soulbury0702

Soulbury News July 2002

INSPECTORS & ADVISERS

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGISTS

YOUTH & COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICERS

OTHER STAFF PAID ON SOULBURY TERMS

2002 Pay Claim OFFICERS' SIDE CLAIM

Pay The gap between Soulbury officers and other comparable groups of professionals should be closed through a significant pay increase.
The introduction of Structured Professional Assessment as part of the 2000-01 settlement was crucial for the modernisation of the Soulbury framework and is a key part in building a modern and professional career structure. It needs to be developed in order to realise its potential to address issues of recruitment; retention; and morale.
Continuing Professional Development is essential for the achievement of the Government¹s vision for upgrading the country¹s skills base by 2010. It allows professionals to keep abreast of developments; it inspires confidence in client groups; and allows local authorities to meet the demands of a rapidly changing environment. The claim seeks joint discussions to introduce a national framework for continuing professional development.
Equal Opportunities The claim calls for equality issues to be addressed urgently. Around half of the Soulbury workforce is female but women are seriously under-represented in senior positions. A gender imbalance is emerging and the promotion of equal opportunities for women may be stalling.
London Allowances Almost one-fifth of local authority Soulbury officers are employed in the capital. The higher costs of living, commuting and working are widely recognised. The claim presses the employers to recognise and address this issue for London-based Soulbury staff. Negotiations on the 2002 pay claim will begin on 19 July.

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY SERVICES

The NUT is concerned about a number of developments that may adversely affect the interests of NUT educational psychologist members:

Outsourcing

In its submission to the Government¹s contracting out proposals, the NUT emphasised the necessity of a local structure for co-ordinating the provision of education to schools. It is against outsourcing and the introduction of private companies as employers of educational psychologists, and other Soulbury paid staff. It stressed the importance of Soulbury officers in helping LEAs to deliver Government objectives. The contracting out order contradicts the core functions of the LEA set out in The Role of the Local Education Authority in School Education which states that SEN services, including EP services, should remain the responsibility of the LEA. Under the contracting out order, LEAs have the duty to keep SEN services under review. Without any direct input into specialist provision, it is difficult to see how effective SEN provision can take place. This is especially important for those excluded, in care, or with behavioural problems.

Outsourcing has now been proposed for Bradford, Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall, and Waltham Forest.

Privatisation

Privatisation potentially threatens the pay and condition of service of Soulbury-paid educational psychologists. It would undermine the coherence of what is a national service. The Privatisation in Education Unit at NUT Headquarters provides information and guidance about the introduction of outsourcing following a poor OFSTED report. Outsourcing has been introduced in Islington and Southwark. In Southwark, it appears that a private company, WS Atkins, is seeking to place all new members of staff, including EPs, on terms and conditions different to Soulbury. The NUT will continue to oppose such an approach.

Delegation of Funds

The NUT continues to be concerned about the consequences of Fair Funding for SEN services, including LEA educational psychology services. The work of SEN support services could be undermined by delegation of funding for statemented pupils, as:

support services require guaranteed funding in order to be able to plan provision and to provide the appropriate levels of support;
a large proportion of their overall budget is needed to employ a given number of support staff;
the uncertainty concerning how many schools will use delegated funds to buy into the central support service may undermine the ability of LEAs to recruit and retain EPs; and
any reduction in the number of support staff will mean that the flexibility in responding to the needs of individual pupils as they arose may be put at risk.

LEAs have continuing legal obligations to provide the support outlined in statements. The delegation of SEN funds to schools conflicts with the Fair Funding principle that funding should be aligned with responsibility.

From April 2003, the Government plans a new funding system for local authorities:

Resources would be distributed on the basis of the different roles of LEAs and schools.
The funding needs of LEAs and schools would be assessed separately, with LEAs retaining a monitoring role with schools having responsibility for the day-to-day arrangements for SEN.
LEAs would continue to have legal responsibilities to ensure that pupils¹ special educational needs were met, along with a co-ordination role.

NUT educational psychologist members should direct any concerns they have over any of the above to the Privatisation Unit at NUT headquarters.

REVISED OFSTED LEA INSPECTION FRAMEWORK

The revised OFSTED LEA inspection framework came into effect in January 2002. It sets out a more differentiated inspection regime for LEAs, to enable OFSTED and the Audit Commission to focus on areas of concern and best practice identified by earlier OFSTED inspection reports. There are three main categories of LEA inspections:

inspections of individual LEAs as organisations;
thematic inspections across a number of LEAs, which will examine a particular LEA function; and
inspections of Best Value Reviews (BVRs) of education services.

Organisational inspections will continue to seek to determine whether an LEA:

promotes high standards of achievement in schools and secures social inclusion for all pupils;
ensures that pupils in its schools are not harmed, that action is taken to address racism and that it assists other statutory bodies with responsibility for the protection of children; and
complies with its legal obligations, including equal opportunities and disability discrimination legislation and ensures that its work has regard to the Code of Practice on LEA School Relations.

If an LEA is found to have few issues of concern at the preparation stage, the emphasis of the inspection may focus on services as examples of good practice. In all cases, the inspection brief will match the number of inspection days and inspectors needed to the identified strengths and weaknesses in the LEA¹s performance. The aspects of LEA provision to be inspected remain broadly the same, with the addition of: gifted and talented pupils, the Key Stage 3 Strategy, recruitment and retention of teachers, completed BVRs and the impact of local Public Service Agreements (PSAs).

Organisational inspections of LEAs will occur at least once over the five years from January 2002. LEAs are selected in order of priority. The first are those that had pilot inspections in 1997, followed by LEAs found to have weaknesses in inspections in 2001 or earlier. The remaining LEAs will be inspected in the chronological order of the first inspection cycle, taking account of the number and reporting data of BVRs. LEAs to be inspected will usually be informed at least one term before the proposed start date. Thematic inspections will focus on particular functions and tasks, selected by HMCI, across a number of LEAs and will be used to report on the approaches adopted by LEAs to tackle particular issues, the impact and outcomes of LEAs¹ actions and best practice. In addition, they may be used to inspect BVRs of common functions across a group of LEAs.

Thematic inspections will usually involve LEAs that are not part of the annual inspection programme or will be conducted at the same time as an organisational inspection. They may also involve a general request to LEAs to volunteer for inspection. Best Value Review (BVR) inspections will scrutinise BVRs undertaken by LEAs and evaluate LEAs¹ Best Value processes. Usually they will be incorporated into organisational and thematic inspections but when this is not possible, a number of BVRs will be inspected as a group by HMI and Audit Commission inspectors annually. At the planning stage, a desk evaluation of BVRs will be undertaken. If fieldwork is felt to be needed, it will focus on evaluation of the quality of the service, the Best Value processes used, the rigour of the BVR and the improvement in service made. The final report will use a star rating system to indicate the quality of the service.

The NUT has welcomed the emphasis given in the OFSTED inspection framework to the identification of best practice, as this is more likely to encourage all LEAs to develop and implement rigorous and effective self-review and evaluation procedures. The NUT¹s main concerns centre on the principle that inspection should be in inverse proportion to success and that the practice of inspection should be consistent with the procedures laid down in the inspection framework.

Soulbury-paid NUT members who are concerned about any aspect of the inspection of their LEA should contact their NUT regional office or, in Wales, the NUT Wales Office, NUT Cymru.