February 15th 2001
Suffolk Division NUT
Executive Committee (17:30 - 18:45)
February 15th 2000 at Northgate High School, Sidegate Lane West, IPSWICH (Map)
Registration: Please sign the attendance register and record any apologies for absence. The meeting will be begin at 19:00, giving a period of reading and informal discussion. Motions arising from anything on this agenda should be sent to the Secretary to arrive before the Executive Committee meeting.
Apologies already recorded: For EC: Glenys Shepher (Nat Executive) Tony Dooley. For Council: Same..
Section A:
National Reports and Correspondence: Glenys Shepherd has sent apologies. No meeting to report on since last Division Council.
| All | About three days of planning for one class, June or before |
| Books/marked work, also from last year | |
| Teacher 1 | evidence that she sets and marks homework effectively |
| evdcence that she marks and comments on pupils' work | |
| evidence to show her involvement in open evenings | |
| evidence to support her claim that pupils in 7XXX made progress in line with or better than expectations. | |
| Teacher 2 | evidence of use of school PPB system and follow up action taken by this teacher |
| evidence to show his individual involvement in the developing of school policies | |
| evidence that he has affected an improvement in the attitudes and achievement of some underachievers as cited in "professional characteristics" |
| It has been confirmed by Mike Chapman of CEA that the role of the assessor is to verify the judgement of the headteacher. In carrying out their role it may be necessary to seek additional specific and focused evidence in respect of two to three applications contained within the sample. These requests would be made where the assessor has fundamental doubts about the headteacher's methodology. Any such requests must be made in writing and the CEA advise that this letter should be circulated, since as as they are conerned it is in the public domain. Where requests are made for additional evidence then this must be limited to three to four focused pieces of evidence. |
| Any requests for additional evidence must not be unreasonable and they cannot ask for portfolios. For example, it is considered unreasonable to ask for exercise books or to make a blanket request for everyone. If unreasonable requests are made then these should be referred to the Regional Office who will take the matter up with the CEA Regional co-ordinator. |
| The CEA is aware that some headteachers may be suffering ffrom anxiety prior to an assessor's visit and may be asking for additional evidence because they are concerned to be seen to have discharged their responsibilities in a proper manner. |
| TBF | 150.00 | Category 1 |
| Robotic Aid | 75.00 | 2 |
| Sky Chefs Dispute | 10.00 | 1 |
| ANL (re Haider) | 15.00 | 1 |
| Transport to Asylum Seekers' Rally | 25.00 | 2 |
| EARC (Alan Ward) | 25.00 | 1 |
| CASE subscription | 20.00 | 1 |
| Burston stall and donation | 10.00 | 1 |
| ANL Affiliation | 25.00 | 1 |
| Stonewall | 50.00 | 1 |
| Travel to PRP Rally | 72.50 | 2 |
| Travel to DfEE lobby | 29.00 | 2 |
| STOPP conference | 33.96 | 2 |
| Teaching & Learning Conference | 134.66 | 1 |
| Black Teachers' Conference | 153.10 | 1 |
| Privatisation of Education | 45.00 | 1 |
| Challenging Behaviours: the LEA's guidelines on restraint still not being realistic. |
| Early Retirement 2001 (PRIEF): 12 Male Headteachers and 7 female headteachers have applied as have 15 male and 12 female teachers. |
| Stress: LEA now intends to run a pilot project with 50-80 schools, using the TBF wellbeing scheme. |
| Teacher Representatives: It is now almost certain that, despite council elections in May, the present teacher reps will run over into the Autumn, because a new administration might change the number and nature of TRs. |
| Operation of the Harassment Procedure: Alan Aldred is now working on amendments to the published policy, following the NUT's critical report on the first three cases against headteachers. |
| Simon MacDonald (A senior Ed Psych) spoke about Looked after children and the implications for teaches. We discovered that Social Services employ teachers in this ervice. Much detail on the process and the role of the schools Designated teacher for LAC. Admitted a shortage of social workers and funding, so that sometimes the support is not there quickly enough. |
| New child protection conference procedures appear to expect teachers to attend case conferences, without supply cover and in holiday periods. DJET explained that there could be no such requirement, although the other agencies might expect it. We are concerned that this could lead to unacceptable moral pressure. HQ will be informed. A new blue Child Protection Procedures booklet is to be published to schools before Easter (no doubt with the offending expectation included). |
| Minutes of Executive Committee 16th Jan | |
| Agenda for Excecutive Committee 6th February |
| Present: Mike Peck, Malcolm Gibbs and Colin Exworth David Thornton, Alan Aldred and Nick Wilding. |
| The new health and safety manual has not yet been produced. When issued it will go to all schools and other institutions and individuals concerned with health and safety. Likewise with health and safety updates and the directory of LEA Officers |
| . Mr Thornton saw no problem in expanding the database of recipients of safety information. He was much less hopeful about consultation during the preparation of such documents. e.g.he could see no point in their having been any consultation during the preparation of the "Statement of safety organisation" Likewise he was hopeful that a definitive list of premises, but what constitutes a premise, could be produced perhaps with our help. |
| On monitoring of health and safety inspections Mr Thornton stated that a command and control System out soil from the Lea would not work. At present and for the foreseeable future the Lea relies on headteachers termly report to governors, which are passed to the LEA. The LEA samples these. Great reliance was going to be placed on a new officer, John Ling., whose major role is to be in the field of monitoring. Mike asked about how procedures could be tightened up when other groups used premises. Mike then approached the thorny issue of risk assessments. |
| It is fair to say that Mr Thornton became aggressive. It
seems that few if any risk assessments are carried out by the LEA.
Instead it seems provided a competent professional body produces guidance
within an area then the authority uses this guidance instead of conducting its
own assessments. When Mike raised the issue of specific risk assessments
attached to specific children Mr Thornton again would not commit himself. He
reminded us that if these informal meetings were to continue then they were
about principles of health and safety and not about individual casework.
|
| Throughout the meeting Mike pushed Mr Thornton on the issue of violence to employees. We were given a commitment that this was indeed a high priority and that money from next years Standards Fund would provide a three-day package for every school and that all schools would be covered over the next 12 months. |
| On the issue of legal help to employees who had suffered violence or abuse Mr Thorton was non-committal. Compared to a private company he stated that SCC had to face legal difficulties. Personally he thinks that our employers need to be more helpful and that members should not have to rely upon their unions. On the issue of the large number of different committees with both terms and conditions and health and safety on their agendas he didn't think the LEA contemplated any change. He certainly was not prepared to duplicate what was happening in existing consultative committees. Instead he saw our group as able to to improve health and safety policies by removal of anomalies and identifying cracks in the system. On the issue of training, this was to be looked at next year and the LEA would wish to train employees in a way which suited their role within the service. |
| The next meeting was set for 17 May with a pre- meeting for reps on the 10th May |
Part 2: Decision Making
A) Arising from National Matters
B) Arising from Regional and Local Matters
| Insurance for Conference Delegates | variable | 1 |
| Bradord NUT Conference on Privatisaion | £5 + travel (+ accommodation? | 2 |
| Request from TBF for a donation | variable | 1 |
| Date decided | Organisation, etc | Amount | Cost to Category 2 |
| 30/11/00 | Stonewall donation | £50.00 | - |
| 30/11/00 | ANL affiliation | £25.00 | - |
| 30/11/00 | Comprehensive Education Conference, Feb 3rd 2001 | c£75.00 | c£75.00 |
| Suffolk Division acknowledges the findings and recommendations of the Bury St. Edmunds Association survey of stress and related illness amongst teachers in West Suffolk schools as set out in its' published report 'Stressed Out'. Division supports the view that Government, Local Authority and school management should openly acknowledge their part in creating the unacceptably high occupational stress levels which are making teachers ill and causing many others to leave the profession. Furthermore, Division believes that they have a duty of care for the health and well-being of teachers and must initiate urgent programmes of action that seekto reduce significantly the current high stress levels to an acceptable minimum. . |
| Whilst welcoming the LEAs intitial interest in establishing a well-being scheme for teachers in conjunction with TEACHERLINE, as a means to reduce stress levels, Suffolk NUT Division calls upon the LEA to : |
| (a) actively pursue
as a matter of urgency, the formulation of plans for the introduction and
operation of the well-being scheme for teachers in Suffolk schools, (b) consult fully with all relevant teacher organisations in Suffolk whilst formulating these plans and on the final draft proposals. (c) have all aspects of the well being scheme in place and operative within 12 months of formal approval. (d) use such means as are appropriate to try and ensure that all schools opt into a Suffolk wellbeing scheme. e) prior to introduction, make all teachers fully aware of the well-being scheme, its mode of operation and intended outcomes f) establish a means whereby the scheme is regularly monitored and reviewed to ensure that it is working effectively and to recommend improvements where necessary (g) investigate on an on-going basis all other means by which teacher stress can be reduced, with a view to introducing further appropriate measures wherever possible. h) write to all school governing bodies highlighting the problems caused by high levels of occupational stress in teaching and urging them to work with their school teaching staff, to introduce positive stress reducing policies, that can also lend support to a well-being scheme. urge government to acknowledge the major part that its policy decisions have played in creating unacceptable stress and related illness amongst teachers in Suffolk schools and to call upon it to take positive action nationally via the DfEE to reduce teacher workload and subsequent stress. |
| Division instructs the Secretary to communicate the contents of this motion to the appropriate LEA officers and the Chair of the Learning for Life Panel. |
Date of next meeting: March 29th 2001 (AGM), The Lions Head, Cauldwell Hall Road, IPSWICH ). (MAP)