Now that the Union has sent all members its summary of the Green Paper and our own questionnaire, it could be a good idea to call a school NUT or joint-union meeting to discuss the contents. You might also like to refer to the subsequent leaflet from the NUT, Whoops, sorry: not enough to go round, which highlights the lack of funding. We know that many members have not read the Green Paper itself and may be thinking that there is nothing to worry about: they could get a shock when it is all too late.
The Government claims that early returns of their questionnaire show support for their proposals. Perhaps these teachers think they would automatically benefit. They could well have been duped. The figures show otherwise and the Government wants people to respond before the small print, (to be published in a DfEE Technical Paper "early in 1999") is revealed. Please advise members not to base their response to the Green Paperon the DfEE summary, which is very misleading and incomplete.
The Government pretend, in the Green Paper, that "a majority of teachers" will be "able to cross the threshold". But in fact, the cost would be prohibitive and would depend on your own school's ability to pay!
Government is hiding facts and consequences, as well as deliberately over- estimating the number of teachers and ancillaries who could benefit. The Green Paper is silent on the working hours, days and workload expected of those who accept higher pay, on the consequences of losing pay if the higher standard is not "sustained" or if schools can no longer afford to pay the higher rate. It is also silent about those who already have posts of responsibility but may not want to lose their holiday entitlement or other existing conditions of service.
So, we could use this checklist to see if this is what we want:
The Government pretend, in the Green Paper, that "a majority of teachers" will be "able to cross the threshold". But in fact, the cost would be prohibitive and would depend on your own school's ability to pay!
Using the Government's own statements, the NUT calculate that implementation of the proposals would cost at least £1,378.9m. Government has allowed only "up to" £1bn, so cannot meet its promises.
The Green Paper expects just 5,000 Advanced Skills Teacher posts, nationally, by the year 2000, rising to 10,000 "in the long term". We estimate Suffolk's share to be around 50 at the most. What are your chances? Then there are all the things which the Green Paper does not address, such as the effect on pensions or what would happen where all the teachers are excellent and match the criteria to go over the threshold? What if you lose a performance bonus just before you retire? What if you move to a "promoted" post in another school which cannot afford to pay your current personal salary?
The whole approach is flawed, divisive, impractical and under-funded. Yet, teachers are being lulled into a sense that it is all inevitable or even desirable. It is not! All teachers should be encouraged to look carefully at the proposals and to avoid falling into the easy-response trap set by the DfEE questionnaire.
The consultation period finishes at the end of March: there is no need to respond before we have see all the small print. We hope that the information sent out to Reps by the Union is helpful and is being distributed or communicated to members, and all staff. If you would like a speaker from the Union to attend any of your meetings, please let me know: we will attend whenever we can.
With our thanks and best wishes,
Martin Goold Division Secretary 01284 763980 (Tel or FAX) 24/01/99