Suffolk Division NUT
Executive Committee (17:30 - 18:45)
September 21st 2000 at Westley Middle School (Room 2), BURY ST EDMUNDS (Map)
Part 1: Information and Reports
Section A:
National Correspondence:
| "Pupil progress" should be eliminated as a criterion from the threshold process. For 2000 Pupil Progress in the completed form should be included only so far as it is supportive of applications. Information in Section 3 should not be used to refuse threshold applications in 2000. |
| There must be set in place a fair and transparent appeals mechanism in order to meet the demands of natural justice for teachers who fail to cross the threshold |
| The role of the assessor should be limited to ensuring that the headteacher operates the threshold application procedures fairly and consistently |
| Para 58.11.1 of the STP&CD 2000 should refer only to line managers being responsible for assisting headteachers in carrying out threshold assessments. |
| A new deadline should be established to enable teachers disadvantaged by the original deadline for threshold applications to apply. These include those who were disadvantaged in schools, those moving from Wales to England this summer and those who are employed directly by LEAs and who failed to find line mangers to evaluate their application forms in time. |
| The new procedures must make it absolutely clear that portfolios should not be used to support applications. |
| The general advice we and other professional associations are giving is as follows: It is perfectly acceptable for heads to verify the accuracy of evidence. However, it is not considered acceptable for heads to require teachers to collect documents together to support every piece of evidence cited in their application for them (i.e. as a portfolio). Most evidence will be based on documents with which heads will be familiar. It should only be the odd piece which needs specific checking and a senior member of staff could be designated to do that by speaking to the teacher. |
| We would suggest that teachers do not to attend interviews with heads about the application forms, as we believe this may prejudice the process |
| We also consider classroom monitoring on
the basis of the forms to be inappropriate. In summary, the position is as
follows: 1) Headteachers cannot ask for portfolios of evidence, but can quite legitimately ask for specific evidence against assertions in application forms. The only problem with this arises where heads are asking for information that is available elsewhere in the school (e.g. asking a teacher for schemes of work where these are held centrally or with a head of department). This is predominantly a workload issue and we are suggesting to headteachers that this needs to be handled with great sensitivity by them. |
| 2) It is believed to be best practice for headteachers to distance themselves from applicants during the assessment process. It is therefore sometimes more appropriate for deputies to collect evidence on behalf of the headteacher where necessary. |
| 3) To those heads who are apparently setting up "interviews" for all applicants, teachers can refuse to comply. Our Helpline advice to headteachers is that interviews are not necessary and not good practice. |
| 4) Some heads are suddenly establishing classroom observation regimes to support assessment. Some Professional Associations are advising that this is wrong, and we would agree |
| There is a feeling that much of the current problems arise from heads who have no system of internal monitoring in the school and are suddenly in a panic with the pending visit of the external assessor. This is possibly a correct assumption. Having stated the above, however, headteachers do still need to be firm in schools. They have been set a new and challenging task and have a job to do, and must feel able to complete this task. From our experience of the vanguard schools, I can say that the headteachers who have most easily managed the assessment process have invariably been those who have worked with the Professional Associations, rather than against them; it is in everyone's best interest to make the process run smoothly and effectively. |
| Employment Law Update | 22nd - 24th November 2000 |
| The Employment Relations Act | 22nd - 24th October 2000 29th - 31st January 2001 |
| Bullying at Work | 6th - 8th November 2000 |
| Risk Assessment | 13th -15th November 2000 |
| COSHH Essentials | 16th - 18th October 2000 7th - 9th February 2001 |
| The published report on the Management of the School was, in the event, a non-event. The recommendations did not address the issues in its brief, but looked forward positively to the re-launch of the school. We have been informed that the report would have been very different had the Principal not resigned. |
| Harassment Complaint: An appeal was lodged but Secretary offered talks to satisfy our member's concerns. No response from Chair of Governors, delay from LEA, followed by a refusal to talk outside the procedures to seek a settlement without recourse to appeal. |
| So, after lodging a grievance because the Governors had not responded within 14 days, an appeal date was set (24th July). 10 minutes into the Appeal, John Crompton interrupted with the County Solicitor's advice that an appeal could only be on the grounds that the complainant felt that the harassment enquiry had not taken matters seriously. (Our grounds of appeal were sent to him June 19th and it was on this basis he said he could not discuss a settlement and we had to proceed with the appeal!). There was an adjournment on the understanding that there would be an immediate and rapid attempt to resolve the matter "out of court". Secretary agreed to what we had originally suggested, talking outside the procedures to attempt to get the recommendations of the report altered. What was not possible in June was possible in July?! |
| The next morning, Secretary met JC with AA and the County Solicitor and sorted out a compromise wording. The LEA then dragged it out and a draft not seen until 7th August. Complaints re. delay had to be lodged again and again. Amendments suggested. More delay. Final version accepted 12th August, BUT still not agreed and formally communicated even today (13th September). Secretary has severely censured the LEA officers for this inexcusable delay and wrote to Chair of Governors on 15th Sept protesting that the matter had still not been resolved. The harassed member received official confirmation on 19th September! |
| Other casework at Orwell has continued: salary reviews, offices moved without notice, a grievance lodged on the last day of term by a Deputy against a member, and problems of timetabling, not least a member who has a timetable stopping her from exercising her above-scale responsibilities. |
| We were informed that Alison Fraser had been appointed to Firfield Community College, Newcastle. But this has now been proved incorrect. |
| E00/06 2000/01 Budget Monitoring. Period to 30th June 2000 Questions were raised by a councillor and myself about pressure on the Special Needs Budget especially on home support and home tuition, and whether this was connected with the closure of Oakwood. We were informed that the main reason revolved around children with moderate learning difficulties, with dyslexia especially highlighted as a growth area. Out County placements had been reduced, and only 2 former Oakwood children had been placed out of County. |
| E00/107 Budget Proposals 2001/2: I took the opportunity to urge councillors that whichever administration is in power, that Education, within Lifelong Learning, should indeed be the top priority. References were made to best value and whether Education should be subject to efficiency savings. The budget proposals in this paper are to be used as a basis for service planning and consultation, and will be discussed by the Theme Panel. |
| E00/111 Public Service Agreements: This paper outlined very early thoughts about a pilot scheme. Within this there were three areas in education (4.4): Support for 3 areas of significant localised deprivation, improving leadership and management of schools of concern to the LEA, and thirdly, raise the educational achievement of “hidden” disadvantaged groups. I presume that these are already being addressed within the Education Plan, and hope that consultations with interested parties will take place as they firm up these proposals. |
| E00/108 Contracts for Sponsored Local Bus Services Considerable discussion took place over three services which were going to be terminated, but it does highlight the continuing problem that exists over rural school transport. |
| a) Equal Opportunities Monitoring for teachers |
| b) Review of Harassment Procedure |
| c) Automatic membership of TP for part-timers: Current regulations say that: "...part-time employment is not pensionable unless the teacher has elected on Form 261 for it to be so treated." Secretary has asked SCC to ignore this and has asked the Union solicitor whether this detrimental treatment of part-time workers can be considered legal. |
| c) Anti-car policies: there is a suggestion that SCC may charge its own employees for parking at County Hall, etc. Secretary has requested information on this. |
| PRUs: Salaries Policy (SEN points?) / Head of Units. |
| Reform of Local Councils: In spite of our criticism of the reforms by Suffolk County Council, it was very interesting to find out that actually Suffolk was leading the way and had ironed out many problems that other councils were just beginning to tackle. We also heard about some of the London Councils like Islington and Newham which had been privatised and some of the problems associated with this. One example was that because of the contract the company only had to report back to the Chief Education Officer (not Councillors or JNC) and did not have to negotiate with the NUT. |
| Relevant Matters Arising: We have kept the existing machinery of JNC. However, who gets the minutes? Should there be more than the very occasional meetings with councillors, or the Portfolio holders, or the Chief Executive? Who do we go to when Officers are not listening e.g. Oakwood, Music, PRUs? Some authorities have regular meetings between councillors and the teacher unions. Do we pass on relevant material to officers and councillors? |
| Can we influence the structures? The Scrutiny Committee seems ineffective and has a woolly role. Some councils have different scrutiny committees to oversee different areas and may have one devoted solely to education. |
| Should we include something about JNC in our TR reports? Should we send a copy of our TR report to the Education Portfolio Holders? |
| Has the NUT or JNC representation on the Early Years Partnership or Schools Organisation Committee? Equal Opportunities needs monitoring. |
| The Macpherson Report places obligations on Councils and OFSTED looks at this when reporting on an Authority. |
| Divisional Secretaries will have to negotiate with individual schools if they opt out of the County Personnel Service. |
| Update: The act was passed. The structure and the make up is being looked at in the light of this, first by the Chief Executive and the Officers and then by the Councillors whose leaders want to continue with something similar to the present set up. |
Part 2: Decision Making
A) Arising from National Matters
| Ipswich NUT notes that the crisis over fuel affected us all and that the protests and blockages were support by many people. The protests were a symptom of the growing bitterness with the Labour Government over a range of issues, not least the continuing widening of the divide between the most well-off and the poorest in society. In addition, services like schools, hospitals, the London Tub and air traffic control face privatisation. |
| The success of direct action in forcing government to listen to grievances points the way forward for Teachers and other groups of workers in how to resist attacks on pay and conditions. To restrict campaigning on PRP, for example, to members sending postcards to Blunkett will not achieve our objectives. |
| We call upon our trade union leaders to implement the whole of the Annual Conference 2000 resolution on pay, including the demand for a recall Conference this Autumn to plan a campaign of action to win our pay claim for all Teachers in 20001 and also to ballot immediately for a total boycott of "performance management" by NUT members with a call for teachers in other organisations to do likewise. |
Date of next meetings: October 19th, November 30th, Ipswich (unless changed by this present meeting).