Text of a circular sent to NUT Representatives by FAX in Secondary
schools in Suffolk on 4th January 2001:
Text of a circular sent to NUT Representatives by FAX in Secondary
schools in Suffolk on 4th January 2001:
Before Christmas, we were receiving reports that some Secondary schools were unable to find supply, agency or even unqualified staff to cover vacancies even on a day-by-day basis. Although today's official number of unfilled vacancies in Suffolk is 45, we know that there are many more situations where staff are doubling-up groups, abandoning non-exam courses or being asked to cover beyond the first three days of unexpected absence.
As schools finished in December, there were several facing vacancies this term which Heads knew they could not cover. When Heads asked the LEA for advice about contacting parents to warn them that they might have to ask pupils to stay at home on certain days, the LEA rejected the idea and refused to support schools who sent pupils home. This has led to heads trying to pay "overtime" to staff who will do more cover (which, incidentally, we believe is not legal) and the LEA into collusion by lending advisory staff to the hardest-hit schools and suggesting sessions at Sport Centres rather than in lessons (admitted this morning by Chris Mole, SCC Leader, on BBC Radio Suffolk).
The Union advises members not to volunteer for any work which is contrary to the cover provisions in the teachers' pay and conditions document and to urge headteachers to keep children at home if the school is unable to fulfil its statutory obligations towards pupils both on health & safety grounds, and on the delivery of the curriculum.
Estelle Morris (Schools Minister) was still in denial when interviewed on TV and Radio yesterday, claiming that there was no national crisis. Information coming to the Union indicates that there is a national crisis, and it is even effecting "beacon" schools in "beacon" Suffolk.
Obviously, no school wants to be named as the first to have to take these steps in case it indicates that it is an "unpopular" school for staff. For this reason, the NUT wrote to the LEA right at the end of last term to propose that the LEA issue a statement about the difficulties facing all schools in the county, saying that it is particularly difficult in some town secondary schools and that parents may have to be asked to make arrangements for children in years 7 to 9 to be kept at home at short notice. (The emergency local radio arrangements could be invoked). This would take away from individual schools, any "shame" at going first. Suffolk has not yet responded to our request, but we were only asking for measures along the lines taken by Essex LEA this week. The NUT knows that there are schools in Suffolk which are facing much the same shortfall in staffing as is the case in Essex, Northamptonshire, Berkshire and Kent. The LEA is forcing them to pretend that Suffolk is somehow different: it clearly is not. (The LEA has now relented in one case, for a short period, but without making the general statement about shortages: this runs the risk of naming an individual school.).
We would be grateful if you could keep the Division Secretary informed of the situation in your school, and in particular of the arrangements made when supply staff are unavailable. We are aware that we only hear of problems and need to balance our view with news of any situations where schools get all the the supply they need, all the time. If there are such situations, the Union needs to know that, too.
Nationally, the Union has included studies undertaken into teacher supply in its evidence to the School Teachers' Review Body which is due to report for 20001-20002 shortly. It is vital that the Governmentt understand that the threshold fiasco is not going to retain experienced staff or bring graduates in to the profession, faced with a starting salary around £15,000, the continuing onslaughts of OFSTED and payment by results, accompanied by poor working conditions which would not be tolerated in other professions.