Logo

Suffolk Division NUT

Division Secretary's Annual Report 2002-2003

For Divisional AGM, April 3rd 2003

National Matters
1. September 2002 should have marked the award of the first Upper Pay Spine 2 (UPS2) payments. The incredibly vague criteria and lack of any procedure in the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document (STP&CD) meant that many headteachers simply waited for guidance and advice from DfES or LEA, which never came. The NUT successfully campaigned for the minimum statutory requirement: a review of performance to determine that the teacher had made a sustained and substantial contribution to the work of the school. After the NUT's "SHAdy deal" campaign against the NAHT and SHA's policy, these organisations withdrew earlier advice and advised their members on much the same lines as promoted by the Union. Political pressure to add extra criteria, to make UPS2 more difficult to obtain than the threshold, was very largely overcome. The first appeal in Suffolk emerged in March.
2. The NUT refused to sign an agreement made by NASUWT, ATL, PAT, NAHT and SHA together with NEOST and Unions representing non-teaching staff, entitled "Time for Standards". Our main objection was the proposal to amend regulations to allow unqualified support staff to take full classes. The agreement also paved the way for the low, 2.9% pay increase for teachers, as the other organisations had signed to agree to pay for more unqualified staff from the money already promised for teachers' pay 2003-2004 (See Annex 1 of the Agreement). The NUT's principled stance has been applauded by almost all concerned, including classroom assistants. The NUT is nevertheless insisting that it will be involved in talks at national, LEA and school level to improve workload issues, promoting those parts of the agreement which we can accept, but resisting the employment of unqualified staff to do the work of a qualified teacher.
3. SATs campaign. The Division has expressed regret that a Conference resolution on League tables and SATs has not been actioned nationally. A new model document from HQ, 'NOT GOOD FOR CHILDREN - THE CASE AGAINST NATIONAL CURRICULUM TESTING', was prepared, aimed at parents and the public. Conference had called for a leaflet for mass distribution during the SATs period and although a model leaflet was available "for divisions and associations to have printed in quantities appropriate to their chosen method of distribution" all the work and cost would have to be met by Associations. The materials were only available via the INTERNET and would have to be printed locally. Division is calling for effective national action this summer.
4. GTC Fee. The Union was successful in its campaign for all GTC fees to be reimbursed. All qualified staff being paid in May, including supply teachers who worked in April, received £33 in their May pay packets to cover the cost of the GTC fee for 2002. Part-timers and supply teachers also received the £33 in full. However, the Government insisted on paying the fee as part of salary, subject to tax and NI deductions. This caused pay roll a lot of unnecessary extra work and left members having to make separate tax deduction claims. In 2003, the GTC fee was deducted from March pay packets, which meant that two payments were deducted in the same year. The refunds would not be made until April and there is a possibility of deducting those who had already paid by cheque.
5. Criminal Records Bureau: Nationally and locally the CRB caused great problems for schools at the beginning of the year because hardly any of the new teacher referrals for Suffolk had been cleared by the start of term. Individual staff did not suffer if they were on contract, but supply teacher members have lost income, for several months in some cases, because of the delays in getting clearance, even when previously cleared by another LEA. Another example of modernisation and privatisation which proves the rule!
Local Matters:
6. Budget 2003-2004: Suffolk suffered an unexpectedly poor settlement from Central Government and despite passporting all new money received, extra employment costs (Single Status, National Insurance and Pension contributions) meant that one third of Suffolk schools received less in their budget than would cover basic wage inflation. Cuts in NQT grant and Small School Grants have made things very difficult for smaller schools while the on-going mysteries of L&SC funding of sixth-forms, with claw-back if students drop out or change courses, have hit some very large schools, too. The NUT called a crisis meeting of the JNC with LEA, and is campaigning for more targeted funds to address specific imbalances in the budgets of individual schools, to protect NQT induction, the viability of small schools, and the Advisory and County Music Services which are at risk of decimation due to lack of buy-back from schools unable to balance their budget. There is also a risk of (very late) declarations of Potential Redundancy Situations (teachers), and threats of removing NQT induction, all buy-ins of services and of cuts in non-teaching staff. The situation is the worst crisis for many years. The Division has been active in publicising the problems schools face and promoting targeted use of existing funds. In this we are opposed by the NAHT and, more particularly, SHA, who for obvious reasons are against the LEA holding back funds to target at areas of need and who promote the free market approach of all funding being handed over to schools, on the per capita formula. The Division will also make representations concerning the make-up and accountability of the Schools Forum and the Headteachers' Budget Group, where powerful individuals have a great influence on LEA decisions, and where the voice of the average and smaller school is completely eclipsed by the interests of the big players.
7. Violent Pupils: The Union published and circulated (Autumn 2002) to schools advice and practical checklists to support headteachers and teachers needing to refuse inappropriate inclusion of violent pupils. The document, entitled Saying No to the inclusion of children with a history of violence has been very effective. Many headteachers, often not NUT members, have made very good use of the guidance, which uses Health and Safety legislation to show that admitting certain children would contravene the employer's duty of care to staff, pupils and other members of the community. For the first time, heads have a clearly documented approach for making a risk assessment, which cannot be overruled by any LEA insistence that they are the admissions authority. That said, we still hear reports of members being assaulted at school but nothing effective being done: our members must insist on Union intervention and should never accept assault as something which "comes with the job".
8. The Division has been urging the LEA to improve contacts with the police over action on violence by parents, etc. against staff. A draft Protocol was produced but the NUT provided the LEA with copies of DfES Safe Schools toolkit, which they appeared not to have received. There is also a "Quick Guide to dealing with abusive behaviour on school premises" available from the DfES website. Although this will delay publication of a Suffolk LEA School Safety Guide including staff protection measures, schools already have the DfES materials, which the Division is promoting. These include model letters that headteachers can use, if the LEA does not respond appropriately to incidents of violence.
9. UPS2 in Suffolk: The Division has successfully removed use of applications or requirement to provide evidence in all situations referred to the Union. As no guidance had been issued by the LEA to line managers, the Division campaigned for all eligible unattached staff to be assessed and awarded UPS2. This was largely achieved by Christmas and was completed by January. NUT Representatives were kept informed both from HQ and by FAX merges from Division. Any known use of CEA materials was challenged immediately.
10. UPS2 for those who change schools: Division contacted DfES re. the situation of those who changed schools in Sept 2002, and were eligible for UPS2. The STP&CD says that it is the Head in September who makes UPS2 decision, even though it has to be based on the previous two year's performance. The illogicality of this appears not to have impressed the DfES at all. One member did get a headteacher's recommendation in writing in August, to present to her new headteacher in September. It remains another huge flaw in the system.
11. UPS2 for supply teachers: At the beginning of March 2003, question marks have been raised by the LEA as to whether supply teachers can be awarded UPS2. Some of course, have already received it, but Suffolk LEA is quoting the DfES as saying that you can only get UPS2 if you are on a contract and are "registered for performance management at a named school". This is being actively pursued.
12. UPS2 Arrears and National Insurance: Secretary has FAXed as many schools as possible to point out that, if UPS2 arrears are not paid before March 2003, and the recipients have any other extra income above the basic UPS2 salary, they will be caught by the higher National Insurance contributions, at a cost to the member in excess of £100. Another consequence of the delay in making UPS2 decisions.
13. 6-term Year: Suffolk was uniquely attached to the 6-term year proposals from the Local Government Association (LGA) and proceeded to promote term dates for 2004-2005 which had already been clearly rejected by NUT members (Spring 2002) and had little support amongst neighbouring authorities. Before consultation on the 6-term dates was due to finish (Feb14th 2003) the LEA withdrew those proposals and substituted a decision to return to a traditional 3-term model. Those dates will now be imposed without any real consultation and without any synchronisation with neighbouring authorities. The whole strategy to was to get agreement on the principles of a six-term year, with which few would argue, then quietly move towards starting term in mid-August, a day or two at a time. The NUT cried 'foul' right from the start and persisted in pointing out what the actual aim of the proposals was, and that it was not acceptable, particularly as the LGA proposals involved the longest ever stretch of term time from August to December. The LGA proposals are now very much discredited.
14. EBD and PRUs: Despite constant pressure from the NUT, only one of the long-promised new PRUs has been set up (Kingsfield Centre) although it is still mainly an outreach centre, taking only a very few pupils on site. The Ipswich First Base has a teacher in charge, but no suitable premises, electricity or pupils. The County remains lamentably poorly resourced to take pupils with EBD for whom a mainstream setting is not appropriate. We are still paying the price for the closure of Oakwood without firm plans for alternatives.
15. SEN Funding and the Future of ASCs: The LEA are proposing to fund ASCs in the same way as mainstream SEN placements. This would lead to the closure of some ASCs and they are mooting the idea of doing away with ASCs altogether. Amendments to the SEN formula (audit) funding for the coming year would make it more possible for schools to retain their ASCs for the immediate future, but the longer term prognosis looks grim for anything other than mainstream inclusion and a few Specialist Resource Centres for certain "specific learning difficulties". The Division has responded vigorously defending ASCs as a necessary area and county resource, particularly where they can attract specialist and well experienced staff to provide specialist help for children with a range of learning difficulties.
16. Restraint Policy: The NUT has been urging the LEA to adopt a policy on restraint for some years, to help protect staff from allegations of inappropriate handling. They have now agreed to adopt the Birmingham LEA model, with some adaptations. The Division is supporting this move and asking for rapid progress in publishing the policy and training all staff. A new policy has been drafted and is under consultation to end at Easter.
17. General Complaints Procedure: Recent casework highlighted some inadequacies in the current complaints procedures, which does not have sufficient protection for staff when confronted with a parental complaint. Some of the LEA Area Offices were confusing investigating complaints about a teacher's work with allegations of abuse, and were seeking to interview members without indicating what the complaints were about. The Union has declared this to be contrary to the teacher's employment, and possibly human, rights, under current legislation. The LEA has undertaken to review the procedure and the teachers' JNC panel has adopted the NUT's proposed improvements.
18. Cover Flexibilities: It took Suffolk a long time to produce local guidelines for the implementation of the agreement which provides compensatory time off in return for covering beyond contract. The Division had to resist some attempts to lessen the impact of the agreement, where the LEA sought to allow school agreements to ignore such things as doubling up primary classes. We succeeded in writing any such ideas out of the final document.
19. Ex Gratia Payments: The Division has secured a re-instatement of the policy of considering ex gratia payments for damage to teachers' property, including cars parked on school premises. At first the LEA resisted and denied that there had ever been such a policy. This was proved wrong and we relied on the wording of the Burgundy Book (Teachers Conditions of Service) which includes a section on loss and damage. As a result, the LEA has now adopted a policy which encourages and expects schools to consider sympathetically reasonable reimbursement for all loss and damage suffered by a teacher in the course of employment. This includes damage to vehicles.
20. Administration of medicines: Another long standing objective of the Division has been to up-date LEA guidance to schools. The LEA published its up-date: "Supporting Pupils with Medical Needs and Administering Medicines in School." in 2001, but there is still evidence that schools are not implementing (or do not have) a school policy of their own. The Secretary published a briefing for members reiterating the main points of the LEA policy, which clearly states that teachers should not, and cannot, be expected or required to administer medicines to pupils.
21. Casework: harassment and bullying. With some notable exceptions, there is some evidence that cases of harassment and bullying taken by members against headteachers is lessening. This could be due to an awareness by headteachers of the Union's activity in support of members (we know that the Headteacher grapevine has played a part), and also to the introduction of the Well-being scheme (see below). There is generally a better awareness of the unacceptability of hectoring and pressurising as a management style, which is identifying offending individuals fairly well. The Union has welcomed the introduction of Exit Interviews, which we had been recommending to the LEA. However, these are still somewhat flawed because the information collated is not school-specific and does not therefore help to flag up "hot spots". These tend to be identified only after individual casework.
22. Casework: Stress as an industrial injury: The Division has been involved at national and local level in attempting to get a way of registering stress-related injuries arising from work as an industrial injury. This would provide an extra 100 days of full pay in most cases. Both the Division and the LEA have sought guidance at national level. At present the situation is unsatisfactory and requires formal action to be taken against a school, to establish the link. The LEA is also seeking an opinion from the Occupational Health Service, but they said this a year ago.
23. Well-being Scheme: Over 50 schools have signed up to the full Well-being scheme. However, this remains a disappointingly low take-up. There are also problems in the implementation of the scheme, especially where Heads may be using the scheme as a cure-all, which they feel removes the need for their own management to reflect the same fundamental principles of wellbeing for staff.
24. Premature Retirement on the grounds of Efficiency (PRIEF): In October 2002 the LEA announced that it was discontinuing its practice of inviting applications for early retirement. Instead, cases would only be considered if referred by schools to the Area Office, for exceptional consideration. The Division supported this approach, as it was potentially fairer and was designed to help most those who could not get ill-health retirement but who were on long-term sick and approaching nil pay. However, cases referred as far back as the end of October 2002 have not been resolved. Area Offices have forwarded cases for adjudication at County level, but nothing has happened. The Division has proposed a set procedure and time scale for PRIEF decisions to be communicated the schools making the referral and this has been adopted by the teachers' panel, JNC. In March, the first outcomes of applications for PRIEF have emerged. Results have been disappointing, due to the harsh budgetary conditions and the likelihood of high redundancy costs arising from schools with deficit budgeting (see item 6 above).
Unattached, Advisory, Headteacher members and Soulbury staff.
25. Soulbury: The LEA has adopted the Soulbury scale for Literacy/Numeracy coordinators and the new curriculum coordinators, as well as for Educational Psychologists and advisers. Among teacher organisations, only the NUT is recognised nationally for Soulbury negotiations. Suffolk LEA at first resisted NUT involvement in Soulbury matters, but they have now agreed that we have a right to represent our members in these services. As a result of the 2002 and 2003 pay award, which laid the foundations for areas of local agreement, the Union has asked for talks with the LEA, suggesting that they create a local Soulbury forum for the purpose.
26. PRU Teachers: The Division's long held view that all teachers in PRUs should receive at least one Special Needs allowance has still not been accepted by the LEA. The recruitment situation at PRUs is still critical and Suffolk is now the only LEA in the Eastern Region which does not pay PRU staff an SEN point. The issue remains on the table and we are committed to achieving this objective as soon as possible.
27. Heads of PRU (1): The Division initiated negotiations on the role of Heads of PRUs and to seek to increase the involvement of PRU Management Boards. Much progress has been made. As a result of the discussions, the LEA has agreed to a review of Heads of PRU salaries, which are clearly inadequate, particularly for the enhanced role envisaged.
28. Heads of PRU (2): the Union had to intervene to secure payment of incremental salary progression for all Heads of PRUs. The LEA had not paid any increments for two years!
29. Advisory Teachers: The Division's work to complete the assimilation of Advisory Teachers to the new pay arrangements introduced in 2002 was largely achieved before the 2002 AGM but some individual anomalies remained and two have still not been settled. In the end, Advisory Staff have benefited enormously from the Division's negotiations on their behalf.
30. The Division pointed out the need for an unattached Performance Management policy to meet statutory requirements for unattached teachers. The document produced avoided the worst aspects of some PM policies and became a useful benchmark for school policies.
31. County Music School: members have been supported over continuing pressure to take a music examiner's qualification which entails coursework assignments.
32. The Secretary has contacted all known NUT Headteacher members and is maintaining contact on a regular basis, forwarding HQ circulars and seeking comments on LEA matters. These channels were in place before the budget crisis struck, and so communications were immediate and effective. Two headteachers accompanied the Secretary to the crisis budget meeting on 19th March and the NUT was the only Union which fielded headteachers from a small primary and a Special School. The NAHT and SHA sent their representatives on the Headteachers' Budget Panel, who had already supported the LEA's strategy and agreed to the cuts! This illustrated very clearly the need for the LEA's consultation processes with schools to be improved and to pay more heed to genuine representation, rather than the vested interests of certain influential headteachers.
Division Council Matters
33. In-Service membership continues to grow, and reached 2788 as of December 31st 2002. The Membership Meeting was held in July and a separate report was submitted to Division Council at the time.
34. Meetings: The Division Council decided to reduce the number of Council and Executive meetings to 6 a year, instead of 9. The plan of work was therefore revised and the new pattern of meetings commenced in January. The second meeting of the Spring Term became the AGM (with the appropriate rule change being adopted in February) and it was agreed that an Executive Meeting would be required immediately before the AGM. The agenda of the AGM would also have to include everyday business as well.
35. Venue and quorum: The change of venue to Stowmarket Local Learning Centre, if the SSPDC is not available, appears to have been generally welcomed, and overall numbers have been encouraging. However, there are still occasional inquorate council meetings. Some members who are counted in the 33% quorum have not attended for a very long time. The Assistant Secretary is currently checking the mailing list to ensure that only actual members of the Council are sent agendas, and therefore count for the quorum.

MJG March 2003