Executive Committee (17:30 - 18:45)
and DIVISION COUNCIL MEETING (18:45 - 21:00)
Notes for Meeting: May 10th 2001
|
Suffolk Division
NUT Executive Committee (17:30 - 18:45) and DIVISION COUNCIL MEETING (18:45 - 21:00) |
| May 10th 2000 Westley Middle School, Bury St Edmunds | |
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: Andrew Guite. For Council/Both: Max Phillips, Graham White.
Section A:
National Reports and Correspondence: Glenys Shepherd to report.
|
| · Teachers' pensions to be calculated on the basis
of 1/60th for each year of reckonable service up to the age of 60, with
the facility to commute part of that pension, up to the permitted Inland
Revenue maximum, to provide a tax free lump sum payment. · Teachers who work beyond the age of 60 without drawing pension should have their benefits actuarially increased to reflect later payment of pension benefits. · All reckonable service from 1972 to count for all dependents' benefits to provide equal benefits for equal levels of contribution. · A spouse or partner's pension, once awarded, to continue for the life of the spouse or partner. · A death in service lump sum payment of three times salary to be payable to a spouse, nominated beneficiary or beneficiaries. · The supplementary Death Grant to be payable at three times salary also. · Ill health and death in service benefits to be based upon the teacher's accrued service, together with enhancement of service to that which the teacher would have completed by age 60, or enhancement of 20 years subject to what service could have been completed by age 65 if more favorable, subject to overriding Inland Revenue limits. · Teachers over the age of sixty who have not retired to have the option to commute their pension when they have a life expectancy of no more than twelve months. · Where a contributor leaves a spouse or dependent partner, the level of children's benefits payable to be 30 per cent of the deceased member's accrued pension where there is one dependent child and 60 per cent of accrued pension where there are two or more dependent children, with a minimum of ten years' service counting after enhancement. · Where the contributor dies without leaving a spouse or dependent partner, the level of children's benefits payable to be 50 per cent of the deceased member's accrued pension where there is one dependent child and 100 per cent/the whole of the accrued pension where there are two or more dependent children, with a minimum of ten years' service counting after enhancement. · Effective and affordable provisions for early retirement, including a right for teachers aged 50 or over who lose their employment on grounds of redundancy to receive immediate payment of their accrued pension benefits without actuarial reduction and a full review of the present provisions of the TPS. · A thorough review of the present abatement provisions with a view to ending or significantly limiting the scope of the present provisions. · The provision for determining teachers' pensions be subject to the same arrangements for dynamism as contained in the University Superannuation Scheme. · There should be a minimum amount of service undertaken by supply teachers/hourly paid lecturers in the years immediately preceding retirement in order for them to have their average salary calculated in the same way as teachers undertaking regular part-time service. · Part-time teachers should be included in the Scheme automatically in the same way as full-time teachers, but would, of course, retain the right to opt out. |
| Stress Management | NTAS: further information |
| Positive Behaviour Support Training | Injuries and Assaults: developments |
| Operation of Harassment Procedure | Budget Strategy |
| Looked after children: implications for teachers | EOTAS |
| Child Protection Conferences: expectations on schools | Learning and Teaching: draft policy |
| Teacher recruitment | Family Friendly Policies |
| Notional Rate for supply cover | GTC: payment of fees |
| SEN Audit: consultation | New allegations procedures |
| LLTP | Minutes of 26th January, 15 March 2001 |
| E1/18 | $ Review of Nursery Provision |
| E01/43 | Postponement of CC Election |
| EC | Minutes of 6 Feb, 27 Feb, 15 March, 27 March 2001 |
| E01/27 | Suffolk Education Business Partnership |
| E1/29 | Human Resources Performance Plan 2000-2002 |
| E1/28 | Modernisation Fund: recommendations of Members' Panel |
| E1/38 | Quality Protects: Social Care, Best Value Review |
| E1/41 | $ Strategy for Social Inclusion |
| E1/47 | Education Capital Expenditure & Minor Works proposals |
| E1/48 | $ Review of SEN Funding Arrangements |
| E1/49 | $ Renewal of the CC's Contract with National Teaching and Advisory Service |
| E1/52 | Proposals for a Technology Institute |
| L1/8 | Pattern of the School Year: Proposed changes |
| L1/9 | Improvements in Literacy in Suffolk Primary and Middle Schools 1999-2000 |
| L1/11 | $ Draft County Council Policy Statement on Education Other than at School |
| L1/10 | Gifted and Talented Learners in Suffolk Schools |
| L1/13 | $ Revised Behaviour Support Plan |
| L1/14 | Education in Suffolk in 2010 |
| L1/15 | Inspection of Suffolk LEA by OFSTED |
| 26th May 2-5pm | SEN Tribunals: the changes |
| 23rd June 2-5 pm | SEN and the Disability Act |
| 21st July 2-5pm | The New Code of Practice |
EO1/18 Review of Nursery Provision: Preliminary
Proposals Subject to the views of the Early Years Development and Childcare
Partnership on 12th March 2001, the Executive approved the establishment of new
52 place nursery units at Gunton Primary School, Lowestoft for January 2002 and
Gusford Primary School, Ipswich for January 2002, and approval in principle to
establish a new 52 place nursery unit at St. Mary’s Primary School,
Hadleigh for 2002 or 2003, subject to agreement with the Governors and Diocesan
Authority, also linked to the expansion of the school. Also proposed was an
increase of :+13 places at Downing School, Ipswich from April 2001,Responding to my questions Mr. M. Brenner said there would be some shortfalls and this paper was attempting to address immediate shortfalls, before the development plan for solutions for Suffolk in different areas will be put out for consultation this summer. Hadleigh was subject to more information being known about the movement of staff by the Army in this area. Because the school itself may need to expand, the site at Combs Ford (Stowmarket) was said to be too small for a new nursery unit as well. At present 17.5% of three year-olds were said to be having access to good quality free early years education, the target was to provide early education places for 35% of three-year olds by January 2002. References were made to the presumption implicit in the paper, and specific lack of consultation with Claydon playgroup and possibly others. It was agreed that the paper would be brought back and delayed if the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership felt there were real problems with the proposals in the paper. |
| EO1/19 Suffolk’s Health Strategy In the ‘Key Action’ part of the paper, Dr. Lower agreed with my point that there were problems with the performance indicators in the education parts of the paper. He also agreed that the schools for Suffolk Health Schools Initiative should be in the targeted deprived wards where it would hopefully make the greatest difference over peoples’ life chances. Extra One of the councillors wondered if schools were aware that the County Councillors had locality budgets to spend on worthy projects in their wards. The Councillor had approved some funding for toys for a playgroup. Certainly a new source to try to pay for all those essential extras! Any queries or comments, please contact Andrew Guite at Gorseland Primary School on 01473 623790 |
| EO1/32 Connexions Service-Future of Suffolk Careers
Ltd. This paper was connected with Suffolk’s negotiation with the DfEE
and the legal entity of the new Connexions Service, whilst winding up Suffolk
Careers Ltd. I sought reassurances over redundancies and Protection of
Employment rights, that they will be sorted out properly and fairly. This was
not given verbally, but it does seem to be covered in the paper under 5(i)
“The Executive Committee has already recognised that the Transfer of
Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations would apply. In action
recommended (iii) “officers should continue their discussions with the
Connexions Service and Suffolk Careers Ltd., with a view to reaching
satisfactory agreements. Mike More, Director of Resource Management, assured a member that there would be no problems around payments and pension contributions. Tony Lewis talked about the assets (as well as liabilities) being transferred to Connexions, these were the staff and their skill base. There was anxiety about the future by careers staff, and the paper sort to give a definite date (today!) for Suffolk Careers Ltd. to operate with in their forthcoming meeting this week (end of March). It is very much hoped that any redundancy or retirement is handled properly, and that from September there will be enhanced provision for all Suffolks’ young people. |
| EO1/35 Best Value Review of the Caretaking and Cleaning Service and the Grounds Maintenance Service Several members praised the work of these staff. Reference was made to balancing the terms and conditions of service with the cost of the service, including staff in rural schools. The Steering Group found that both the services were generally well regarded by their customers, had operated within their financial framework for many years, but their was scope for improvement in service quality particularly in respect of the cleaning of schools. Key areas of improvement proposed included: As always, any comments or queries to Andrew Guite at Gorseland Primary School 01473-623790. |
| · Focus on quality improvements through staff
development and training; · Improve consultation and information processes with all service users; · Develop markets for specialist and one-off work. |
| E01/47 Education Capital Expenditure and Proposals for the Minor Works Programme 2001-02 This document (appendix 1) outlines the latest summary of the credit approvals and grants for educational capital expenditure in 2001-02 amounting to approximately £21.7 m. Appendix 2 provides information about £3.817m being devolved to schools. It says, “the provisional figures for 2002-03 and 2003-04 are £4.713m and £7.83m respectively. The DfEE’s scheme allows schools to save up their allocation for up to three years to enable them to tackle larger maintenance and improvement projects. As more capital funding is allocated direct to schools, less is held centrally by the Authority for maintenance and improvement works, and it is important that schools and governing bodies recognise that this is the case and plan the use of their devolved formula capital allocations accordingly. A sum of £5.6 m is available and proposals for allocating this sum, in accordance with the education capital programme strategy and DfEE criteria, are set out in Appendices 3, 4 and 5. If your school has been successful, congratulations! I was very pleased to see that permanent classrooms are being built to replace temporary classrooms, which I reminded members get cold in the winter and boiling hot in the summer. Lack of manpower at LEA level (because of the major injection of funds) means there will need to be use of the private sector and partnership schemes including strategic partnering. The unspecified EBD review money is tied up with the KS2/3 unit in Stowmarket and the new First Base to be brought on stream in Ipswich. There was still a long list beyond the cut off point on removal of temporary buildings, so my end of term assessment, readily acknowledged as true by Mr. Lewis read: Pleasing progress in a vital area, but the good work has to be kept up. |
| E01/48 Suffolk`s LMS Scheme: Review of SEN Funding Arrangements This paper outlines the development of a proposed new model for funding the special educational needs of pupils in mainstream schools with effect from 1st April 2002. The proposals seek to introduce a new LMS funding arrangement, which should better reflect the special educational needs of each school’s total pupil population. The approach is based on undertaking an SEN audit and a full explanation of the proposed changes and the underlying methodology will be in a form of a formal LMS Consultation Document, to be sent to schools in May, and in by July. I hope that every school will respond. It has been promised that note will be taken of comments. This is the biggest proposed change since the introduction of LMS, so its importance must be recognised. One area the opposition was concerned about was the stated objective of reducing the number of statements. Parents will still have the same rights as before with regard to seeking a statement for their child. It was there in the paper because if fewer parents ask and fewer statements are generated, specialists would be able to spend more time giving specialist help to schools, rather than on putting statements together. There has already been some extensive consultation with parents of children with statements and parents of children at Stage 3 of the Code of Practice (3,500 leaflets were sent out, 4 meetings arranged and telephone contact). Their responses led to 7.6 “ Parents can, however, have understandable concerns that their child’s needs will not be addressed and the appropriate provision may not be made without the “protection” of a statement. It will be essential that parents feel confident that their child’s needs are being addressed. This could be achieved through the development of an effective and regularly reviewed individual educational plan. The Education Department will undertake an extensive training programme to support school staff in this work, drawing upon the best practice in the County and nationally.” Headteachers, ASC staff , some SENCO’s and other interested parties have also been consulted. I, personally have some reservations, including the fact there is no ring fencing for ASC’s (I would worry as there are two ASC classes in my school who do an excellent job), there is a very tight time scale, the pilots have shown there are considerable problems around moderating, and there is still considerable “fine tuning” to be done to the formula. However, I am wholly in favour of the main thrust of the proposal, of early intervention with funding to provide appropriate support for these children. I stated that, “ I sincerely hope that the consultation process will help resolve and refine the proposals even further, and that teachers, schools, and at the heart of this the PUPILS, will benefit from the changes, as they surely must. It is right to make it absolutely clear the amount to be spent on children with learning difficulties within schools budgets, and also right to encompass the 20%, or 1 in 5 children being given appropriate support when they need it, at the earliest opportunity, before they learn to be failures.” Please take the opportunity to respond. |
| E01/49 Renewal of the County Council’s Contract with the National Teaching and Advisory Service. Last year a one year contract was signed with the National Teaching and Advisory Service to work initially with pupils who formally attended Oakwood School. The monitoring group recommended (it was passed) that the contract be extended for another year from 1st May 2001 (at a cost of approx.£311,000) and that once the existing cohort (now 8) is successfully established in their mainstream schools, the primary focus of the Service’s work should be upon ensuring that children and young people who live in the County Council’s Children Resource Centres have access to full time educational opportunities. In answer to my question, Frances James said that staff were understandably nervous over withdrawal, and so it had been tackled on an individual basis, with different support in different ways, but 5 out of 8 were now getting less NTAS direct support. The paper stated it would be extremely hard for Suffolk to replicate the NTAS expertise, but it was confirmed that 2 ex-Oakwood staff were seconded to NTAS until the 30th of August 2001. |
| L01/13 Revised Behaviour Support Plan This paper had been before the Learning for Life Theme Panel on the 26th April 2001. It considers progress so far in the first plan, and Appendix 2 (2001-2003 not as in the draft 1999-2001!) lays out the new development plan. I am extremely pleased that many comments that have been made are going to be incorporated in to the final version. I argued for 3 or 4 major priorities to be made explicit, with provisional timescales, including when we are to get the enhanced provision of First Bases, KS2/3 PRU’s and a new KS4 unit. Alan Draper (T.R.) had made the point of the large number of priorities, and the dissemination of good practice. There will now be a regular production of a newsletter to alert teachers and tell them of the significant number of examples of good practice taking place in Suffolk’s Schools. |
| The Directory of Support Services is now complete. The officer recently appointed for Parent partnerships has been heavily involved with EBD parents, looking at roles and responsibilities, and how parents should fulfil their responsibilities. In response to a question, it was confirmed there have been no truancy patrols. There are logistical difficulties, there has to be agreement between local headteachers and the police, the question over which building is to be used to take them to, and actually (F.James said), “it created more problems than it was addressing.” Children who are looked after will be monitored more closely, and for those with SEN, my suggestion of “P” scales are to be introduced to acknowledge the children’s achievements. |
| The forthcoming new government target of providing 25 hours of home tuition for those permanently excluded was said to be a very challenging target, and one which may be inappropriate. Older children may be offered directed study, work placements and other methods rather than one to one tuition. Primary children will be more difficult, and children have been rejecting more than five hours tuition already, so this is obviously one to watch and see what happens in practice. It certainly needs to be thought about and planned for in this time of teacher shortages. I look forward to more training and information about this important matter, and sincerely hope we will all feel the difference in our classrooms and schools. |
Part 2: Decision Making
A) Arising from National Matters
| (1) Request for Christine Lloyd to attend the June EC Meeting to plan Trainee Teacher Recruitment for year beginning Sept 2001. | ||||||||||||
(2) Expenditure on affiliations, financial
support, etc. Accumulative Summary for information.:
|
Date of next meeting: June 7th, South Suffolk Professional Development Centre, IPSWICH. (MAP)