Secretary: Martin Goold
1 Gainsborough Road, BURY ST EDMUNDS, IP33 3RX
Tel & FAX: 01284 763980
secretary@suffolknut.org.uk
| NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS | SUFFOLK COUNTY DIVISION |
|
Secretary: Martin Goold 1 Gainsborough Road, BURY ST EDMUNDS, IP33 3RX |
|
Tel & FAX: 01284 763980 |
||
secretary@suffolknut.org.uk |
www.suffolknut.org.uk | |
Secretary's Report for AGM 2004
Local activity on national issues
Workforce Reform: Major parts of the Division's work in 2003-4 arose from the Workforce "Remodelling" agreement signed by the other teacher organisations and Government, from which the NUT withdrew when it was clear that (1) the agreement entailed allowing unqualified staff to undertake teaching duties, (2) that conditions of service would actually be worsened and (3) the "reforms" would be paid for by reducing the number of teachers employed and even suppressing teacher pay. Despite the opposition of the largest teacher Union and the clearly impractical proposals the others had agreed to, their agreement became incorporated into the Schoolteachers' Pay and Conditions Document 2003. The Division had to advise and protect members as individual schools interpreted the very loose wording and "guidance" in the STP&CD, as well as seek to influence local policies and implementation to minimise the worse effects.
The LEA agreed to convene what became a Workforce Remodelling Joint Consultative Group made up of the JNC teachers' organisations and UNISON to start talks on the Workload Agreement. It has now met three times.
The Division has been active in publicising the facts about the other organisations' betrayal of teachers, eroding our professionalism by abandoning the principle that only qualified teachers should be in sole charge of a class. There has been little or no effect locally on teachers' workload and they have given away the principle for little or no gain. Instead, they have acceded to the Government's agenda of cutting teacher numbers to pay for more cover supervisors and higher-level assistants.
The National Workforce Group (WAMG) produced inadequate documents which tried to make sense of the poorly thought-out "Agreement". The Division has circulated to Reps the principles of cover supervision and Policy on Performance Management of support workers to provide information on how to protect members, including supply teachers, from the worst effects. The Agreement conceded that teachers would be responsible for setting work for supervisors, marking and dealing with follow-up from supervised lessons, and for undertaking performance management reviews of support staff. The Division has advised members not to undertake any of these extra tasks.
The Division is also attempting to influence SCC policy on Workforce Reform and has kept the LEA and other teachers' organisations informed as to NUT policy. Although the Union has been listened to in these meetings, and the other Teachers Organisations are often clearly embarrassed by what has been agreed in their name, they all (including the LEA) dismissed the "Blue Skies" document as "irrelevant" as headteachers would "use common sense". The division is therefore asking the LEA and other teachers' organisations to agree to a statement of common sense, which will incorporate NUT policy.
The Division pursued schools which "jumped the gun" over appointing unqualified staff (e.g. cover supervisors before there is a single status agreed job description or salary level established) and are supporting members so that they can take advantage of any gains, without taking on extra work or compromising the professional status of qualified teachers. One school attempted to employ a non-teacher as SENCO. Locally, UNISON has been very supportive of the Union's stance and have been advising their members to "work normally" and not take on any duties which require the expertise or training of a qualified teacher.
"Forbidden tasks": The LEA surveyed schools concerning progress towards eliminating the 24 tasks. We still await the findings. Our impression is that nearly all Secondary schools, including Middle, have been able to transfer these tasks and had made much progress before it became a requirement. Results from Primary schools are more patchy. The smallest schools are having great difficulty, because of the lack of support staff time. The Division issued advice to members concerned that their job specification includes "administrative" tasks, such as Examinations Officer, Teacher i/c Work Experience, etc. The advice is available in the FAQs section of the website.
A FAX-Merge was sent to to school reps entitled They said it would not happen - It has now! announcing the new regulations to allow anyone to teach classes, on timetable as well as to cover, and supervise student teachers. This provoked the wrath of Tim Beech of the NASUWT who circulated all NASUWT Reps denouncing "misleading" information from the NUT. He wanted the NUT to point out that unqualified teachers could only take charge of a class if they were deemed to be "assisting a qualified teacher". We were pleased to do this, but added that the "assisted" teachers would also be required to set and mark the work and be responsible for any problems arising during the supervised lesson. Tim has never replied.
Staffing Regulations: County Secretaries met with the LEA in November to discuss LEA advice to schools re. new regulations in place since Sept 1st 2003, concerning delegation of hiring and firing decisions to Headteachers. The LEA agreed to urge caution and to point out the exception "where the headteacher has been directly involved in disciplinary procedures leading to dismissal, has instigated a proposal to dismiss, or is a witness of particular conduct giving grounds for the dismissal in question." We anticipate that the Head will have been involved in all disciplinary situations leading to dismissal and that schools should therefore continue to involve Governors in dismissal situations. The Division also raised the question of "vested interest" if the Headteacher is able to make appointments without vetting by Governors. This would be particularly important if a headteacher wished to employ his/her spouse, for example.
Budget 2003: The Division was active in publicising the effect of the inadequate budgetary settlement. Three NUT headteachers were very effective in providing useful statistical information, taken up by Regional Office and by the local and national media. The Division took part in a regional survey of job losses which indicated that, county wide, over 100 teacher jobs would be lost in September 2004, together with a similar number of non-teaching posts. The official LEA line was that only 23 jobs were at risk, because they only counted Section 188 declarations. In fact, many schools avoided issuing Section 188 notices..
National pressure on Government led to allocating £28m extra funding to help with redundancy situations. Suffolk's share was just £108,000, but the LEA had also held back £500,00 from the original formula allocation to schools. Despite some early sympathy with our view, the LEA rejected NUT advice to allocate this extra funding to meet actual shortfalls from previously grant-supported activity, such as the NQT grant and Infant Class Sizes grant. Instead they proceeded to distribute the entire £608,000 by per capita formula funding. The result was the the largest increase in redundancy situations since the Thatcher cuts. Small schools in particular have become at much greater risk.
The LEA referred the decision whether to "top slice" the budget for specific purposes to the Schools Forum. This body is dominated by influential leaders from large schools, invited to serve on the forum by the LEA. Unsurprisingly, they favoured extra pounds per head (which favours the larger schools) to reserving some money for the LEA to use for strategic and contingency purposes.
Budget 2004: As a result of bad publicity in the Summer of 2003, Charles Clark has this year effectively abandoned LMS and has forced LEAs to distribute money on the basis of a percentage increase on what was paid per pupil last year. This has tied the LEA's hands as far as the formula and standards fund sums are concerned, and has accentuated the effect of last years removal of block grants. However, the Government has introduced a so-called "Transitional Support Grant" designed no doubt to save the Government's embarrassment for a second year. Suffolk's share is £3.2m and is being used to bale out schools with little or no carry-forward. Any school which had budgeted for a prudent reserve, gets nothing. So much for "fair" funding, but this means that the all-powerful LMS formula is suddenly not sacrosanct.
SATs: The Division supported Conference policy on the campaign to boycott SATs. Local campaigning was left to Associations, but the Division was represented at the Ipswich Association meeting at the Town Hall. The Division's newsletters and media contacts also promoted a "Yes" vote. We were, of course, very disappointed that, despite a large majority in favour, so many colleagues failed to vote, rendering the ballot invalid for action purposes.
Pensions: Teachers are reacting somewhat slowly to the news that the Government is proposing to raise the age at which teachers can retire on full pension, from 60 to 65 with consequential detriments to other current benefits. The NUT is coordinating a lobby of Suffolk constituency MPs by the end of March 2004. Schools and other public sector Unions have been contacted seeking participants.
Ban on junk food advertising to children: Secretary e-mailed all Suffolk MPs requesting they support a 10-minute rule bill on 4th Nov. Bob Blizzard, Chris Mole and David Ruffley all replied saying they were supporting.
Suffolk Politics
Loss of local democracy: the Schools Forum appears to have taken the place of the Education Committee: LEA officers are now talking about "asking the Schools Forum for funding", or "asking the Schools Forum for permission" to proceed with a policy. All other decisions come down to just the one portfolio holder on the Executive Committee and the full council meeting can only ask questions - it cannot amend or reject a decision.
The JNC therefore requested representation on the Schools Forum. The County Director of Education "asked" the Forum, which rejected the call outright, with just one vote in favour. The CDoE was known to be opposed and no one was asked make the case. Suffolk is the only Authority in the Eastern Region which does not have such representation on the Schools Forum.
The Division's response to the LEA consultation paper "Meeting New Challenges" was forwarded to the LEA in October. It addressed proposals both for "Federated schools" and for "Extended schools". The LEA proposed a consultation on "Federations" of "two or three" schools, suggesting federation will be needed to "save" the village school. The Union was sceptical, but would support it if it helped in redundancy cases, or closure, in small rural primary schools, or as a useful way of combining Infant and Junior schools. Interestingly, wherever Federation has been suggested by the NUT to avoid job losses or closure, the proposal has not been taken up.
Gazeley Primary School: The LEA proposed closure after a poor OFSTED report, but it was also the smallest school in the Western Area. The Union attended consultation meetings and supported the wish express by the staff to keep the school open, with Federation again put forward as a possible solution. Amongst teacher organisations, only the NUT put in a formal response to the consultation document, against the closure. There was a great deal of parental support as well, but the effect of the closure threat led to children moving elsewhere while surrounding schools would not agree to a federated solution. Closure has now been confirmed.
Advice, Support, Representation
Two briefings were distributed via Local Associations: Summer Briefing, July 2003. Topics: Those 24 tasks; No More SATs, Retirement Age; Threshold Round 4 and an Autumn Briefing 2003 in November. Contents: SATs Ballot, "Forbidden" 24 tasks; Time for management and leadership; NQT remission of teaching time; Work/life balance; Planning, Report writing; Not facilitating the employment of unqualified staff taking the place of qualified teachers; Performance management of support staff; Pension contributions for part-time teachers; Proposed pension changes; Heating in Schools.
Advice was also distributed to Nursery, Primary and First schools on Foundation Stage Profiles and information on claims by LEA and Anglia Polytechnic University that all Early Years staff needed to obtain a specific qualification, which proved to be exaggerated.
The Division has also responded to LEA consultation on: (a) Suffolk LEA Guidance on Visits and Exchanges which has now been published as a Health & Safety Document with a whole new section on Risk Assessment, as recommended in the NUT's response, and
(b) Severe Weather Procedure: the JNC successfully pressed for a new policy to be circulated to schools which withdrew existing advice and confirmed staff should not attempt to get into school if weather conditions meant that to do so would be dangerous.
Special Educational Needs
Future of ASCs: The LEA announced in Autumn 2002 its intention to replace funding by guaranteed ASC places with standard SEN audit funding. Despite assurances nothing would change during a period of consultation, the budget for 2003-4 removed ASC funding after April 2004 and referrals stopped. Consequently, 50+ ASCs are being abolished in favour of integration into local neighbourhood schools. Some 20 schools registered with the LEA to continue to make ASC-type provision for the children in their catchment area. Another 15 schools are to be Specialist Support Centres for complex MLD. The NUT successfully promoted another school to be a SSC for dyslexia. These SSCs are thinly spread and not always in the best geographical position, as they depend on Governing Body decision, not any strategic plan. The Union is concerned that, once again, expertise and resources are being abandoned, with no planned replacement strategy.
As a late amendment to the LEA's SEN policy, a new Behaviour Support Strategy for Suffolk is to be established. This has been Division policy many years. The LEA proposed a "Behaviour Support Team", based in each area and linked into the "area management structure for PRUs". Provision would be deployed on a pyramid basis, all receiving 2 days per week Behaviour Support Assistant time and 0.5 day per week Specialist Behaviour Support Teacher time. Cost in this first year would be around £800,000.
The NUT proposed to the Teachers' panel of the JNC to lodge a formal objection to the School Organisation Plan 2003-2008, because it lacked any reference to a strategy to replace ASCs, to Behaviour Support or a timetable for new PRUs. The final version of the plan removed any actual plans for SEN/EOTAS and substituted a statement acknowledging that policy was still evolving. . The LEA gave a commitment to publish a revised version of the relevant sections in 2004.
SEN Audit and Workload: Several members raised issues about the SEN Audit, particularly excessive workload and the disproportionately small funding that all the work produces. As a result, the Secretary met with LEA staff responsible and, after consultation with members, published local advice on the SEN Audit, with particular reference to the new conditions of service in the STP&CD (the 24 tasks and allocation of time for leadership and management duties). The Division is seeking less moderation and more "automatic" transfer of data for the audit, from IEPs and other assessments, to avoid duplication of effort. The issues have also been raised at JNC and in the Workforce Working Party meetings. The Division has asked to be fully consulted in the forthcoming review of the Audit.
SEN allowances for PRUs The NUT put in a comprehensive salaries claim for teaching staff in PRUs. A meeting in December agreed to pay the first Special Needs Allowance to all teachers attached to PRUs (except Leadership Spine), instead of the Management Allowance, and to produce criteria for the award of the Second SEN point. This achieved a long-standing objective of the NUT. We also proposed that Heads of Unit should be paid L8-L12 and the creation of Deputy Heads of Unit posts. The LEA agreed to consider the varying demands and job descriptions of Heads of Unit, and respond later to this claim. This will also be linked to development of Behaviour Support Teams, based in some (but not all) PRUs. At the last meeting, the LEA had not completed its consideration.
The Secretary prepared a local briefing for Heads, Reps and LEA outlining policy on Part-Time contracts, in the absence of any up-date in the Suffolk Personnel Manual (and errors in the manual re. method of calculating part-time pay).
PRIEF: The LEA has confirmed that no early retirements have been agreed since the introduction of the new policy in October 2002.
Tina Webber of Claydon High School has been appointed the Division's Learning Representative.
Regional Office has been promoting links with the local Learning and Skills Councils, and the JNC set up a liaison committee including all teacher organisations and NATFHE. There have been three meetings so far, which are proving helpful in keeping a watching eye on sixth-from funding and developments with colleges, etc., in the 14-19 age group.
Health and Safety Matters
The Division's advice on Pupils with a History of Violence has been in great demand, not least from non-member headteachers. The word has got around that this is the only way Heads can make a good case to refuse unsuitable inclusion pressure from the LEA, with properly conducted risk assessments. To date we know of no situation where the head's assessment has been overturned by the LEA.
The Division responded to consultation on Admissions Policy 2005 onwards: by reminding the LEA of the duty of care when considering admitting a pupil who has a record of violence towards other pupils or staff. The draft policy sought to force schools to take any pupil, regardless of any risk assessment. We reminded the LEA that admitting a child known to have caused injuries, without a proper risk assessment and precautionary measures, would be in contravention of the Health and Safety at Work, etc., Act 1974. We also renewed our call for a transfer protocol to be produced for use by schools when receiving a new pupil, where that pupil is transferring from another school.
In the early Autumn, Division was concerned at the use of non-LEA premises for home tutors and arrangements for home tutors to teach in small groups, creating ad hoc pseudo PRUs, without proper H&S assessments, support, resourcing, etc. A meeting is now arranged to pursue these issues.
Dealing with abuse, threats and violence towards school staff: Joint LEA-Police Guidance for Schools was published in February. Division had played a large role in the genesis of this publication, including correspondence with the Home Office and citing casework. We responded to two consultations, and were pleased to see the original document overtaken by DfES "toolkit" information, handed to the LEA by the NUT.
Because of continuing cases of assault by pupils, the secretary re-published the Division's model school policy on assault by pupils and it is being promoted in casework.
Stress/harassment and Industrial Injury: In July, the Teachers Panel accepted an NUT proposal to resolve cases where a teacher claimed absence was caused by an industrial injury. On 5th November the LEA agreed to (1) early identification of potential cases via payroll data and Area Office query; (2) initial triage by Area Education Personnel who will make a recommendation re. acceptance of absence as being due to an "industrial injury", and (3) if the cause is disputed, an ad hoc panel (LEA / JNC / Co. Solicitor) would consider written submissions and pronounce. Such a determination would be without prejudice to normal rights to seek redress through legal channels. This was confirmed in the February JNC.
In February, after some years of lobbying by the NUT, the LEA at last circulated to schools its Restraint Policy.
On-going and unfinished items of negotiation with the LEA include:
Meetings, Courses and Events
In accordance with the new pattern of meetings, there have been 6 Division Council meetings and the Membership meeting was held on July 3rd 2003.
November 27th 2003 February 5th 2004
Training Course: 28 School Reps attended a Training Course at SSPDC on June 5th. Feedback was very appreciative and encouraging. Thanks to John Dixon for leading the course.
Courses and Conferences: Report from Paul Widdowson on Privatisation Briefing on July 14th. and Secretary + Assistant Secretary attended the 14-19 Conference on 14th February concerning the Tomlinson Report.
MJG March 2004