NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS

SUFFOLK COUNTY DIVISION Secretary: Martin Goold

Report to ERC, October 2005

1. Re-structuring: We attempted to help members in October with individual and collective responses to re-strucuturing proposals as HQ circular 05-160 has in fact come too late. Most heads gave a deadline for comments ending at half-term. There has been a very wide range of responses from schools: Secondary restructuring is proving the most detrimental where some members are facing a £5,000 drop in salary. Many Primaries report "no change", and this may well include no TLRs because there were no MAs. We have pledged support to all individuals facing losses, urging each and every member personally affected to lodge a full objection, copied to the Governors. So far, just one school has indicated that they might wish to ballot. We need to be geared up to deal with any grievances which follow. NASUWT secretary has confirmed that they will not be taking any action in protest against restructuring which disadvantages their members. At least 2 Secondary schools are replacing Heads of Year with non-teaching staff.
2. Workforce Remodelling: A number of problems persist over PPA where heads are refusing to accept the no detriment clause (there is a formal grievance on this to be held on 7/11/5). A Special School is refusing to include "pastoral time" which is over an hour per pupil day, as "teaching time". A survey of primary schools by the LEA with 107 returns showed that only 37% of these schools covered PPA entirely by qualfied staff. 70% employed HLTAs, cover supervisors or ordinary TAs for PPA. Most said that they could not sustain staffing of PPA into 2007-8. We are still getting complaints from schools, even Secondary, that they are being told to collate reports, chase up absences, etc.
3. County Council Re-organisation: The LEA is no more. It is now the Directorate of Services to Children and Young People. A meeting with the new Director on 13/10/5 confirmed that the existing County Administrative Areas will stay but that delivery of "joined up services" to children will be organised by 18 "localities". Educational, Social and Healthcare services will be bought in at this locality level, rather than at County, Area or individual school level, by these locality forums. There was much discussion about how "commissioning" can take place in localities if this includes up to 28 LMS school budgets and independent Governing Bodies. The answer is that these will just have to collaborate and the LEA will have a duty to ensure that everyone plays their part, admitting that they would have no power to direct a school to contribute, say, to behaviour support costs for the locality. We expressed our concern at the distance between decision making and the elected councillors. Also danger of "mainstream" education being sidelined as the whole structure is being set up to ensure delivery to the much smaller percentage who will required Psychological and Social Service, etc., support. But it is all being tied in with "the community", joining up Social Services and Education for young people. The new divide will be between Young People and Adults provision, including Libraries.
4. 14-19 Structure Plans: A briefing on November 1/11/5 began to explain how Suffolk was to meet the challenge of the White Paper on 14-19 provision, in a county which had 2 large parts of its secondary provision in Middle + Upper Schools and a mixture of 11-16 and 11-19 in the others. 13 clusters of schools (i.e. fewer than the 18 localities set up to provide services to children). These clusters will have to work out between them, with local training providers, LSC, SCC, colleges, private and voluntary sector, how to provide the full range of academic and vocational/applied syllabuses to all 14-19 pupils.

   There will be several models adopted in Suffolk - because of the differences in nature of existing provision. Localities will have to ensure that they can offer, either themselves or in federation/collaboration with colleges, etc: young apprenticeships (from age 14); all 14 "lines" of Specialised Diplomas (in vocational subjects) as well as the General Diplomas and a full range of AS and A2 courses for sixthformers. It will also be a statutory requirement to provide Level 2 English and Maths courses to all post-16 students if they have not reach that level.

   The four "options" for restructuring 14-19 in Suffolk appeared to be: - Federation of 11-16/11-19 schools - 16-19 Centre parented by groups of schools - hub and spoke arrangements (e.g. schools around central provision) - single centralised provider (large school or FE provider) - All age campus.

   Where will all the staff come from? Has to be in place by 2010, but training institutions have not yet begun to prepare new teachers for these innovations, let alone plan in-service training for existing teachers. Great problems ahead, not least re. pay and conditions of teachers - are you a teacher if you are doing that work in a school, but not in a college? Where does school teaching stop and FE take over? If non-teachers "train" 14-year olds in the workplace or a college, why should they be paid less than a teacher doing the same work in a school which has made the provision? Can schools make provision for engineering, etc., themselves? Who makes the final decisions?

5. Redundancy Procedures: Despite the "3-year budget" planning, we are seeing more frequent "Emergency" Section 188 proposals for reductions at Easter and April. We are also seeing a tendancy for Governing Bodies to seek to "stage" redundancies over 2 terms, ostensibly for "morale" purposes, but in fact creating greater anxiety and distress.

MJG 4/11/5

NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS

SUFFOLK COUNTY DIVISION Secretary: Martin Goold

Report to ERC, May 2005

1. Suffolk has now appointed a Director for Services to Children and Young People. She is Rosalind Turner, formerly Assistant Director Children, Families and Schools with Brighton and Hove City Council. Suffolk says "She will be responsible for bringing together and setting the strategy for all of Suffolk's services for children and young people including education and social care with corporate management responsibilities within the county council."
2. Management by Cluster: Schools, LEA and LSC are already phasing out "Education" as a separate department and decision making is imperceptibly being handed over to local "clusters". These do not yet exist officially, but in the absence of an Education Committee or similar, this is becoming the de facto structure of education provision and decision-making, well before there is any joining up with Social Services, etc. The Teachers' JNC has asked for a one-day seminar with all the "movers and shakers" to seek some joined-up strategy emerging from the 18 "clusters" and questionning whether there might be some consultation on such things as the future of 6th-form education in the County. Of course, clusters avoid any political responsibilities for any county council.
3. A high number of posts to be lost this year via Section 188 notices, more than in the last 2 years. Numbers as high as 5-7 in a few Upper/High schools, where there has been a change of headteacher. These were also late declarations and so officially for Christmas (a good time for compulsory redundancy!) but allowing voluntary redundancy from September. Members very concerned that poor forward planning (all of these serious cases should have been addressed in the past) and poor financial control mean that they lose jobs and the remaining staff get to work harder.
4. PPA: a wide variety of strategies being used, and some pressure (from our own members) to go without PPA time and keep qualified teachers in front of the class. Suffolk LEA's favoured approach appears to be some form of activities afternoon, where one teacher supervises several "classes" taken by LSAs, whether Higher or not, and mostly not. A few schools with strong NUT memberships are now standing up and being counted - one letter to Executive Member, RO and HQ, and asking for stronger advice on how to make a stand. Suffolk has a high proportion of small rural primaries, where we know that the other common expedient is for the headteacher (sometimes an NUT head) takes on an unacceptably high teaching load to provide the PPA for classroom colleagues.
5. UNISON agreement: Suffolk NUT has made several informal and one formal approach to the UNISON rep for school workers in the county, seeking cooperation on the NUT-UNISON agreement and, in particular, setting up of some machinery to deal with any problems arising. We are awaiting UNISON's response. We meet in the local Workforcer Remodelling group where there is a great deal of common ground.
6. NAHT and Workforce Remodelling: We have sought to get some common ground with NAHT locally, following their special national meeting on WFR a fortnight ago and their more recent conference. I know that many NAHT heads were frustrated by a lack of any information re. the withdrawal from the WFR agreement. We are still trying to seek some common approaches to the LEA over the issue of PPA in particular.
7. Salary Appeals: the advice re. the Model DfES Appeals Procedure for salary decisions arrived too late for our first cases. We are trying to get one pending case adjourned until a new school policy is made to allow for the three- (or at least two-) stage procedure to be used. Initial responses from the LEA appear to be suggesting that they do not accept the NUT legal advice that the statutory Disputes Resolution Procedures apply to teacher's salary determinations, and claim that school policies based on the STP&CD are still legally binding.
8. Health and Safety In Special Schools: Following the issuing of our first Union Inspection Notice for a Special School where there were continuous injuries to staff, we have now made an official complaint to the Health & Safety Executive. Their Chief Inspector visited on 30th April. Report awaited.
9. How to involve older members - hold a seminar on pensions. A seminar on pensions run by TAC in Ipswich last week attracted over 100 members and partners. Feed-back was very positive. I was struck by how many people there I knew from individual casework! They came away very well briefed, but it is alarming how much ignorance there is about the details and the opportunities (buying in added years, etc). Also still a number of members who had not opted in to the scheme when going part time. Maybe the Union could produce a standard leaflet itemising the main rules and considerations. It is very complicated and constantly changing, so needs proper researching and should not be left to local officers to put together. But I do think it is needed out there.
10. Teacher Representatives: these are elected at the same time as County Councils. Now there are no Education Committees, their roles are limited, especially when Suffolk still does not allow any teacher representation on the Schools Forum. In Suffolk, Teacher Representatives only serve on some Scrutiny and ad hoc advisory panels, but have no in-put or even observer status in any education debate. What do Teacher Reps do in other Authorities in our region?

MJG 4/5/5

NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS

SUFFOLK COUNTY DIVISION Secretary: Martin Goold

Report to ERC, January 2005

1. Suffolk is to appoint a Director for Children's Services being advertised currently. The plan is to reorganise Education, Social Services and allied agencies around 15 or so High School Pyramid areas. This would mean the removal of Area Education Offices (and presumably Area Education Officers), and administration of Education would be de-centralised and operate on some sort of neighbourhood forum. We have seen the future. Oh, all this to be done "within existing resources", of course!
2. Burgundy Book: :We invited Suffolk LEA to introduce the maternity improvements but not the worsening of sick pay - thought it was worth trying. .Suffolk replied in writing to say that they will await national agreement and do not intend to implement either of the changes proposed by the employers' circular.
3. We issued our first Union Inspection Notice re. a Special School where staff were habitually being injured by kicking, biting, scratching, etc. Not much improvement notice and so we are progressing to a referral to HSE.
4. Three assaults on teachers reported in the first week of this term!
5. Suffolk's budget planning for 2005-6 includes +1% on the primary formula for workforce reform, on top of the 4% formula increase per pupil imposed by Government. They admit that they are assuming that most schools will tackle the 10% PPA time by employing TAs, whether Higher Level or not. Heads are beginning to inform the Union of budgetary problems to meet this condition of service. Suffolk LEA will not consider targeting any extra money on PPA problems. This year's Transitional Grant will be used solely to complete Broadband provision in all our schools.
6. Cover supervisors are becoming very common in secondary schools. TAs are already being used as teachers for "enrichment" lessons. We have discovered 2 NQTs who are being employed as cover supervisors, but being "helped" by giving them "teaching experience" and tutor groups. However, they are being paid as Cover Supervisors and are not able to start their induction.
7. Most schools seem to have waited until this term to announce UPS3 decisions. Few schools have actually managed to produce new Performance Management and Salary Policies as per Section 3 of the STP&CD. Some schools and pyramids are getting into a real mess because of NAHT guidance in 2003 which talked of "excellence" and had to be amended, too late for some Heads. Some mad-cap schemes about from maverick heads. We have just had our first UPS3 appeal.
8. Health and Safety: The LEA is adopting Suffolk NUT's risk assessment pro formas to inform appropriate provision for pupils who meet exclusion criteria. Social Services are also interested in it! However, we still have problems with the County Solicitor who continues to advise headteachers that they must not exclude pupils who have a statement of SEN.
9. We have won, at least for now, the battle of the Essential User Allowances for LEA advisory staff. The County Council attempted to penalise them for use of their own car and were insisting on public transport or pool/hire cars. The NUT led the resistance and inisted on a proper audit of advisory service journeys, including details of equipment to be covered, service efficiency, etc. The result was very clear and so we have secured a reprieve for Education Staff. Single Status and NJC staff (including Education Officers) are subject to the restrictions (e.g. any journey over 50 miles must be made by hire car, If own car is used, they could only claim 8p per mile.

NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS

SUFFOLK COUNTY DIVISION Secretary: Martin Goold

Report to ERC, May 2004

1. Section 188s: A dozen schools have declared and so far only one school has moved to compulsory selection. With voluntary solutions we detect a harder line from the LEA concerning areas of discretion, such as counting proven periods of supply teaching as continuous service for redundancy payments. Several volunteers have been Area Special Class teachers, due to the change of funding arrangements, effectively rendering ASCs untenable.
2. SEN Audit: The Review of the SEN audit is taking place this term and the Union has referred the workload involved to the Workforce Remodelling Working Party.
3. First proposals for a Federated School: The smallest school in the County (15 pupils) is seeking a Federal solution to the problem of finding a new Headteacher. In touch with Cambs and Norfolk who, say the DfES, have piloted federation. Concerns about conditions of service and unpaid responsibilities.
4. Training for HLTAs has started and the first qualifications have been issued, although there are still technically no posts available. There are many agencies trying to set up courses but the grants available per trainee are too low to make it viable. Suffolk heads are clearly banking on there being HLTAs to take over full classes to provide primary teachers with the 10% guaranteed PPA time.
5. Blue Skies: None of the other Unions have taken up the NUT request to sign up to the restrictions we suggested to the LEA re. staffing regulations. We will try again with the list of principles distributed by John Bangs at the Div Secs' briefing last week.
6. Invigilation: Reps report that most Secondary schools are already reducing any requirement for teachers to invigilate to a minimum. Some SHA heads, however, have decided that invigilating a public examination in a classroom is not invigilation!
7. Term Dates for 2005-2006: Suffolk has confirmed that the Summer Term in 2006 will start on the Tuesday following Bank Holiday Monday, despite protests.
8. Travel expenses: Suffolk LEA is trying to go green and has drastic targets to cut car mileages paid on expenses. Together with charging employees for parking at work, hope to save £2m. Advisors, etc. are to use pool/hire cars and a single mileage rate is to be adopted for all staff (and all engine sizes), at the Inland Revenue tax exempt rate of 40p per mile. We are now wondering whether "all staff" includes teachers, who currently only get the essential user mileage, without lump sum. If so, that will make a dent in the £2m savings. If not, they have got a lot of explaining to do.

NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS

SUFFOLK COUNTY DIVISION Secretary: Martin Goold

Report to ERC, January 2004

1. Special Needs: New Personnel at County Hall have begun the task of undoing some "25 years of misrule". This will hopefully mean the reversal of the policy of closing ASCs, re-creating an EBD School (which closed three years ago) and expanding PRUs. The first innovation (for Suffolk) is to plan for each pyramid to have a Behaviour Support Team. Hallelujah!
2. PRU salaries: similarly, our campaign for PRU teachers to be paid the SEN allowances has at last been accepted. So from April 1st 2004, all PRU teachers on Main Scale will receive the first SEN allowance (instead of the first Management Allowance) and the LEA is drawing up criteria for the award to those who qualify for the second SEN allowance. This will put upward pressure on salaries of Seconds in, and Heads of, Unit, where we have lodged a pay claim which is under consideration.
3. SEN Audit: The NUT is circulating local advice concerning the workload involved in the SEN Audit. This is not included in national NUT guidance on workload / bureaucracy because it is localised. We are saying that time and resources must be provided to allow the audit to happen without breaching the new Conditions of Service.
4. Budget: LEA is expecting a shortfall again, and has done an exercise looking at all schools' balances (as far as they know them). The LEA takes £20,000 + 2% of income as the standard "reserve" required, and is claiming that, on this basis, many schools have too much money in reserve. There are rumours that they will try to claw back a proportion of the largest reserves. But about half of the schools have no reserves anyway.
5. Redundancy: Early declarations are clearly linked to the LEA's previous policy of closure of ASCs (40% of present declarations) and to the withdrawal of specific grants (NQT, KS1 class size, etc) which disproportionately affect small schools. Half of Suffolk's primary school are classed as "small" or "very small".
6. As a result, small schools are ceasing to be viable, and the LEA is embracing Federated Schools as a solution. We have pointed out serious concerns about Federated Schools (although we are told they are a success in Norfolk). In one Section 188 case, we have had to suggest to the Governors that Federation might be an alternative to eventual closure.
7. Blue Skies: We wrote to all other Teacher Unions and UNISON asking them to dis-associate themselves from the Blue Skies document and to sign up to a local agreement with the NUT to resist any such developments. ATL were upset by the approach, NASUWT were very much aware of the dangers and, apparently, ready to discuss with their HQ. UNISON, locally, are entirely in agreement with our stance, although affected by national propaganda which tries to convince them that the NUT does not support development of support services. We are happy to put them right on that.
8. Term Dates for 2005-2006 have been proposed which, despite earlier mumblings, do not attempt to impose a 6-term year and appear to be entirely "traditional".

NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS

SUFFOLK COUNTY DIVISION Secretary: Martin Goold

Report to ERC, October 2003

NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS

SUFFOLK COUNTY DIVISION Secretary: Martin Goold

Report to ERC, May 2003

1. Budget: Suffolk has suffered badly from the redistribution of national resources and schools' budgets were much worse than had been expected. The LEA made things worse by choosing this same year to vire some £1.5m into Social Services. Suffolk CC still passported all national funding into education, and is spending 104% of its SSA for Education. That has not stopped Government claiming that the County has not "passported all the increase", which is interesting semantics. The CC Executive and officers are persuaded by believers in unadulterated LMS principles, who demand that all moneys are paid to school on a per capita basis. Fine for schools like Northgate High with a sixth form of 400+ but not so good for the primary school with 50 pupils. Suffolk refused to accept NUT advice to target unallocated funds at specific need (Small School protection, NQT induction, viability of sixth forms, etc.). So when the DfES trumpeted the £38m extra for disadvantaged LEAs, Suffolk's share was just £108,000. When distributed on a per capita basis, even the very largest schools got only a pretty useless £2000 and the smallest around £50. We have pointed out to the LEA that this was tantamount to throwing away £100,000 which could have been directed much more sensibly. No response, the LEA has gone to ground!
2. Federated Schools: One consequence is that many small primaries have, virtually overnight, become at risk as they cannot balance their budget and continue to meet statutory provision. Suffolk has come up with a scheme of "federation" which is "out to consultation". In Suffolk, that phrase means that it will be implemented. The Union has consulted members, including headteacher members, and is opposing federation, pointing out that the many disadvantages far outweigh any potential savings or apparent advantages. The Suffolk idea is for two or three rural schools to federate, under one peripatetic administrator who would be called "headteacher" but not be expected to teach.
3. First casualty? Two weeks after the publication of the proposal for Federated Schools, the LEA issued a consultation paper on the future of the county's smallest school, at Gazeley. Here, a federation with schools some 4 or 6 miles away is suggested as an alternative to closure. Gazeley's problems were precipitated by an OFSTED which slated management and placed the school in the "serious weaknesses" category.
4. Sixth-Form Funding fiasco: The L&SC method of funding sixth-forms is causing great consternation. The claw-back factor means that schools, committed to one- or two-year courses, and having appointed teaching staff to take them, may find that the funding for that teacher's salary is removed by claw-back. This could actually endanger sixth-forms in smaller Secondary schools. One peculiarity of Suffolk market towns is that many of the larger centres of population are close to county boundaries and therefore fall pray to poaching from other LEAs. There is a noticeable effect in Haverhill and Newmarket from the pull of sixth-form colleges in Cambridgeshire.
5. UPS2: We know of two schools which did not get the UPS2 decision through in time to avoid paying higher national insurance contributions. In one case, the Governors agreed to pay compensation, because the Rep was able to show the Governors a copy of the FAX sent to the school by the NUT advising the Head of payroll's deadline.
6. UPS2 appeal: We know of only two cases of UPS2 not being granted to members. In one, we have been asked not to make representations, and on the second, an appeal hearing of Governors on 8th May failed to get the Head's decision overturned. This is at Orwell High School which also has a Section 188 notice out with a potential 6 redundancies.
7. Workload Agreement: The LEA has agreed in principle to talks with all the JNC Teachers' Organisations, on local implementation of the Workload agreement. As usual, nothing has actually happened and they still have a touching belief that the DfES, LGA or NEOST will sort something out for them before they have to do some thinking about it themselves.
8. Cooperation with NAHT: Much has been gained by very close cooperation between the County Secretaries of the NUT and NAHT which has helped defuse several potential timebombs. It is interesting that the NAHT both locally and nationally seem to be supporting the NUT both over our stance on SATs and on the need for discrete funding for workload improvements.

NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS

SUFFOLK COUNTY DIVISION Secretary: Martin Goold

Report to ERC, January 2002

1. UPS2: The situation is rather confused and inconsistent. One or two schools have awarded and paid UPS2 since September 1st. Others have still made no move. The most common situation is that staff still do not yet know whether it has been awarded. Heads say they are still awaiting grant money or "further guidance". Only a very few have tried the CEA approach: one was made to retract, with pressure from the NUT, assisted by the NAHT Secretary. Although the LEA agreed a policy to assess all unattached staff by the October half term 2002, none seem to have yet been told of any outcome.
2. SEN Audit: The LEA has developed an audit approach to SEN funding which was trialled last year. They are making some adjustments this year, bringing behaviour problems into the formula for the first time, largely as a result of pressure from the NUT and some successful cases of refusing to accept violent children into mainstream situations. Having denied last year that this would spell the end of ASCs (Area Support Centres) for SEN, their latest consultation paper proposes just that. They calculate that an "integrated" SEN place costs, on average, half as much as an ASC place. The Division is responding with objections to the proposals, urging the retention of these very local centres of expertise and experience for children with SEN,
3. 6-Term Year: The County Council has accepted the new, amended 6-term year LGA proposals for 2004-2005 which is now out to consultation, ending mid-February. There is little response from members, but the Division is repeating its view, following a survey earlier in 2002, that it supports a "fixed Easter" but not starting in August. The very long autumn terms still pertain.
4. Early retirement on the grounds of efficiency: The LEA has changed its policy of inviting applications in the Autumn for PRIEF in the following summer. They will now only contemplate early retirement arising from casework: we have two or three cases pending, where the member is unable to teach at present, is approaching nil pay, but not able to get ill-health retirement.
5. The Division has produced and circulated to all schools a document entitled How to say No to the inclusion of pupils with a history of violence, which includes a checklist to be used for risk assessments when schools are asked to "include" a child with a violent history. It is designed to help Heads resist pressure from the LEA to retain or admit pupils who are not suitable for their school and facilities. The use of the document by headteachers has been immediate and very effective. The Secretary has received very positive and thankful reactions from members and their headteachers.
6. Suffolk is trying to promote "Wellbeing" along the Norfolk model, but is not funding its introduction with any "pump priming" money, so that take-up is limited, and it is not yet in place in those schools where it is most needed. The LEA are already discounting costs (e.g. early retirement and long-term absence costs) in anticipation, but we are pointing out that this is "cart before horse". The Division is promoting the scheme for what it can do to improve staff morale and health.
7. Very little reaction to the issue of classroom assistants and the infamous agreement. More interest shown by the media than by members.

NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS

SUFFOLK COUNTY DIVISION Secretary: Martin Goold

Regional Report October 2002

1. A new SCITT has opened, based in Lowestoft and both the Ipswich and Lowestoft-based SCITTs are joint undertakings between Suffolk and Norfolk LEAs. It means that Suffolk now has about 75 trainee teachers based in the county.

2. The Union is putting pressure on the LEA officers to come clean about the failure to support schools over pupils with EBD. We are setting up a meeting separately with elected members so that members in PRUs can expose the "economies with the truth" in a recent Council Paper which mis-reported the position, including claiming that PRUs were up and running, when no children had been allocated to them either as day pupils or for outreach work. We are getting councillors to ask questions in the council chamber, particularly concerning how over £500,000 "Progress Centre" grant has been spent: we can identify no extra behaviour support in schools as a result; hardly "Best Value"!.

3. Suffolk LEA has published some advice on UPS2 but only for its unattached staff. It is based mostly on the DfES guidance, but does not push the idea of teachers providing evidence. With unattached services there is a problem of line managers often not actually having much of an intimate knowledge of the teachers' work in the first place, and it is not considered proper that the person making the UPS decision is the same as the person who did the Performance Management review. Then there is a problem as to who might hear appeals.

4. Suffolk is to cut down on speculative application for Premature Retirement in the Interests of Efficiency. Up to now they have invited applications from Governing Bodies for consideration by the LEA. A new policy document now says that they will only look at PRIEF on a case-by-case basis, with priority going to those who are unable to work but who do not qualify for an ill-health pension.

5. The Division is circulating to schools advice for Heads, Reps, H&S Reps and SENCOs entitled "How to say No to the inclusion of pupils with a history of violent behaviour". (This is very topical: I have sent a copy to Estelle Morris suggesting that it could get her out of her problem at Glyn School!). It includes a checklist for a risk assessment, a second checklist for extra resourcing required, and then a calculation of whether the school can actually admit the child safely without breaking the provision of the Health and Safety At Work Act. Our paper has the backing of the SCC Safety Officer, but has been ignored by the LEA.

6. The LEA is not proposing to have any teacher organisation representation on the Schools Forum.

7. The Division is seeking improvements to the General Complaints Procedure so that complaints against teachers are made known to the teacher in full before any investigation takes place, that the interests of all staff are preserved throughout, and that there is a right to have a copy of any reply or findings made known to the parent or other complainant.

8. Suffolk LEA has nearly finalised a Joint Protocol with the Suffolk Constabulary setting out procedures and responsibilities for dealing with violent incidents in school, especially assault on staff. This was initiated by the NUT before the DfES put out its Safe Schools info in July. The problem remains getting the local police officers (and those who answer the phone at the LEA Area Office) to implement the procedures set out.

9. Suffolk LEA is promoting a Wellbeing scheme based on the Norfolk model and run by Worklife Support. So far only about 30 schools have bought in to the full scheme, of whom about half have completed their "health audit".

MJG 11/10/02

NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS

SUFFOLK COUNTY DIVISION Secretary: Martin Goold

Regional Report May 2002

1. Advisory Teacher Pay and Conditions: The Union successfully resisted an LEA proposal to place ATs on Soulbury. They have been placed on Advanced Skills Teacher Scale (we wanted Leadership Spine) and have received a pay boost of some £4,500 over 18 months.
2. The LEA is nevertheless intent on putting as many unattached "teachers" onto Soulbury as possible. This includes the KS3 Coordinators and Literacy/Numeracy Consultants. The Regional Office is now involved because of an attempt by Suffolk LEA to de-recognise the Union for local Soulbury negotation and consultation.
3. 6-term Year: Suffolk is currently consulting on the Regionally agreed proposals for a 6-term year. One of our Associations is seeking views via a survey and the Division website has a Debates page devoted to the topic. Opinion so far is at least 75% against the proposals, taken as a package. There is support for terms of equal length and for "fixing" Easter. Much less support for starting Term 1 in August and having a very long stretch up to Christmans.
4. Post-Threshold pay progression: The LEA is staying out of the fray, and initial reports from schools suggest that the largest schools are following the NUT line of "no rationing" but smaller schools run by NAHT heads vary greatly and we expect most difficulties to arise there. The position of supply teachers is also problematical. The Union is pressing the LEA for a statement along the lines of NUT policy for its own, unattached staff on teachers; pay and conditions.
5. There are increasing delays in dealing with personnel and consultation / negotiation as the LEA personnel fail more and more to cope with the workload. This is leading to some serious breaches of procedure (e.g. Section 188s and non-renewal of fixed-term contracts) which are requiring robust challenges from the Union.
6. Flexibilities Agreement: We are still awaiting the final version of the LEA's guidelines to schools on cover flexibilities.
7. Ex gratia Payments: We have got the LEA to agree a policy which does, after all, agree to consideration of ex gratia payments by schools, including damage to members' cars. We await, of course, the final version and distribution to schools.
8. There has been a sharp increase in schools being put in Special Measures in the county, which hitherto had been virtually unknown. This has brought about greater intervention by LEAs (usually too late) and there are currently at least 4 "investigations" into management of schools.
9. Two of the County's 7 EBD referral units have been placed in Special Measures. Amongst the reasons quoted by members is the admission of pupils from the closed residential EBD school at Oakwood. PRUs are now accepting pupils who are in need of more secure accommodation and specialist provision. Also the relaxation of regulations allowing headteachers to exclude violent pupils.
10. The Union's attempt to get the LEA to pay all EBD PRU teachers the first SEN allowance has failed. The LEA insist that EBD is not a Special Educational Need. They are to review recruitment and retention at the PRUs but we expect no break-through or change of mind.
11. Suffolk Schools are still suffering from inadquate EBD provision which means that heads are pressurised to take pupils who have been excluded from other schools for violent behaviour. Members are becoming increasingly aware that contacting the Union before pupils are admitted can be effective in protecting their school from pupils with a known record of violence.
12. Schools in Suffolk are currently seeking to cope with the SEN Audit introduced at Christmas. This entails assessing all children with any kind of SEN (except EBD of course) against Performance Indicators which are weighted and totalled up for each school and for the County. The total is then divided into a pre-determined SEN budget, to provide a monetary value for each SEN unit. The school is then financed for SEN on this basis. This term, the audit moderation is taking place, to seek some consistency. The workload implications are serious, as each school has to submit evidence of the assessment in all categories for 25% of the pupils for whom it is making an audit claim. New consultants and advisory staff have been appointed to cope with the moderation, but schools have been given no help in terms of time to do the assessment and prepare for moderation.

NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS

SUFFOLK COUNTY DIVISION Secretary: Martin Goold

Suffolk News in Brief: Regional Report

January 2002

1. The OFSTED Report for Suffolk LEA has been published. It is very complimentary, and raises few areas for improvement in key areas. However, a close reading of the text does also point to some important gaps, especially that of EBD provision after the closure ("with reasons", says OFSTED) of Oakwood. OFSTED urge the LEA to implement the programme of introducing PRUs for KS1-3 in all part of the county as quickly as possible.
2. EBD Provision: In fact, since the "emergency" closure of Oakwood EBD Special School in Autumn 1999, Suffolk has replaced only 15 part time of the 58 full time places lost and there has been much forced inclusion of pupils with EBD into mainstream schools, often with disastrous results. The LEA undertook to open a full range of new EBD PRUs to make up for the shortfall of provision, and the current SOP speaks of one new KS1 and one new KS2/3 Unit this year, and for the next two. None have actually materialised, apart from the opening of the Kingsfield Centre, on the Oakwood premises, 18 months late. They now have two months left to set up and staff this year's quota.
3. Services to Children, Young People and Families: How to re-invent the wheel: with the demise of Education Committees and the removal of CC control of Health Services and Careers Service, etc., they now seek jointed-up local government coordination of services to children, involving all the agencies including the voluntary sector and these nebulous "forums". On paper, it looks great. But it mostly relies on the school initiating the coordination, and then one employee somewhere, employed by someone, is supposed to coordinate action across a multitude of agencies, all with different area boundaries and separate budgets. Great!
4. Advisory Teachers' Pay: resistance by the NUT led to the LEA dropping their plan to drive all ATs onto Soulbury pay and Conditions. We had to lodge a collective grievance in order to get them to budge. Members have now accepted points 8 to 12 of the Advanced Skills Teacher scale as the range to be payable. The NUT is insisting that this pay settlement was due on September 1st 2000 and should therefore be back-dated. ATs are pleased that they have come off spot salaries and retain their superannuation rights under the teachers' scheme.
5. The NUT has lodged a formal claim to pay the first SEN point to all teachers employed by PRUs. This was on behalf of the NUT, NASUWT and ATL.
6. Criminal Records Bureau, Fees: Suffolk has responded: "County policy is that employees will not be asked to fund their own check; it would not be in line with the County's inclusion policy
7. Some casework has highlighted a lack of consistency in the LEA's approach to industrial injury. We are insisting that absence after an incident at work recorded and notified to the LEA in the incident book, supported by medical evidence, and accepted by the Benefits Agency, must be an industrial injury. The LEA are trying to disagree and pretend that they do not have to recognise the industrial nature of the injury. Our stance is that if the Benefits Agency recognise it and are prepared to pay benefit, the employer has no option. Acknowledging a long-term absence as an industrial injury is important because it increases a member's entitlement to full sick pay.
8. The HSE have offered to look at Suffolk's handling of verbal assault following correspondence with HM Principal Inspector of H&S, Annette Hall re. a gap in the regulations which do not require non-physical injuries to be reported by employers. The RIDDOR definition of "accident" is different from the Benefit Agencies. A letter from , explains: "The RIDDOR definition of an accident includes "an act of non-consensual physical violence done to a person at work..... Non-physical violence .../ injury is discounted". This means that long-term absences caused by verbal assault, etc., are not reported to the HSE. However, Ms Hall goes on to say:"The H&S Commission has decided that tackling work related stress should be one of its priorities .... research confirms that teachers and nurses report the highest levels or work-related stress". This is a topic which the National Union might wish to pursue.
9. In casework, there is a spate of heads/governors wishing to change (always increasing) the school day, and more examples of unacceptable pupil behaviour, not unconnected with the lack of EBD places mentioned above.
10. Ex Gratia Payments: The LEA is at odds with the rest of the County Council re, ex gratia payments, largely because of the legal separation of powers under LMS. We have challenged an LEA pronouncement that schools cannot and should not make ex gratia payments for damage to personal property, and especially motor vehicles. We are awaiting some review of policy to take into account the Burgundy Book's statement on this subject.
11. Flexibilities: The LEA got round to talking to us about what the Flexibilities agreement actually meant in practice. We were pleased that the LEA agreed with our interpretation on all counts. One school got away with closing a day early by aggregating all the release time earned for the last day of the Autumn Term. So, everyone enjoyed the advantage, whether or not they had volunteered for cover. A second scheme, conversely, sought to get staff to save on supply by covering their own subject areas, in return for a "personal capitation pot", with which they could buy materials and supplies, such as laptops. The Union Rep asked for advice and we were able to squash the idea, after a majority of members voted against.
12. Suffolk Division has affiliated to Unity 2000.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Suffolk News in Brief: Regional Report

October 2001

1. Supply Agency: Suffolk is recommending to schools a supply teacher placement service run by Education Management direct of Grantham. For a registration fee of £45 to £275 depending on size of school, and a daily placement fee of £3.30, the agency seeks to get the school a supply teacher. However, the supply teachers will continue to be employed by schools under normal pay and conditions of service and paid via the county payroll system.
2. Teachers from South Africa: A Suffolk headteacher made two visits to South Africa last summer. This has led to some 20 posts being taken up. Most have been employed in the most difficult schools and this is already causing problem. There is no proper induction course for them and many are finding life very difficult.
3. Teacher crisis: There are officially only about 20 vacancies this term, but this is disguised by a number of short-term contracts (of a term or less) and does not include those teachers who did not turn up in September and those who have since gone sick with no prospect or intention of returning. Neither does it include a large number of mismatch situations. We know of no school which has yet actually employed the "flexibilities".
4. Advisory Teachers: The Division declared a dispute with the LEA over a refusal to pay any increment in September to Advisory Teachers, unless they agreed to accept the LEA's proposal to go over to Soulbury pay and conditions. Members resisted and lodged a grievance. We await the decision of the LEA after talks last week, but expect the LEA to agree to pay Advisory Teachers on at least L2 to L6 as a temporary measure. We would then cooperate with a wholesale review of job descriptions and target salary structure for the future.
5. PRUs: The Division has tackled the LEA once again on their refusal to consider EBD as a Special Educational Need. A consequence of this is that PRU staff do not get an SEN point. The Secretary has pointed out to the LEA the new wording on the discretionary award of the first SEN allowance in the new Pay and Conditions Document. The LEA has replied that they see no reason to review the situation: "PRUs are part of our provision of education otherwise than at school, not special education provision, and for that reason we do not see the use of SEN points as appropriate". It would appear that Essex, Cambridgeshire and Norfolk all pay the first SEN allowance to their EBD PRU teachers. We shall therefore be pursuing the matter, and asking our members in PRUs if they wish to lodge a collective grievance.
6. We think Suffolk has failed to spend its grant for Secondary Learning Support Units properly: we cannot identify any actual new "units", yet some £500,000 has been committed. This appears to be linked to the reluctance to replace EBD places closed down at Oakwood school.
7. OFSTED Inspection of Suffolk LEA: Suffolk LEA officers claim that, although they submitted plans for consultation with the Teacher Unions, these plans were amended by OFSTED to exclude us. When we noticed that we were not invited, we protested. HQ contacted OFSTED and all of a sudden a meeting was arranged. Unfortunately it was at the one time the Secretary could not attend. Hilary Bucky attended for the Division and this was followed up by written evidence sent direct to the Lead Inspector.
8. The decision has been taken in principle to passport all increase in Education SSA into the Education Budget.
9. SCITT: It was a struggle, but we actually got up-to-date material from NUT HQ to all our SCITT students for their first day of term. SCITT students start in September, which always catches HQ out, despite our best endeavours to explain the calendar to them.
10. Threshold Problems continue: the review process in particular clearly fails any test of justice being seen to be done. Apparently the NUT and NASUWT have agreed nationally that the review assessors should see headteachers, line managers and other school staff individually and separately, and might then interview the applicant afterwards. This means that the applicant can never hear the case they make against him/her.
11. We are already getting our first reports of headteachers seeking to negotiate a post-threshold performance management policy, before the 2002 STRB reports. Members are being advised not to cooperate.
12. Damages and loss: The Division is seeking to re-establish countywide the principle of sympathetic consideration of ex gratia payments for loss of or damage to personal property, including cars, in accordance with the policy set out in the Burgundy Book.
13. Alison Fraser, former Head of Orwell High School has resigned from her East Cleveland headship some three weeks after the school opened; (she was designate head for two terms of "planning). Torsten Freidag, sometime head of Gt Cornard US and Islington "superhead" is rumoured to have been appointed to a non-maintained school headship in Essex.

Suffolk News in Brief: Regional Report

May 2001

1. Staffing Crisis: Holywells High School successfully balloted for "work to contract" action and pupils were sent home as a result. By the Summer Term, 6 new staff were recruited and the school went back to full timetable. Members were assured of the Union's determination that any suspension of national action would not affect their protection from covering for unfilled vacancies. There has now been a sudden change of Head and new strategies to support staff over unacceptable pupil behaviour. There are still recruitment problems looming for September. The LEA reports that the situation is "not in crisis" but there are "severe problems". As yet, the LEA has not gone into competition with neighbouring authorities by offering B&Q vouchers, etc.., but they are looking for "low cost" ways of attracting teachers in. They are bitterly regretting the loss of teacher housing.
2. Threshold: staff in the unattached services, including music service, seem to be the last to be assessed. They are also awaiting details of a their performance management procedures, which have not yet been published. The Division has assisted some dozen members deemed not to have met the threshold standards. In nearly all cases, the judgement has been clearly affected by personal relationships with the headteacher. It is of concern that the assessors have not spotted clear cases of bias and have allowed heads to "fail" teachers without even annotating the application forms and with the use of "confidential" information which cannot be verified. The Division has taken several cases to the CEA. The CEA has been slow to respond, particularly when it has no defence to offer!
3. Threshold Arrears: The LEA geared up well to pay the threshold arrears immediately together with the first threshold payment. However, the powers that be forgot that in April, when a large number of threshold "passes" were notified, payroll would also have to adjust all pay for the pay increase and complete their statutory work for the end of the financial/tax year. So, although schools reporting for the April pay run had one month's threshold payments added, the arrears were missing. This afforded the Division another opportunity of publishing the cost of the threshold process and underlining its unfair and bureaucratic nature. The LEA blotted their copy book when they failed to pay new threshold arrears in April. A press release from the NUT got a rapid response from the Director of Finance who ordered a special supplementary run to pay the arrears the following week, instead of having to wait another month.
4. SEN Audit: Suffolk is proceeding with a headlong rush into devolving SEN monies to identified pupils assessed are having SEN and then allowing parents to choose where to send their child. (Doesn't this sound rather like nursery vouchers?). This may well spell the end of some ASCs because parents will be able to insist that their child is educated in the local school, regardless of the preparedness and suitability for that child's special needs. The audit will divide the SEN budget and re-distribute it on the basis of a value per child. That value will vary dependent on the severity of the special need identified. The scheme will represent a variation in the LMS formula and will initially provide some advantage to mainstream schools in assisting early intervention. The LEA says that it must discourage formal statementing to divert resources to delivery rather than formal bureaucratic assessment. We shall see. There is now a formal period of consultation on the proposals, which have already been improved by safeguards for ASC, a continuing "intervention" role for the LEA and some interim protection formulae.
5. Out-sourcing: Last year a one-year contract was signed with the National Teaching and Advisory Service to work initially with pupils who formally attended Oakwood EBD Special School. The contract has been extended for another year from 1st May 2001 (at a cost of approx.£311,000). At the time of the renewal (April 2001) the NTAS was supporting only 5 - 8 pupils. The JNC is meeting a representative of NTAS on 23rd May.
6. Following the successful introduction of a Primary SCITT based on Ipswich, plans to set up a Secondary SCITT in Suffolk are well advanced. Likely to be launched for September 2001.
7. Suffolk is attempting to adopt a School Wellbeing project in partnership with the TBF along the lines of the Norfolk pilot. Unfortunately, they are having to ask schools to buy in at cost, even to the experimental scheme (although there could still be a little pump-priming money coming). All this came after schools had set their budget and without much prior publicity, so up-take is not expected to be good in the short term.
8. New guidelines on the administration of medicines have just been issued (without any prior consultation) which do indicate clearly that teachers and other school staff cannot be expected to handle and administer medicines. However, the "voluntary" solution is still encouraged, along with a statement about parental responsibility. The situation remains unsatisfactory.
9. The Union suggested to the LEA that they would like to pay the GTC fee (amounting to some £160,00 for Suffolk teachers) as a "thank-you" recruitment and retention gesture to all its teachers. They have declined.
10. Suffolk LEA is to be OFSTEDed in July - September. This has produced a flurry of documents and even some replies to 6-month old queries.

Martin Goold 17/5/1

NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS

SUFFOLK COUNTY DIVISION Secretary: Martin Goold

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Suffolk News in Brief: Regional Report

January 2001

1. Staffing Crisis: Last term several Suffolk Secondary schools started the year with a few unfilled vacancies (officially 45) which were covered mainly by supply. By October, Heads were aware of a larger than usual number of resignations for January. Heads and NUT publicised the coming crisis. LEA denied it. Heads drew up plans for 4-day weeks or similar, but the LEA refused to allow schools to do this. Instead, Heads were instructed to double-up classes, convert lessons to activities such as extra sports or drama (including packing pupils off to the sports centre) and brought in advisory teachers to cover. In one case, a teacher was actually forcibly returned from a secondment

2. Ipswich Schools: The Press and TV have picked up on the Ipswich situation and have so far been very helpful in their presentation of the crisis. We were desperately trying to get the Authority to put out a statement before the beginning of this term to avoid naming the school with the biggest problem. The LEA refused to do so. Then the Essex statement came out. The LEA remained silent, but noted the angry response from the Government to Essex. Suffolk is still in denial, even though at least 6 schools in the County should really be sending pupils home. Apart from Ipswich, there are problems in Lowestoft, Mildenhall and Haverhill.

3. Best Council: The Suffolk reaction to the staffing crisis could have something to do with their bid for Best Council status. The "judging" takes place next week. Is this why the LEA got the staff of one school to give up all non-contact time for three weeks? While their schools cry out for help, the politburo makes videos in praise of itself.

4. The inclusion debate: The LEA let a dozen highly-trained EBD staff go over the last 18 months because of the mishandled closure of the school. These are just the sort of trouble shooters the Authority now needs. The last remaining two teachers from the former Oakwood EBD Residential School are now "on loan" to NTAS (National Teaching and Advisory Service), i.e. they are supernumerary just at the time when schools are crying out for EBD expertise (or for any teacher who can control a class!). None of the promised new PRUs have yet been planned and they cannot staff the ones they already have. The Division publicised the under-payment of EBD staff in Suffolk via a press release in December.

5. The Threshold et al: The first cases of members "failing" the threshold assessment are coming in. Of the first three, two are NUT Representatives and the third is a member who brought the Union in to defend her, successfully, from false accusations . Any connections? Cases already known about show a tendency for heads to be "setlling old scores", a wide variation in practice regarding "evidence" and the ineffectiveness of the assessors to detect foul play. As the majority of the assessors are fellow Suffolk Heads, this is not surprising. Two cases have been referred to the Regional Office for advice and support on "appeal". It would be our estimation that the Union will shortly be swamped by cases and Divisions will need advice on how best to defend members.

6. Child Protection Procedures: The LEA has just circulated to heads an instruction that the Designated Child Protection Teacher must attend child protection case conferences, whenever they are called. This could cost the school £150 per day for cover (which at present cannot be recouped) and expects teachers to attend during the school holidays. We will be advising members that cannot be forced to attend but, if they volunteer, they should be paid on the same basis as Summer School, etc.

7. The LEA is re-organising Community Education, clearly in order to divert much of its Youth and Adult Education services to fund and operate Connexions. In the process, we find that Community Education's consultation procedures have lapsed. The LEA do not want to recognise CYWU and cannot see a role in such a forum for the NUT. We, together with UNISON and NATFHE, beg to differ.

8. The first three harassment cases against headteachers have reported. The Division has preparing a report on our experience of the harassment procedure and will be suggesting many amendments. At present, it is incredibly difficult to get a Governing Body to take action against a headteacher, even when the harassment enquiry and report is unequivocal. There is a tendency for one or other of the parties to leave, often before the enquiry reports.

9. Following more cases of injury to members at work not being handled properly, the Division has published a booklet entitled "What to do when a member of staff is injured at school". Advance copies were very well received by schools, including headteachers. It is being distributed to all Headteachers and to NUT Representatives. It includes advice to Heads for when the police or LEA do not proceed against assailants and a model policy for assaults on staff.

NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS

SUFFOLK COUNTY DIVISION Secretary: Martin Goold

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Suffolk News in Brief: Regional Report

October 2000

Performance Management: The LEA is taking great comfort in not having to produce a model policy. It appears that many heads are seeking to adopt the NASUWT policy. Members do appear to appreciate the differences in our policy / model. There is an unseemly rush to get it all sorted. Many Heads are reporting that they do not know what to do and have (for the first time, perhaps) no lead from the LEA. Interesting.

"Modernisation" of Local Government: Suffolk is now in its second year of the new format. Discussions are now taking place to try to get all the TRs on the Learning for Life Theme Panel (AKA Education Committee) because at the moment their skills and advice is largely wasted: the Primary Rep has to be Jack of All Trades on the Executive Committee while the poor SEN Rep only goes to (ad hoc) meetings of the (General) Scrutiny Committee.

Serious weaknesses and Special Measures are giving rise to a significant number of headteachers disappearing and the schools being "saved" by consultant Heads, usually "successful" heads from within the County. The LEA seems to be adopting a fairly knee-jerk reaction much the same as the tabloid press and certain football managers.

The LEA is re-organising Community Education, clearly in order to divert much of its Youth and Adult Education services to fund and operate Connexions. In the process, we find that Community Education's consultation procedures have lapsed. The LEA do not want to recognise CYWU and cannot see a role in such a forum for the NUT. We, together with UNISON and NATFHE, beg to differ.

The first three harassment cases against headteachers have reported. The Division is preparing a report on our experience of the harassment procedure and will be suggesting many amendments. At present, it is incredibly difficult to get a Governing Body to take action against a headteacher, even when the harassment enquiry and report is unequivocal.

The LEA has been very slow to adapt the Pay and Conditions Document 2000 for its centrally paid staff. This is particularly important for those advisory staff paid as Heads or Deputies. It is becoming increasingly clear that those in "non-standard" posts are not catered for by the STRB, etc. It is therefore being suggested that maybe such posts should be come under Soulbury.

The LEA continues to refuse to pay any SEN points to staff in PRUs. They have proposed that Heads of PRUs should be on the leadership spine points 6 to 12, assimilating in September 2000 at point 6. It would be interesting to know how that compares.

The Division is to publish its own guidelines on injuries and dangerous incidents (including assault) for headteachers, the LEA having sat on our drafts for too long.

The LEA is about to publish its what started out as guidelines on "Restraint", but has been hi-jacked by Social Services and comes out as "Positive Behaviour Support Training".

We have registered with the LEA the need to look again at redeployment protection for school budgets under LMS, given the new pay arrangements. Up to now, protection of the +1 to +5 allowances on re-deployment was cushioned by a special addition to the receiving school's budget, for four years. Now this needs to be extended to above-threshold and leadership differences, if the redeployment post is on a lower pay scale.

The thin end of the privatisation wedge: Suffolk is hiring in the "expertise" of the National Teaching and Advisory Service to tackle the most difficult cases arising from the closure of Oakwood EBD Residential School. So far, they appear to be dealing with about three pupils and are supposed to get up to 18, whereas the school had 58 places.

MJG 14/10/00

July 2000

Threshold applications: As elsewhere, the threshold application fiasco has created a lot of casework, particularly over late applications. Where these were due to staff being poorly advised we have successfully got the Head to accept late entries. We expect particular problems in situations where headteachers are leaving this term, especially those going "under a cloud". The Authority was fairly well geared up for its directly employed staff, including peripatetic music teachers.

Inclusion: Because the LEA is still proceeding with the closure of its only residential EBD provision (68 places at Oakwood School, Stowmarket) inclusion is being undertaken with an artificially high number of EBD pupils seeking mainstream places. The system is not coping and we are already seeing permanent exclusions from all sectors, including Primary. In one case, a parent appealed to get a Special EBD place, but was told the child had to be integrated. The child lasted two weeks before the school had to exclude. The obvious provision for this child was that which they are closing. The Division will responde by the end of the term to a consultation document on the future of EBD pupils in the county: it is proposed to open new Units for KS1 and KS2/3 in various centres around the county. It is assumed that early intervention will be so successful that they can close KS4 provision straight away!

Underachieving: We have our first example of a school (Primary) being placed in the underachieving category by OFSTED. Although not as critical as "serious weaknesses" the effect on staff morale has been just the same. As it is a small school, the reason for "failure" by OFSTED comes down to one teacher who had 2 unsatisfactory lessons recorded. It would appear that the same follow-up by HMI applies but the LEA does not provide any post-OFSTED financial support.

The LEA has also reacted to the Code of Practice by issuing a list of schools of concerns and a framework for intervention and support. This is an interesting list as, for the first time, reasons for concern can include "relationships" and "leadership" or "governance". NAHT are worried about the list in case staff see this information. Our first examples, however, have shown that the monitoring and support is harsh on the deficiencies of class teachers and less so on Heads and Governors.

Redundancies: We have got through another year without any compulsory selection of any NUT member for redundancy, except one 0.2fte on flexible hours, where it suited the member to take redundancy rather than reduce to 0.1.

We have 6 NQT members who have faced problems in their NQT year. In all, we have succeeded in getting them out of a failing situation and with some, they have transferred to a happier experience. They have all survived to try again. The LEA is being most helpful and we are together trying to adapt the regulations to do the sensible thing where clashes of personality, etc., could nip a career in the bud.

The NUT has pursued the first three cases in the county of harassment of members by headteachers. It has proved particularly difficult to hold LEA and Heads to a reasonable time scale and for Governors to realise their duties to protect staff from harassment, if necessary by disciplining culpable heads. None of the cases has yet reached a conclusion of the process, despite the fact that the first was lodged in February. We have already noticed that behaviour that if committed by teachers against pupils is cause for disciplinary action, is not considered to be the same if committed by headteachers against staff.

The Headteachers of Orwell High School, Priory Special School and Bungay Primary School are leaving after LEA enquiries, with NUT involvement. We expect another to follow shortly, one for poor financial management. We may also have been responsible for the downfall of a Private School headteacher: announcement expected shortly.

MJG 7/7/00

Suffolk News in Brief: Regional Report

April 2000

PRP and Training Day: Despite contacting the LEA very early on, some Heads are doing their initial PRP training this term, taking an extra PD Day on April 14th. Others are "waiting" until the first day of next term. The Division has FAXed Heads to pass on the NUT advice in "Headway" that the training should be postponed. Most are ignoring that, although some have agreed to put off to late May. All realise that they can only read through the application form and advice, which we can all read for ourselves.

PRP: members' response: All meetings I have attended or had reports from indicate that the Union is 100% right in continuing to oppose the principles of PRP and the threshold assessment. The general view forming is that members should apply in large numbers to show the impracticality and unfairness of the system. Some schools are showing a "nil return" and their heads are getting worried that this would reflect badly on the school and them! Headteachers returning from their training have expressed concern at the low standard of that training, and the lack of any standardisation between schools and areas: they are being told that the assessors will only be checking that the overall scheme in each school is satisfactory and that it is being applied fairly at school level only. No comparison of standards between schools is envisaged.

Inclusive Education: The LEA has distributed "inclusion" money to schools, and a typical Middle School would get around £8,000. However, they are then allowed only one permanent exclusion before that funding is retrenched, at the rate of around £3,000 per additional exclusion.

Oakwood EBD School: Still under emergency closure. A new consultation document has been published, remarkably similar to the first, and still proposes closure before the County EBD Review is even put out to consultation, let alone new facilities planned and put into operation. The plan is to retain the residential facility, but run by Social Services, and re-open the building as a PRU. The children who will not be re-admitted are those in KS4: here some rather vague plans for education other than at school are still to be worked out, and will not be up and running before they close Oakwood. The Union's request for a Employment Stability Procedure have not as yet been accepted.

"Failing" Schools: the LEA is battling with the four categories of failure and are simply not managing to maintain the level of advisory service that they had previously. The Union is having to pick up where they do not intervene effectively, causing a rise in casework. There are several schools with "leadership", "management" and "governance" problems, where the LEA is entitled to intervene, but they cannot provide the commitment required to get things to improve.

Redundancies: There remain about 4 situations where compulsory selection is expected at any moment. The reduction in Advisory Teacher Staff has been effected without compulsory selection of any NUT member, but the Advisory Service to Primary Schools, particularly in Drama and Art, is to be severely curtailed and the future of Teachers' Centres is again in question.

MJG 5/4/00

Suffolk News in Brief: Regional Report January 2000

1. The LEA has declared redundancies in the Advisory Service because the buy-back of Advisory Teacher activities, especially in Drama, the Arts, PE and Humanities, has not met the cost of these staff's salaries. We are seeking to promote Drama and Arts as permitted exceptions to delegation and are suggesting that these teachers, who actually work with groups of children rather than as advisers to schools, should be supported centrally.
2. Oakwood EBD Residential School has been closed "temporarily" until August 31^st, as we had predicted would happen. The staff are all still employed and the LEA cannot issue Section 188 notices because no decision (or consultation) has taken place with regard to permanent closure. In the meantime, some 50 boys with severe EBD are receiving only part-time home tuition, although some of this is taking place on Oakwood premises with Oakwood staff. It is all very bizarre.
3. The County has a few large Secondary schools with 6-figure deficit carry forwards. Some, it transpires, are accounting anomalies (a small question of hiding reserves as "renewals fund"), others actually have foundation or PTA funds which are not disclosed in either the out-turn statements or the LEA's financial control systems. In a couple of occasions, this has turned into real deficits of over £100,000 and recourse to LEA loans.
4. We are in discussion with the LEA's financial staff on ways of ensuring that all financial decisions under Fair Funding arrangements are clear and available for scrutiny, especially in Section 188 situations.
5. Suffolk County Council "modernised" in April 1999 and has recently carried out an internal audit and declared itself, without much evidence, to be on the right track. The teacher representatives are not so sure, neither is the Division Council. In their quest to modernise, they have cut down on travel by holding video-conferenced meetings in a multiple- venue setting. It would have worked quite well if the video link worked. My own observations was that the councillors still cannot get their heads round the multi-thousand pound electronic voting system installed at County Hall.
6. John Dixon spoke at an Open meeting in Ipswich on December 8^th on PRP, together with speakers from PAT (!) and NAHT. Interestingly enough, ATL and NASUWT cried off. Our lobbies of MPs has resulted in an invitation from Jamie Cann MP (Ipswich) to arrange a meeting of Ipswich teachers and Estelle Morris in the near future.
7. We have our first failing NQT under the new arrangements which is concentrating minds on the regulations. We have also raised with HQ and DfEE the lack of clarity over the principle of 90% timetables for NQTs. John Bangs has promised to get a definitive answer from Estelle Morris: we believe that the wording insists on regular, weekly extra non-contact time for NQTs. The DfEE is saying that the 10% remission includes all NQT InSeT, etc.
8. We have recently noted that the Fair Funding arrangements do not permit LEAs to retain centrally sufficient funding to give grants to schools to meet their obligations to staff with disabilities in accordance with the DDA. We are raising this with HQ, too, but it would appear that the Union's supplementary response on this matter during consultation on Fair Funding was not successful.

Martin Goold, 15/01/200

Back to Events Page

Back to INDEX