doctor cannot "attest", only report his opinion. This will lead to advice to members who go off with stress to ensure that they get an immediate reference to the Occupational Health Doctor, to register the incident as an industrial injury. The LEA will not even accept a determination by the Benefits Agency that an industrial injury has taken place, even when the BA's doctor's assessment agrees to pay industrial injury benefit! This is an on-going issue. The Division is also in touch with the Health and Safety Executive who have offered to look at Suffolk CC's procedures for dealing with stress at work.
`18	Anti-Racism Work: The Division attempted to influence the LEA's response to the Stephen Lawrence report by urging proper equal opportunities monitoring of applications, but also began to examine its own working practices and assumptions. One meeting of the Racism Working Party took place to develop a strategy of improving communications and services to ethnic minority members and potential members. Unfortunately, pressure of work amongst those concerned has meant that this development work has not yet taken place. Division should make this a priority for the near future. The Division Secretary had reported a disproportionate amount of casework involving ethnic minority members in difficulty and a need therefore to check with these members what more could to be done to help them as members of the profession and the Union.
19	Suffolk SCITT:The second year of the primary SCITT got under way in September. The Union once again got in first with its information and attended the JNC-organised union "fair" in September. Most signed up with us, but they tended to sign up to all. Thanks to Christine Lloyd for organising the event and the follow-up activity, including a visit from the Regional Official, Hilary Bucky.
20	Membership: Membership continues to grow and our casework activity has helped win over some from other unions. Our casework reputation, and public profile locally and nationally, is helping. Our detailed membership figures are published separately and indicate that we are well over the 2000 mark (in-service) required to maintain our advantageous facilities time budget.
21	Finance: A working party was set up to look at all matters relating to the funding of Division activities and expenses. The AGM will be asked to confirm the decisions made by Division Council, which result in levying a higher subscription from Local Associations, where balances are generally comfortable, to pay for the level of activity and commitments voted through at Division Council. The situation has been complicated by the interest of the Income Tax inspectors in honoraria. The Division believes that its practice in this regard is beyond reproach and that no changes are required. However, it is recommended to improve the package of expenses allowances to ensure that those who do give of their time and resources on Union business are recompensed adequately (e.g. travel and subsistence allowances).
22	Representation: Teacher Representatives: Colin Stabler resigned as Secondary Teacher Representative at the end of his period of office. The Division is most appreciative of Colin's work on the Education Committee and new committees, including SEN Audit and LMS Review. In the elections, the Union's nomination for Secondary, Gary Gascoyne, was sadly not successful, but Andrew Guite (Primary) and Judith Palmer (Special) were re-elected.
23	The Division plan of work is published elsewhere. All meetings took place as planned and business concluded although one Council meeting was inquorate. The Division Council is therefore reviewing venues and other arrangements for the meetings. It has been agreed to pay for suitable facilities for meetings, and to seek venues which are easily accessible by public transport, while avoiding places difficult to assess during rush hour traffic. The general consensus has been to concentrate meetings on Ipswich (SSPDC) and Stowmarket (The Stowmarket Learning Centre) when possible.
24	Rules: The Rules of the Division have been amended (subject to AGM Approval) to take account of the changes recommended by the Finance Working Party (re. honoraria, expenses, etc) and the opportunity was taken to up-date the rules in accordance with the evolution of Education Management and structural changes outside the Union, including the personnel management role of Governing Bodies.