Introduction - National Union of Teachers - NUT Submission to STRB Sept 08.doc · Web viewSecondment/sabbaticals for head teachers enable deputy head teachers and other members of

SUBMISSION TO THE SCHOOL TEACHERS’ REVIEW BODY

SEPTEMBER 2008

INTRODUCTION

1. This submission sets out the NUT’s proposals to the STRB in respect of items (a) to (f) of the remit given to the STRB by the Secretary of State in his letter of 25 June 2008.

2. Our position on items (c) to (f) is set out fully later in this submission and requires no further comment, but in the light of the most recent exchanges between the STRB, the Secretary of State, the NUT and Chris Dee’s letter of 19 August 2008, there are some fundamental points we wish to emphasise in this introduction to our submission.

3. In particular, the STRB in its 17th Report Part 1 recommended a 2.45 per cent pay increase from 1 September 2008 and subject to review “further indicative increases of 2.3 per cent from September 2009 and 2.3 per cent in September 2010”. We feel that the STRB very clearly understood what it was recommending and that the use of the term “indicative” was a deliberate and accurate portrayal of its intentions. Indicative is, of course, different from provisional and this submission sets out clear facts and independent evidence to support the recommendation by the STRB of a substantially greater pay increase for teachers from September 2009 in their first report to the Secretary of State under the current remit.

4. We do not believe that such a recommendation is inconsistent with item (g) of the remit. In particular, we believe that the progressive and significant decline in teachers’ real and relative pay levels and the failure of the STRB to apply the review mechanism of the 15th Report to compensate teachers for the higher than expected levels of inflation, makes it imperative that teachers’ pay is, at the very least, restored to its earlier real levels without delay. Teachers are and feel undermined at the present time and the longer that situation continues, the greater will be the damage to teacher recruitment, retention, motivation and morale.

5. We trust that the STRB will consider fully the substantial evidence in this submission and we also look forward, in accordance with normal arrangements, to being able to amplify and supplement this written evidence in an oral evidence session with the STRB.

NUT SUBMISSION TO THE STRB -1- SEPTEMBER 2008

TEACHERS’ PAY

Inflation and Teachers’ Pay

6. The fundamental picture of teachers’ pay in recent years is one of sustained and continuing real terms decline in teachers’ pay levels and a worsening of the profession’s competitiveness with other graduate employments.

7. The reduction in teachers’ real pay levels is set out simply and factually in the table below.

Teachers’ Pay Increase Inflation (RPI)1 April 2005 2.5 3.21 September 2005 0.75 0.781 September 2006 2.5 3.61 September 2007 2.5 3.91 September 2008 2.45 5.0

8. The cumulative effect of those successive below-inflation pay increases is that to restore the real value of the 2004 pay levels as at 1 September 2008 would require an increase of some 6 per cent, assuming the September Retail Price Index maintains the 5 per cent annual increase recorded in the July 2008 Retail Price Index.

9. This depression of teachers’ real pay levels is further illustrated by the table below which shows the current salaries of various levels as compared with the levels they would be at if the salaries had kept pace with inflation on the same basis as set out above.

Current Value of Pay Point (£)

Value if Pay Point Increased in Line with

Inflation (£)

Cumulative Loss of Pay Since 2004

(£)

Classroom Teachers

M1 20,627 21,815 2,315

M6 30,148 31,883 3,380

UPS1 32,660 34,542 3,670

UPS2 33,870 35,822 3,804

UPS3 35,121 37,148 3,954

Leadership Group

L7 41,585 43,986 4,682

L14 49,318 52,160 5,540

L30 73,011 77,219 8,203


10. The picture for the months and year ahead shows little change in the current position. The worsening outlook for inflation has led the Governor of the Bank of England to warn that inflationary pressures would remain and could intensify. At the Bank of England’s Inflation Report press conference of 13 August 2008 the Governor said that: “…inflation is likely to rise further this year and to peak at around 5% in the coming months.” The latest Treasury forecasts show an average forecast for headline inflation of 4.7 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2008.

Teacher-Graduate Pay Comparisons

11. It is entirely appropriate to consider the levels of teachers’ pay in comparison with those of graduates in other employment for at least two very substantial reasons. If teachers’ pay levels are not competitive with those of other graduates, the profession will not be able to recruit and retain the requisite numbers and quality of graduates to maintain and sustain a quality public education service. In the short term, the damage may not be completely obvious because the extent and scale of the shortages can be ameliorated or hidden by various strategies in individual schools. Independent evidence submitted previously by the NUT from Professor Alan Smithers and Dr Pamela Robinson (e.g., The Reality of School Staffing 2003) has amply and graphically illustrated that. The damage to the education service is nevertheless real and sustained and, of course, exacerbated by continuing decline in the competitiveness of teachers’ pay levels vis a vis other graduates. In addition, teachers and other public servants deserve to be treated fairly by the Government of the day and it is patently unfair to teachers if their pay levels and salary increases are set at levels below those with similar qualifications and responsibilities.

12. Evidence submitted previously by the NUT has demonstrated very clearly that teachers’ pay levels have been falling steadily behind those of their counterparts and that their salary progression also compares unfavourably with that in competing employment. In recent years, pay settlements in the private sector have exceeded or equalled movements in inflation as measured by the Index of Retail Prices whilst those for teachers have been consistently and significantly below inflation.

13. A quality public education service cannot be maintained and sustained on the basis of such a substantial disadvantage and unfairness to teachers.

14. The NUT accordingly commissioned independent research from Incomes Data Services, a highly capable and respected organisation used by both the Government and the Office of Manpower Economics, to investigate the pay of teachers and graduates. Their report is attached to this submission and it demonstrates very clearly the serious and worsening position of teachers in relation to their comparators.

15. Key points from that independent research include the finding that, if a teacher on point M6 had had salary progression over the previous five years equivalent to the average graduate’s salary progression, their salary will be £34,709, some 18 per cent higher than the M6 figure. Section 3 of the IDS Report sets out in detail a range of comparisons between the salary progression of teachers and graduates generally covering different sections of the economy. In all cases,


teachers’ pay levels are below their graduate counterparts by significant and substantial amounts.

16. What is particularly significant and concerning to the NUT is that the IDS research shows that the disadvantage in pay progression is not confined to comparisons with the private sector, but is also replicated in comparison with the public sector with teachers generally behind their public sector colleagues by around £1,300 to £3,000 per annum.

Teacher Recruitment and Retention

17. The year-on-year pay cuts experienced by teachers since 2004, with pay awards lower than inflation, are having adverse effects on recruitment and retention in the teaching profession.

18. Problems associated with teacher supply have been reported recently in a wide range of areas. In its response to consultees’ request that it seek a remit from the Secretary of State to review teachers’ pay in accordance with the review mechanism set out in the STRB’s 15th Report, the STRB said that it was “too early to tell” whether changes in labour market indicators represented evidence that teachers’ pay was not appropriately positioned.

19. We do not share the STRB’s complacency. Allowing recruitment and retention problems to worsen before addressing them will have profoundly damaging effects on the profession and its ability to deliver a first class education service. Urgent action is needed to reverse the real terms cuts in teachers’ pay and to provide competitive pay levels.

20. Without action to implement proper, professional pay levels for teachers we face a return to the ‘boom and bust’ cycle to which we have referred in previous evidence. The recent history of teacher recruitment and retention has been characterised by a period of stability or growth in teacher supply followed by a period of decline, as low pay awards have had an adverse impact on recruitment and retention. In the current context, this means that any improvements in teacher supply between 1997 and 2005 are at risk.

21. In this section we highlight some recent examples of problems reported in teacher recruitment and retention.

GTTR Data

22. The latest information on England from the Graduate Teacher Training Registry (GTTR) showed significant falls in applications compared to the same period in 2007. Even after a late increase in applicants in some subjects, applications were significantly down across a wide range of secondary subjects.


23. A selection of subjects and the decline in applicants for each is shown below.

- Physics 13.9%- History 13.8%- English 13.6%- Geography 9.3%- Information Technology 8.4%- Biology 8.0%- French 7.8%- Chemistry 6.4%

24. The GTTR figures also showed a decline of 10 per cent overall in applications for secondary subjects in Wales.

25. There was a significant decline in primary applications, both in England and in Wales. Primary applications were down by 5 per cent in England and 7 per cent in Wales.

26. According to GTTR summaries of applications each year, the number of applications through the GTTR peaked at 60,143 in 2005. The equivalent number in 2007 was 53,931 – a decline of more than 10 per cent. This significant decline coincided with the impact of lower than inflation pay awards for teachers.

Other Recruitment Data

27. The concerns raised by the GTTR data are reinforced by findings from John Howson of Education Data Surveys, who reported in May 2008 that urgent action was needed to avoid problems in teacher recruitment. In a report for the Policy Exchange, Howson noted that: “… pay and conditions are key determinants of retention levels” (Policy Exchange: ‘The Labour Market for Teachers’, page 47).

28. On current trends, Howson predicted that a significant number of subjects would not fill their allocated targets, even though the targets for most subjects have been reduced. He also noted that, whereas previous recruitment crises had seen a fall in the number of applications for men, in the current phase there had been a reduction in applications for men and women.

Retention

29. Retention remains a key problem for the teaching profession. The Secretary of State himself noted in May 2008 in a letter to the ‘social partners’ that: “We have a significant wastage rate among recently qualified teachers, and this must mean that we are losing talent we cannot afford to lose.”

30. We agree with the Secretary of State that teaching cannot afford significant wastage rates. This loss of talent will not be made good, and is likely to worsen, without urgent action on teachers’ pay.


31. Information on retention is included in the ‘Good Teacher Training Guide 2008’ from Professor Alan Smithers and Dr Pamela Robinson of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at the University of Buckingham. Smithers and Robinson noted that 28 per cent of recruits to teacher training by subject either did not complete their training or dropped out between completing their training and taking a teaching post. The drop-out rate of 15 per cent for trainees failing to complete their course was up from 14 per cent last year.

32. We have highlighted in previous submissions the problems that will be caused by the age profile of the teaching profession. As at March 2006 some 30 per cent of full-time teachers in the primary and secondary sectors, and almost half of those in the special sector, were aged 50 or over.

33. The problem of the ageing profile of senior staff is particularly acute. Steve Munby, Head of the National College for School Leadership (NCSL) noted in June 2008 that on the basis of internal NCSL research an estimated 55 per cent of heads would retire by 2012. In the ‘Guardian’ of 19 June, Mr Munby described the coming retirement bulge for heads as a ‘demographic timebomb.’

34. We note in this context the significant increase in teacher premature and age-related retirements in recent years. Between 1998-99 and 2006-07 the number of premature retirements in England and Wales almost trebled. The number of age-related retirements more than doubled.

35. Teaching needs to attract a substantial proportion of young graduates in order to replace those teachers who will be leaving the profession over the next decade or so. It also needs to provide a salary structure with appropriate rewards to retain those young graduates, in order to secure an adequate future supply of senior staff.

36. These retention issues represent serious challenges for the teaching profession. The difficulty in meeting these challenges will be intensified by the implementation of pay awards that amount to significant real term pay cuts. As with other aspects of teacher supply, urgent action is needed on pay in order to meet these retention challenges.

Teacher Shortages Across the Curriculum

37. Evidence of teacher shortages across the curriculum continues to emerge. The 2007 Secondary School Curriculum and Staffing Survey, published in June 2008, showed that 38 per cent of full-time equivalent (FTE) teachers had no post A Level qualification in the subjects they taught to year groups 7-13.

38. In the overwhelming majority of subjects, at least one in five teachers had no such qualification. These significant shortages ranged across the curriculum – mathematics, English, modern foreign languages, technology, arts, humanities and social studies. History is not regarded as a shortage subject but a quarter of history teachers had no post A Level qualification in the subject.


39. The figures showed an improvement compared with the 2002 survey (down from 44 to 39 per cent on the basis of full-time teachers, as opposed to the FTE figures quoted above). Nevertheless, the proportion of teachers with no post A Level qualifications in the subjects they teach is a telling indicator of a teacher supply problem that extends across the secondary curriculum.

40. Furthermore, the proportion of lessons taught by teachers with no post A Level qualification in the subject increased from 17 per cent in 2002 to 21 per cent in 2007. These findings underline our opposition to piecemeal attempts to resolve teacher shortages such as payments related to specific subjects.

Teachers’ Pay, Inflation, Competiveness, Recruitment, Retention, Motivation and Morale

41. The preceding sections have demonstrated the uniformly depressing and disadvantaged position of teachers’ pay levels, salary progression and reduction in real pay levels.

42. It is not surprising, therefore, to read reports in the national press of thousands of teachers taking second jobs in the holidays in order to make ends meet. This picture is further reinforced by data from the Teachers’ Support Network of an increase of almost 70 per cent in the award of hardship grants in the first quarter of 2008 compared with the previous quarter.

43. The STRB has, in recent years, consistently underestimated the actual levels of inflation that have been experienced and the corresponding levels of salary awards to other graduates. The review mechanism recommended by the STRB in its 15th Report, and accepted by the Government, has significantly failed to protect teachers from the effects of the higher than anticipated levels of inflation. Teachers feel that they have been let down by both the STRB and the Government as a result of short-sighted reliance on superficial, short-term labour data to the complete exclusion of consideration of inflation and consistently higher pay settlements in the rest of the economy for graduates.

44. Against that background further damage to the Education Service and the motivation and morale of teachers can only be avoided by the STRB recommending in their first report, at the very least, a reversal of the below-inflation pay awards of recent years and an increase in salary for all teachers which at least restores their pay to the levels necessary to match the inflation experienced since 2005.

45. The NUT is satisfied that the evidence in this submission, including that from respected, independent experts, supports its case for a substantial increase in teachers’ pay to enable the profession to compete effectively with other graduate employments. In order to do this properly, all teachers’ pay and allowances should be increased by £3,000, or ten per cent, whichever is the greater.

46. The NUT is aware that the STRB intends to undertake a major review of teachers’ pay for the second report to the Government in June 2009 and will submit further evidence to the STRB for that review. The serious decline in teachers’ pay, set out in this submission, clearly demonstrates, however, that there are no bounds


for complacency or delay in remedying the substantial pay disadvantage being suffered now by teachers. The NUT urges the STRB in its first report to send a clear message to all teachers and potential teachers that they are a valued and important section of the community who deserve fair treatment.

47. It is a sad commentary in recent years that the world’s fifth richest country, which has consistently proclaimed the importance of education, has not chosen to protect its teaching force from what have been, by historical standards, relatively modest levels of inflation and which, if not remedied, will result in ever greater cuts in the real pay levels of teachers before very long.

London and Fringe Allowances

48. The remit given to the Review Body is confined to consideration of the uplift to the main and upper pay scales for Inner London, proposed in the STRB’s 17 th Report Part 1.

49. The NUT considers that Inner London pay levels should not be considered in isolation from the pay levels for Outer London and the Fringe.

50. The NUT, in its submission to the STRB in May 2007, set out with supporting evidence the need for a more appropriate relationship between the three levels of additional payment. Increases simply to the Inner London payments would further exacerbate the present inappropriate relationship between the three areas of Inner London, Outer London and the Fringe.

51. We also remain concerned at the difference in treatment of teachers on the Main Scale as compared with those on the Upper Pay Scale which we believe fails to recognise that all the teachers concerned, and not just those on the Upper Pay Scale, face the substantial additional costs of working in all three areas as compared with England and Wales as a whole.

52. We, therefore, call upon the Review Body to recommend Inner, Outer and Fringe allowances of £7,700, £5,500 and £2,200 respectively.

SEN ALLOWANCES

Remit paragraph (c): “Whether, within the existing cost basis, SEN allowances should be reformed in the light of the increased inclusion of pupils with SEN and disabilities in mainstream settings, including in respect of unattached teachers working in alternative provision such as PRUs; and if a separate allowance is to be retained whether the value(s) remain appropriate.”

Background

53. The STRB will be aware of our view that SEN allowances play a key role in the pay system. SEN allowances provide recognition of both the skills and expertise required by teachers for educating pupils with special educational needs.

54. The NUT believes that these allowances continue to serve a separate and specific function. They provide recognition of the particular skills needed to teach


pupils with special educational needs, the experience required and developed by such teachers, the additional qualifications which may be needed and the particular demands of such work. The principle of providing such recognition by means of additional payments is equally applicable to all settings where such pupils are educated. Nothing has happened since the introduction of these payments to alter the need for such additional payments.

55. In our May 2007 submission to the STRB, we noted that we expected to be fully involved in further consideration of SEN allowances following the Secretary of State’s decision to set aside the issue pending the 2008 remit. We have not been involved in any discussions on SEN allowances since that time.

56. We gave detailed evidence in our submissions of July and September 2006 on the need for SEN allowances to continue as a separate element of the pay system. Our position remains unchanged and is set out in the following sections, which deal also with the specific issues mentioned in the current remit.

Summary of NUT proposals

57. The criteria for SEN allowances should be revised thoroughly to reflect the differing circumstances in both special and non-special schools, provide equitable salary recognition for comparable work in both sectors and ensure the payment of SEN allowances to teachers in PRUs.

58. The payment of SEN allowances should be mandatory where the teacher is wholly or mainly engaged in teaching pupils with special educational needs.

59. Consideration should be given to payment of SEN allowances on a pro rata basis to those involved in teaching pupils with special educational needs for a significant part, but not the majority, of their teaching.

60. The present tiered system of allowances should be retained but on the basis of appropriate reform to the current system. In particular, the current tiered system provides for discretionary payment of the higher level of allowance on the basis of additional experience or qualifications. The use of qualifications as a criterion has proved to be difficult to apply with any consistency. It has also raised objections of principle, given that not all teachers are able to attend courses and obtain qualifications, the availability of courses varies in different parts of the country and not all areas of SEN work are accredited. Should a tiered system be retained, the NUT believes that the principal basis for entitlement to the higher level of allowance should be experience.

61. Within the above framework, the levels of payment offered in recognition of involvement in teaching pupils with special educational needs should be similar to those offered by the present SEN allowances, increased to match the increases in the general pay scales sought by the NUT.


Existing Criteria for SEN Allowances

62. The current criteria for award of SEN allowances are as follows:

the first SEN allowance must be awarded on a mandatory basis to all classroom teachers in special schools; and to all classroom teachers in mainstream schools “engaged wholly or mainly in teaching pupils with statements of special educational needs in designated special classes, or in taking charge of special classes consisting wholly or mainly of children who are hearing impaired or visually impaired”;

the first SEN allowance can also be awarded on a discretionary basis to a classroom teacher in a mainstream school where the relevant body considers that the teacher makes a “particular contribution” to teaching of pupils with special educational needs that is significantly greater than would normally be expected of a classroom teacher; and

award of the second SEN allowance is in all cases on a discretionary basis.

Revised Criteria for SEN Allowances

Teachers in Special Schools

63. The NUT believes that it is appropriate to distinguish between the position of teachers in special schools and teachers in mainstream schools. The demands upon teachers in special schools mean that all such teachers should, as now, receive an allowance for this work.

64. The NUT believes also that all teachers should become entitled to the maximum level of allowance after a specified period of experience. We believe that 2 years’ experience would be an appropriate criterion.

65. We recognise that, despite our reservations about the use of qualifications as a criterion, a strong case can be made that some teachers should be entitled to the maximum level of allowance immediately on the basis of their qualifications. We therefore support the suggestion previously made by BATOD and others that teachers who hold a mandatory qualification for teaching pupils with VI, HI and MSI should be automatically entitled to the maximum level of allowance when teaching such students.

66. We also believe that it would be appropriate to consider whether there are other qualifications which should create a similar automatic entitlement. We would be very happy to join with other stakeholders in drawing up a list of such qualifications and to consider minimum standards for the rigour, course length and professional standing of any such other qualifications.

Teachers in Mainstream Schools

67. In recent years, there have been significant changes to the way pupils with special educational needs are educated, with far greater inclusion of pupils with special educational needs routinely into mainstream schools and mainstream classes. Educating pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools


exclusively through separate classes or units, so that they are not generally educated with the other pupils of the school, is increasingly rare. Some teachers of pupils with special educational needs provide individual support to such pupils within other teachers’ classes. Others teach such pupils in smaller withdrawal groups for which they are the sole teacher. The integration of pupils with special educational needs into mainstream classes also means that many teachers of mainstream classes now have a greater responsibility for teaching of such pupils.

68. Many such teachers should, in our view, qualify for additional payment for their involvement in teaching pupils with special educational needs but do not receive it. Instead, the number of SEN allowances paid in mainstream schools has fallen substantially in recent years.

69. The criteria for SEN allowances must be appropriate to the teaching of pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools. The current criteria have proved unsatisfactory in this respect. The revisions resulting from the STRB’s recommendations in 2003 have not led to greater clarity.

70. The chosen criteria for payment of allowances and guidance on their application should cover the position of groups such as those teachers providing individual support to pupils with special educational needs within mainstream classes; teachers of classes which contain pupils with special educational needs who are at the School Action Plus stage of the SEN Code of Practice but where the pupils do not have statements or are not hearing or visually impaired; and teachers of mainstream classes who have a significant responsibility for teaching pupils with special educational needs within their classes.

71. Policy changes and variations in authorities’ practice with regard to statements may mean that this term should not be used in the criteria. Many authorities are setting targets for reducing the levels of statements in the belief that the funding can then be provided for early intervention at the point of identification of need. There is an emphasis on reducing levels of statements in the DCSF’s own ten year SEN strategy ‘Removing Barriers to Achievement’. There is, therefore, a variation across authorities in the proportions of pupils with similar needs who have statements.

72. The system of allowances should offer the opportunity to reward teachers appropriately for different degrees of involvement in teaching pupils with special educational needs. As outlined earlier, the NUT believes that teachers with a significant but less substantial involvement in teaching pupils with special educational needs should receive some form of payment for this involvement. Our preferred option would be payment of the appropriate allowance pro rata to the extent of their involvement in teaching such pupils. An alternative approach would be the payment of an appropriate allowance set at a lower level than that payable to teachers with a greater involvement in teaching such pupils.

73. As in special schools, there should be capacity for teachers with a specified significant period of experience to receive higher levels of allowance to reflect that experience. Again we believe that 2 years’ experience would be an appropriate criterion.


74. We also recognise that it is possible to argue that some teachers in mainstream schools should be entitled to higher levels of allowance immediately on the basis of their qualifications. Again it would be necessary to prepare a list of such qualifications and to consider minimum standards for the rigour, course length and professional standing of any such other qualifications.

75. The current criteria include the phrases “designated special classes” and “wholly or mainly”. The current lack of guidance on their interpretation is inconsistent with a supposedly mandatory entitlement. Should such phrases be retained, we would like guidance to make it clear, for example, that these can include withdrawal groups of any size.

76. The provision which refers to teachers being “engaged wholly or mainly in teaching pupils with statements of special educational needs” is too restrictive. The 2001 Special Educational Needs Code of Practice identifies two school-based stages prior to statutory assessment leading to a statement. Pupils who are deemed to be at the Code of Practice’s level of School Action Plus have been deemed to have made little or no progress in specific areas over long periods. This then triggers the involvement of external support services, who are essentially involved with such pupils at the stage just prior to statutory assessment. Those pupils’ special educational needs will at this stage be the same or little different from those who have moved to the next stage of statutory assessment. Their teachers require the necessary skills and expertise which can obviate the necessity for those pupils to move to that stage. The NUT therefore proposes that the STPCD criteria for award of SEN allowances should include reference to pupils on School Action Plus alongside pupils with statements of special educational needs.

Teachers in Pupil Referral Units (PRUs)

77. The NUT has recently submitted evidence to the DCSF consultation, “Back on Track: A Strategy for Modernising Alternative Provision for Young People.” The NUT has welcomed the commitment, both in “Back on Track” and in the remit letter, to ask the STRB to make recommendations on SEN allowances for teachers working with pupils in PRUs.

78. Despite the fact that, as the Secretary of State says in his ministerial foreword to “Back on Track”, 75 per cent of pupils in PRUs have special educational needs, a recent survey by the NUT of its PRU members found that 22 per cent of respondents reported that they did not receive such allowances.

79. Teachers in PRUs are disadvantaged by two matters requiring reform. Teachers in PRUs are currently classified as “unattached teachers” within the STPCD, permitting the relevant body to apply or disapply whichever provisions of the STPCD it sees fit, including those in respect of SEN allowances. In addition, the criteria for the mandatory award of SEN allowances do not cover teachers in PRUs, unlike teachers in special schools, meaning that any award of an SEN allowance must be on a discretionary basis.

80. The categorisation of teachers in PRUs as “unattached teachers” is, in our view, flawed. Pupil referral units are legally classified as schools. Many PRUs are similar in size and structure to smaller schools, particularly special schools.


Teachers work in PRUs on a permanent and ongoing basis. The duties and responsibilities of teachers in PRUs, and the professional skills, qualification and expertise required to discharge those responsibilities, are the same or greater than for teachers in schools. The fact that the “relevant body” for pay purposes is the local authority rather than a governing body has no relevance.

81. The NUT can, therefore, see no continuing justification for seeking to treat PRUs and teachers in PRUs differently from schools and school teachers for the purposes of the STPCD. An explicit recognition that PRUs are schools for all purposes of the STPCD, accompanied by amendment of the definition of “unattached teachers” at paragraph 1.2 to remove reference to teachers in PRUs, would then ensure that pay for teachers in PRUs is determined on the same basis as for teachers in schools.

82. Whether or not teachers in PRUs continue to be classed as “unattached teachers”, the NUT believes that the STPCD criteria for the award of SEN allowances should be amended to refer specifically to the position of teachers in PRUs.

83. It must be recognised that the vast majority of children who are referred to PRUs have special educational needs. Comments made to the NUT from teachers in PRUs indicate the levels of special educational need of many young people referred to PRUs.

“Our PRU has many roles: assessment centre, holding provision (especially Year 6), family support, special school – for those pupils whose behaviour is so extreme that specialist provision cannot be found, autistic unit – due to lack of autistic provision in south London.”

“PRUs are there to bridge gaps in education and to aid reintegration to mainstream and specialist provision. In certain cases, they may be necessary educational provision for children that fall between the remit of mainstream and specialist provision (usually at KS4).”

“PRUs deal with pupils with complex needs who are enormously vulnerable and whose life chances are diminished. PRUs help children deal with their behavioural issues and other barriers to their learning.”

84. The NUT believes that teachers in PRUs should be treated similarly to teachers in special schools. They address very similar pupil needs and work in similar circumstances. Teachers in PRUs should, like those in special schools, receive the first SEN allowance on a mandatory basis and be entitled to receive the second SEN allowance on a discretionary basis where appropriate.

85. In addition, since referral to a PRU involves engagement by external support services in that pupil’s learning (since PRUs are, by definition, external support services), the proposed amended criterion for award of SEN allowances in relation to Schools Action Plus is equally relevant in relation to the payment of SEN allowances in PRU settings.


86. A new sub-paragraph 27.2 (c) of the STPCD might read, “… or, in respect of an unattached teacher working in alternative provision, such as a PRU, who is engaged wholly or mainly in teaching pupils with statements of special educational needs or in teaching pupils who are on School Action Plus.”

Unattached Teachers

87. Many other teachers work in centrally organised services, including SEN support services and home tuition services, and work wholly or mainly with pupils with special educational needs. As unattached teachers, however, they again do not enjoy the full protection of the STPCD since certain of its provisions may be disapplied for such teachers. Despite the nature of their work, therefore, many such teachers are excluded from consideration for SEN allowances. We believe that the provisions relating to SEN allowances should apply to such teachers in the same way as teachers employed in schools and that there is no justification for any other unequal treatment of the two groups.

Value of SEN Allowances

88. In terms of the value of the SEN allowances, our view is that the current allowances should be increased by 10 per cent with a further adjustment for recent losses against inflation, in line with our pay claim for September 2008 as set out earlier in this submission.

EXCELLENT TEACHER SCHEME

Remit paragraph (d): “For Excellent Teachers, whether there should be separate ‘national’, ‘fringe’, ‘outer London’ and ‘inner London’ Excellent Teachers pay bands and whether there should be any adjustment of the bottom end of the pay band in relation to the value of U3.”

89. The NUT continues to oppose the Excellent Teacher Scheme (ETS). Our opposition dates back to the inception of the ETS. We believe that the ETS is flawed in concept. The failure of the ETS to attract any significant number of schools or teachers indicates that it has also now been rejected in practice. We therefore call again upon the STRB to recommend its abolition.

90. If, however, the STRB believes that the ETS should remain in place, then teachers on the scheme should be treated fairly.

91. In terms of the specific matters raised by the latest remit, we are opposed in principle to the use of spot salary rates within pay bands. This approach adopted for the ETS grade is unique in the teachers’ pay structure. All other grades are paid according to pay scales and pay progression. Allowing a spot salary to be determined within pay bands for individual teachers on the ETS represents further fragmentation of the pay structure.

92. The current ETS pay bands sit inconsistently with the present classroom teacher pay scales, as the STRB remit implicitly recognises. There are, as at September 2008, only two pay bands for the ETS, one for Inner London and another for


teachers elsewhere. The minimum of the ETS pay band for Inner London is £4747 lower than the U3 pay rate for Inner London. Elsewhere, the minimum of the other ETS pay band is below the U3 pay rate for Outer London, but above than the U3 pay rates for the Fringe Area and England and Wales generally. The maxima of the ETS pay bands vary from £9803 above the U3 maximum in Outer London to £13,316 above the U3 maximum in the rest of England and Wales generally.

93. The NUT’s proposals are as follows.

We continue to believe that the requirements of ETS posts should be national and standard. The rate of payment should reflect the level of additional responsibility involved in ETS posts and be consistent with the values of TLR payments for comparable levels of leadership and management responsibility.

It is wholly inconsistent to have four pay areas for other teaching posts and not for ETS posts. The payment for ETS posts should be based on a standard pay differential compared to the U3 pay rate in the relevant pay area. Clearly the relative values of ETS pay rates compared to U3 pay rates would form part of the discussion on the standard requirements for ETS post holders.

The salary lead compared to U3 for ETS posts in all four pay areas should, as outlined above, reflect the standard and national expectation of additional expertise and skills consistent with that for significant management and leadership responsibilities rewarded through the award of an appropriate TLR.

Additional responsibilities over and above the national standard should be rewarded by the payment of separate TLRs, with the removal of the provisions excluding teachers on the ETS from TLRs.

94. Such a structure would at least be more consistent with the approach taken elsewhere in the pay structure and would ensure that all such payments for additional responsibilities undertaken by classroom teachers were consistent with the standard TLR framework.

95. Any changes made to the pay system for the ETS should of course be accompanied by safeguarding measures in order to ensure that no teacher on the ETS loses out in pay terms as a result of such changes.

PROFESSIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Remit paragraph (e): “Taking account of the linked work on professional roles and responsibilities and conditions of employment, consider what changes or modifications are needed, which would have effect from September 2009, to the conditions of employment set out in parts 8-12 of the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document.”

96. In this section of the submission we consider the need for the Review Body to recommend steps to alleviate the pressures facing head teachers, teachers with


management responsibilities and classroom teachers. We then set out our views on the on-going work taking place in respect of professional roles and responsibilities and conditions of service.

The Need to Reduce the Pressures and Burdens on Head Teachers

97. The NUT’s October 2007 submission to the Review Body highlighted the fact that the pressures and burdens on head teachers were unacceptable, particularly on head teachers in primary schools. This remains the case. As were reported to the Review Body in October 2007, both Smithers and Robinson and the NUT’s own research identify clearly the nature of those pressures. Smithers and Robinson list 58 Government initiatives which head teachers have identified as a minimum as ones which they believe have not been fully thought through or backed up.

98. We also highlighted in our 2007 Submission that the New Relationship With Schools strategy has had little effect on the pressures faced by teachers. Indeed, the NUT understands that in a recent study for the DCSF, the vast majority of head teachers’ comments on the NRWS were negative. Head teachers have not experienced a reduction in bureaucracy as a result of NRWS. They believe that the OFSTED School Evaluation Form is too data driven and that the School Profile serves little purpose.

99. Over 70 per cent of the respondents in the NUT’s survey identified excessive paperwork and workload and the lack of a work-life balance as key factors which deter deputies and assistant head teachers from applying for headship posts. Excessive levels of accountability on head teachers came next.

100. Smithers and Robinson came to the same conclusion. Their study concluded that there was no shortage of potential head teachers within primary, secondary and special schools.

“Any current difficulty in recruiting head teachers for maintained schools does not demand a massive change in the nature of headship … The Government should look to itself and ask whether its reforming zeal and policy of pressure from the centre is in the best interests of schools … The crisis, if there be one, seems to us to be Government made.”

101. In this context, it is worth noting the findings of the 2007 OME survey on teachers’ workload. It reports that the number of primary heads who felt that they had enough time to do their job as it should be done all or most of the time has fallen from 43.5 per cent in 2006 to 34 per cent in 2007. While the findings of the OME survey for secondary head teachers identify a very modest trend in the opposite direction, 55 per cent of secondary head teachers still take the same view as the majority of their primary colleagues.

102. The NUT has supported consistently the National College for School Leadership’s succession planning strategy. The prospects of the strategy working will be severely damaged if the external demands on head teachers are not reduced visibly for all those teachers who could become leaders in future.

103. While it is not within the Review Body’s responsibility to identify and recommend which initiatives should be dropped, the Review Body could certainly lend its weight to demands to strip out excessive and unreasonable external demands on head teachers, including demands driven by school inspections and performance tables. It


is also within the Review Body’s area of responsibility to recommend the introduction of options which would enable head teachers to achieve professional space in order to reflect on their work and to bring fresh perspectives to their jobs.

104. One specific action which the Review Body could recommend is the strengthening of head teachers’ entitlement to headship time within paragraph 62 of Section 2 of the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document.

105. Paragraph 62 of Section 2 of the STPCD should be amended to read:

“A head teacher should be entitled to such time as is necessary to discharge his or her prime responsibilities of leading and managing his or her school.”

106. Section 4 of the STPCD should illustrate clearly the minimum weekly entitlement available to head teachers in primary, secondary and special schools. The guidance should emphasise that no head teacher should receive less than a minimum weekly entitlement to leadership and management time of 50 per cent of the school timetable rising to 60 per cent of the school timetable by September 2009. It should equally be made clear that this should not be at the expense of any unreasonable increase in the workload of other teachers.

Sabbaticals for Head Teachers

107. Within the discussions conducted by the National College for School Leadership on developing a succession planning strategy, the NUT has called consistently for head teachers to be able to take secondments and sabbaticals on a regular basis throughout their careers. PricewaterhouseCoopers identifies such an incentive as the one which head teachers believe to be the most attractive for recruitment and retention purposes. Indeed, the NUT has consistently called for sabbaticals to be available for all teachers once every seven years. The option of sabbaticals/secondments for head teachers is entirely consonant with the evidence that opportunities to conduct research, take up advisory posts or to take part in voluntary service overseas on a regular basis refreshes teachers, head teachers and other leaders and enables them to bring new ideas and enthusiasm to their work. Secondment/sabbaticals for head teachers enable deputy head teachers and other members of the leadership group to gain experience of the role of head teacher.

The Need to Reduce the Pressures and Burdens on those with Leadership and Management Responsibilities.

108. The fact that teachers with leadership and management responsibilities have an entitlement to time during school sessions for the purpose of discharging those responsibilities is recognition of the need for such additional time. The fact, however, that the entitlement is qualified by the words ‘so far as is reasonably practicable to a reasonable amount’ has the effect of rendering the entitlement unenforceable and, therefore, largely meaningless.

109. The fact that there is no specific statutory minimum entitlement means that many teachers are obliged to take on positions of responsibility without adequate provision of non-contact time in which to carry out their responsibilities.

110. According to the STRB’s 2008 Workload Survey, secondary teachers with management responsibilities are working nearly 9 per cent of their total working hours at weekends and just over 15 per cent of their total working hours before school/after


6pm. These figures demonstrate clearly that the current vague entitlement is not delivering the time they need to undertake their duties and maintain a reasonable work/life balance.

111. The NUT, therefore, urges the STRB to recommend a statutory minimum level of management time for all teachers with leadership and management responsibilities with effect from September 2009.

The Need to Reduce the Pressures and Burdens on Classroom Teachers

112. Whilst welcoming the fact that all teachers now have a statutory entitlement to PPA time, increasing demands on teacher time mean that the provision of a contractual entitlement of PPA time of ten per cent of a teacher’s timetabled teaching time has proved insufficient to significantly reduce teachers’ overall working time. We are concerned that in many schools where there has historically been a greater entitlement to non-contact time, secondary schools in particular, there has been a tendency to actually increase teacher workload rather than reduce it. Long-standing NUT policy calls for a minimum of twenty per cent of a teacher’s timetabled teaching time for planning, preparation and assessment purposes.

113. The findings of the 2008 STRB Workload Survey would suggest that ten per cent PPA time is inadequate. If it was sufficient, why would, for example, primary classroom teachers need to devote more time to weekend work in 2008 than they did in 2000? The 2008 STRB Workload Survey also reveals that for primary classroom teachers the percentage of hours worked at weekends rose to 9.5%, from 8.8% in 2007 – a worrying development.

114. The NUT therefore urges the Review Body to recommend that the Government introduces an entitlement to twenty per cent PPA time for all teachers from 2009.

115. In addition, the absence of statutory guidance on planning requirements within schools leaves teachers far too vulnerable to excessive and prescriptive demands by management for the provision of detailed short and medium term plans. Teachers should be free to exercise their professional discretion with regard to their planning activities.

116. This view is supported by the guidance produced by the then DfES ‘Excellence and Enjoyment: A Strategy for Primary Schools, the introduction to the Annex of which states that ‘teachers’ time should be used for aspects of planning that are going to be useful for their own purposes and which have a direct impact upon the quality of learning and teaching’. The introduction to the Annex continues as follows: ‘Teachers should not spend time producing documentation that does not meet these two purposes. Nor should any teacher feel they have to start with a blank sheet when planning for the week ahead. As in other professions, experience can and should be shared. Collaborative planning can be liberating, supportive and effective.’

117. The main body of the Annex includes helpful advice on how to avoid unnecessary work in relation to planning, emphasising that plans belong to teachers themselves and only ‘occasionally’ will others need to see their planning. The NUT wholeheartedly endorses this approach and calls for statutory guidance to be introduced to protect teachers against excessive burdens in relation to planning in schools.

118. We also repeat our call, set out in our 2008 supplementary submission, for the expectation upon teachers to fulfil continuing professional development (CCPD)


requirements, to be matched by a specific entitlement to CPD, set out in the Document.

New Statements of Teachers’ Professional Roles and Responsibilities

119. The evidence submitted by the NUT in July 2006 on whether a description of teachers’ professional role and responsibilities was needed and, specifically, whether it was needed in the STPCD itself, argued firmly that such a description was necessary within the STPCD.

120. The NUT was, therefore, pleased to note in its October 2007 submission to the Review Body that this view was shared by the majority of consultees. They had agreed that having a statement of duties within the STPCD provided a clear legislative framework outlining expectations on teachers which was of benefit to teachers and managers. We were further pleased to learn that the Review Body had taken account of the strength of consultees’ views on this issue and had agreed that the statements of teachers’ professional roles and responsibilities should continue to be included within the STPCD, albeit in an updated and revised form. In our 2008 supplementary submission to the Review Body, we included an NUT model statement which we considered would give appropriate direction to teachers without being unnecessarily wordy or prescriptive. This is attached at Appendix A.

121. The NUT therefore welcomed the opportunity in October 2007 to set out its views on how the roles, responsibilities and entitlements set out in the professional duties descriptions could be both revised and better expressed.

122. The NUT’s 2007 evidence concentrated on three issues; the structure of the Document, the need to distinguish clearly between entitlements and duties for every category of teacher and the revision of the professional duties of deputy and assistant head teachers. We considered that our proposed amendments to both the layout and content of parts 8 to 12 of the current Document, which are reiterated below, would simplify and clarify the statutory provisions for all users. We would urge the Review Body to recommend that these proposed changes be included in the Document from September 2009.

The Structure of the Document

123. The difficulties of navigating the Conditions of Employment part of Section two of the Document are best exemplified by the inclusion of both the duties of teachers and their contractual entitlements. The NUT argued in its July 2006 and October 2007 submission to the Review Body that it would be more sensible to separate out clearly, for each category of teacher, the duties of teachers from their entitlements. This remains our view and we are disappointed that our proposed changes have not thus far been adopted.

Contractual Entitlements

124. To reiterate our proposal, the NUT firmly believes that the first part of the Conditions of Service section should be devoted to entitlements. It should be set out generically with the particular conditions of service entitlement as the heading, rather than the category of teacher. The following entitlements should be removed from the various lists of duties as set out in parts 9 to 12 of the Document:

working time provisions; planning, preparation and assessment time;


leadership and management time; headship time; cover; entitlement to lunch breaks; protection from administrative burdens including exam invigilation; work/life balance.

125. In each section, the entitlement of different categories of teacher should be listed clearly to provide a consolidated reference point for all users of the Document. Where no entitlement exists for a particular category of teacher, this should be clearly set out. Because of the way in which the current Document is drafted, an assistant head teacher would only know that he or she wasn’t covered by, for example, the 1265 hours directed time limit, because there is no mention of the limit in Part 10 of the Document. Communicating important information by omission is not particularly helpful. The way the Document is currently drafted, means that teachers who are not entitled to, for example, the Working Time provisions, may only be aware of this fact if they read paragraph 74.1 of the Working Time provisions.

126. Listing the entitlements of the different categories of teacher under the various conditions of service entitlements would bring the additional benefit of assisting teachers and managers to be aware of the different entitlements and thereby assist decisions on the pay and grading of particular posts. This transparent and open approach would be welcomed by teachers, particularly those considering applying for promotion and wishing to find out how their conditions of service would differ. It would also help prevent unnecessary misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the provisions which offer some protection from unlimited workload.

127. A good example of the confusion that can be caused by the way in which information is currently set out is Section 10, dealing with conditions of employment for deputy head teachers and assistant head teachers. The same issues also apply in the case of Advanced Skills Teachers and Excellent Teachers.

128. A deputy or assistant head teacher reading Section 10 would discover that he or she has an entitlement to PPA time. There is, however, no mention of leadership and management time. To find out that he or she is entitled, so far as is reasonably practicable, to a reasonable amount of management time, he or she would need to find paragraph 73 of the provisions applying to teachers other than head teachers (Section 12). It would be much simpler and much more helpful to include a section headed ‘Management Time’ and to then list the different categories of teacher together with their entitlement, or otherwise.

129. The changes described above could have been included in the 2008 STPCD. We look forward to their inclusion in the 2009 Document. We note that the Secretary of State has indicated his support for the separation of presentation of teachers’ responsibilities and conditions of service.

Professional Duties

130. In our October 2007 submission, we proposed that the second section of the Conditions of Employment section of the Document should list the professional duties of head teachers, deputy head teachers, assistant head teachers, Advanced Skills Teachers, Excellent Teachers, and Teachers other than Head Teachers.

131. We also highlighted the need for a new section for teachers in receipt of Teaching and Learning Responsibility payments with reference to the criteria set out in


paragraph 23.3 of the 2007 Document. The NUT believes that such teachers play a vital and distinct role within schools and their particular duties should be listed separately in the same way, for example, as are those of ASTs.

132. We were pleased to note that the Secretary of State in his letter of 9th April 2008 addressing the concept of an overarching ‘short and high level’ statement of teachers’ professional responsibilities, recognised the need for this statement to be ‘supplemented by high level additions for other teachers, including those on the leadership group, as needed’. In considering appropriate duties for TLR holders, there will be differences between the list of duties for Teachers other than head teachers. The following are examples of where the duties of TLR holders will vary:

responsibility for leading, developing and enhancing the teaching practice of other staff and line management responsibility for a meaningful number of people;

the responsibility for the appraisal of teaching staff;

the requirement to lead, manage and develop a subject or curriculum area or to lead and manage pupil development across the curriculum.

133. The emphasis placed upon these duties as they appear in a section dedicated to TLR holders will therefore be different from the main list of duties for a Teacher other than a head teacher.

134. Creating a separate and distinct section for holders of TLRs is also relevant to the separate remit on leadership issues, including distributed leadership. TLR post holders, particularly those with substantial responsibilities, including line management of other teachers, are an important and vital part of effective school management structures. However good the head teacher may be, he or she needs an effective management team which will include TLR post holders. The absence of any dedicated reference to the professional duties of TLR post holders neglects and diminishes the role and importance of TLR post holders.

Overlap of Entitlements and Duties

135. In our October 2007 submission we highlighted several examples within Part 9, the Conditions of Employment of Head Teachers, where the duty of the head teacher overlaps with the entitlement of other teachers. In these cases the NUT believes that the entitlements of teachers should be separately expressed. For example, the duty upon head teachers to ‘have regard to the desirability of teachers at the school being able to achieve a satisfactory balance between the time required to discharge their professional duties ... and the time required to pursue their personal interests outside work’ implies a parallel entitlement on the part of teachers, to a reasonable work/life balance. The NUT would wish to see a section on work/life balance in the conditions of service entitlements section which we advocate. Other examples relate to paragraphs 60.9.3 (ensuring access to adequate support for NQTs and those returning after a break in service) and paragraph 60.9.5 (ensuring that teachers serving induction periods teach for no more than 90 per cent of the time that a teacher who does not receive payment for additional duties would be expected to teach). Both these duties of head teachers could, and should, also be expressed as entitlements for teachers.

Deputy and Assistant Head Teachers’ Professional Duties


136. We referred earlier in this submission to the absence of any clear specification of the responsibilities of TLR post holders, and its relevance to the wider and separate leadership issues remit given to the STRB.

137. Part 10 of the current Document makes no distinction between the roles of deputy and assistant head teachers save in respect of deputising in the absence of the head teacher. Its formulation of their roles is in far broader and less specific terms than the specification of the roles of head teachers in Part 9. While on the one hand it may be considered that specifying a major role under the overall direction of the head in four important areas does properly recognise the importance of the roles of deputy head and assistant head teachers, the brevity and generality of the description of their roles runs a real risk of devaluing the importance and the contribution such post holders can and do make to the effectiveness of schools. We repeat our call, set out in our 2007 submission for this section to be revised in that context so as to bring out more clearly the specific senior roles and responsibilities attaching to these posts.

Protection of deputy head teachers and assistant head teachers and balance of responsibilities between the two categories of staff

138. In order to help ensure that deputy head teachers and assistant head teachers are not overburdened, and that the balance of responsibilities is fair, the NUT suggested in its 2007 submission that paragraph 60.4.2 of Part 9 of the 2007 Document be amended so as to refer to the need to ensure that the balance of responsibilities between deputy head teachers and assistant head teachers is fair. We still believe this to be important and would urge the Review Body to make such a recommendation in terms of the 2009 Document.

139. As we set out in our October 2007 submission, this paragraph should also cross refer to the work/life balance provisions of paragraph 57.3 of Part 9 of the Document, to ensure that head teachers are aware that deputy head teachers and assistant head teachers are covered by these provisions in the same way as other teachers.

LEADERSHIP GROUP

Remit paragraph (f): “What changes should be made from September 2009 to the system of reward for leaders, to enable them to be paid in a transparent and consistent way for the wider range of leadership arrangements as schools are increasingly involved in, including any relevant findings from e. above?”

140. In its most recent report, the STRB set out in detail its view that fundamental reform of the existing leadership pay structure is required, in order to address a range of perceived shortcomings and to incorporate the STRB’s preferred “reward principles” for leadership pay.

141. The NUT does not support such wide-ranging change to the leadership pay structure. The STRB itself noted at para 3.92 of its report that “consultees consider that the existing pay arrangements, with minor adjustments, should remain in place for the future”.

142. The NUT does not wish to alter the present pupil numbers/weighting system for determining the pay of head teachers, or to change the present provisions for both deputy and assistant head teachers.


143. In responding to the STRB’s report, the Secretary of State agreed that work to allow leaders to be paid “for the full range of leadership arrangement” should be taken forward by the STRB in its next remit. He stated, however, that the Government would want to consider the STRB’s vision for leadership and reward principles, and any broader changes to the leadership pay structure, through a separate and subsequent remit.

144. The NUT therefore interprets the present STRB remit as seeking only such recommendations as are necessary to permit payment for leadership arrangements not accommodated by the STPCD at present.

145. The NUT’s formal response to the statutory consultation on the STRB report is, however, set out in Appendix B to this submission in order to place on the record the NUT’s view of the STRB’s reward principles and the STRB’s analysis of the current structure.

146. The following submission addresses two specific issues where the NUT agrees that change to the present structure is necessary:

federations of schools; and

additional responsibilities taken on by head teachers, in particular, under the “Every Child Matters” agenda.

Governance and Leadership Arrangements within Federations

147. The NUT broadly agrees with the ADCS/EMIE’s categorisation of federations and collaborations of schools. For ease of reference, they are:

informal loose collaborations; soft federations; soft governance federations; and hard governance federations.

148. The governance arrangements which apply in the three categories of federations listed above are as follows.

Under a soft federation, all schools retain their governing bodies but they can establish a joint committee to make joint recommendations and appointments of staff.

Under a soft governance federation, each school also retains its own separate governing body representation but can delegate powers to a joint governance/strategic committee which can then make budgetary decisions and appointments on behalf of schools in the federation.

Under a hard governance federation, all schools in the federation share a single governing body. Such a single governing body takes decisions within its remit which apply to all schools equally. The governing body agrees appointments of staff and, while each school still receives its own separate budget, the governing body is able to pool budgets.


149. Various different types of leadership arrangements may be adopted under each of these three types of federations. The NUT believes that all of these must be capable of being accommodated within the STPCD’s pay structure provisions.

150. The NUT has also noted the following statements from an earlier submission by RIG:

“3.25 Within these arrangements, there are different leadership structures. Some federations have a named head teacher for statutory purposes for all the schools in the federation. In other federations, there is an “executive head” of the federation as well as a head teacher for each of the schools. Whether as part of a federation or not, some head teachers have statutory responsibility for more than one school.”

“3.41 “Executive Head” is a term that is, in some cases, being applied to a person appointed across a number of schools, and in addition to the named head in the individual schools. They may or may not be one of the named heads. If their role is not that of a head teacher as defined in the STPCD and is more akin to that of a ‘chief executive’ or ‘school manager’, their pay and conditions are determined outside of the STPCD.”

Soft Federations and Soft Governance Federations

151. The following arrangements may be established in such cases.

An individual head teacher within the federation may take on the responsibility for servicing and managing the operation of the joint committee.

In addition, that headteacher and/or a leader or leaders employed in the school of the head teacher responsible for servicing that committee may also be responsible for managing and directing peripatetic staff, appointed by the committee, within the federation.

An individual head teacher of one of the schools within the federation may take on the responsibility for leading and managing some or all educational provision within some or all schools in the federation or across the federation, thereby acting either as a head teacher for one school and as a consultant head teacher for others within the federation; or as a head teacher for more than one school within the federation; or as an “executive head teacher” for all schools within the federation.

Deputy or assistant head teachers of one school in the federation may similarly take on some responsibility for education provision within other schools in the federation or across the federation.

152. The first and second types of responsibility, while obviously additional to school leaders’ normal responsibilities, nevertheless fall within the scope of the conditions of employment for school leaders set out in the STPCD. Those


conditions of employment do not, however, refer to school leaders having responsibility for any other school other than their own school.

153. Within its October 2007 submission, the NUT said that the Review Body should ensure that there are sufficient flexibilities within the STPCD criteria and sufficient specific guidance, to enable governing bodies to recognise in salary terms any differences in the responsibilities of leaders of schools within such federations.

154. The NUT therefore makes the following proposals.

The STPCD conditions of employment should clearly incorporate reference to school leaders who may have responsibility for schools other than their own.

The STPCD’s provisions on determining the individual pay ranges for head teachers and for deputy and assistant head teachers should include specific reference to any responsibility which any leadership group teacher may have for schools other than their own or for the servicing and management of a joint governance/ strategic committee and those staff appointed by the committee.

Such responsibility should be added as an additional criterion to be considered when determining the individual pay range for head teachers and for deputy and assistant head teachers. It should also be added as an additional criterion for the exercise of the power to exceed the normal maximum for that school group in the case of head teachers’ pay.

155. The NUT continues to believe that the pay of the individual head teachers of the schools within such federations should not be reduced, whatever arrangements are made for overall supervision and coordination of the federation.

Hard Federations

156. Where a single governing body for a federation of schools (a hard federation) is agreed, the governing body may decide to adopt any of the following arrangements.

A single executive head teacher may be appointed, responsible to the governing body for managing all schools in the hard federation, with the consequent deletion of individual head teacher posts for schools within the federation.

Separate head teacher posts may be maintained for all the schools within the federation.

Executive Head Teachers

157. In any situation where an executive head teacher is appointed, the NUT believes that that person’s pay should be based on the total unit score of all the pupils in all the schools within the federation. The NUT believes that the STPCD should be amended to include an additional criterion requiring the additional responsibilities of managing several schools within a federation to be considered


when determining the individual pay range for that head teacher and as an additional criterion for the exercise of the power to exceed the normal maximum for that school group.

School Leaders in Individual Schools

158. In situations where an executive head teacher is appointed for the federation but individual head teachers are retained for each individual school, the NUT continues to endorse the model for determining pay for those individual head teachers set out in our October 2007 submission. It is not, in our view, practicable to specify one hard and fast salary differential between the executive head teacher and the individual head teachers in such circumstances. The NUT therefore believes that the STPCD should be amended to provide that the determination of their pay should therefore be based on the unit total for their individual schools, taking proper account of their overall responsibilities on a fair and equitable basis but taking account also of any reduction in responsibilities arising from the existence of the federation and the executive head teacher. Head teachers in post at the time of the establishment of the federation should obviously be protected additionally by safeguarding provisions.

159. The responsibilities of other leadership group teachers within the individual schools will not necessarily be affected by the establishment of the federation. In some cases, it is conceivable that the responsibilities of some such teachers may be increased by virtue of its establishment (for example where a lead secondary school federates with feeder primary schools). The NUT believes that the pay of such teachers should therefore continue to be determined on the basis of the existing statutory criteria; but that the STPCD should be amended to include an additional criterion requiring any additional responsibilities in relation to other schools within the federation to be considered when determining the individual pay range for such teachers.

160. Where the leadership structure for individual schools within the federation does not entail the appointment of individual head teachers for the individual school sites, the NUT believes that there should be at least one deputy head teacher post at each of the school sites in question. The existing pay structure for deputy and assistant head teachers does not easily lend itself to establishing any minimum entitlement for such post holders, either in absolute terms or in comparison to post holders in schools of similar size which are not part of a federation. The fact that the person is the senior postholder within a school which is part of a hard federation should, however, again be added as an additional criterion to be considered when determining the individual pay range.

161. Again the responsibilities of other leadership group teachers within the individual schools will not necessarily be affected by the establishment of the federation and should therefore be determined as outlined earlier.

Federations without Executive Head Teachers

162. Where individual head teacher posts are maintained for schools within a hard federation and no executive head teacher post is established, the pay of the individual head teachers and other leadership group teachers should continue to be determined on the existing basis and should not be reduced, whatever


arrangements are made for overall supervision and coordination of the federation.

163. In such situations, however, some individual head teachers or other leadership group teachers may take on additional responsibilities as a result of the establishment of the federation. The NUT again believes that the STPCD should be amended to include an additional criterion requiring such responsibilities to be considered when determining the individual pay range for head teachers and for deputy and assistant head teachers; and an additional criterion permitting the exercise in such circumstances of the power to exceed the normal maximum for that school group in the case of head teachers’ pay. One key additional responsibility, for example, which may fall to an individual head teacher of a school within a hard federation is that of being responsible for the servicing of the governing body and for the day-to-day management of individual peripatetic staff appointed for the federation.

Federation Collaborations

164. The NUT believes that the broad principles set out above can apply to federations where there is pooled responsibility governance. The NUT has concluded that, given the diverse nature of federations and collaborations, governing bodies cannot be subject to finely detailed requirements. There, is, however, a strong argument for the STPCD guidance to include exemplifications with respect to specific models of pay for leaders in federations and collaborations. Such exemplifications should be subject to consultation with statutory consultees before it is published.

Head Teachers of More than One School

165. The NUT recognises that there are now head teachers who are appointed to be head teachers of more than one school, often on a temporary basis, where the second school may be under a notice of improvement or placed in special measures. Such an arrangement cannot be defined as a federation as such. The NUT believes that the head teacher’s pay in those circumstances should be based on the combined total unit score of both schools and, within the defined Group, the head teacher would be paid on a range appropriate to the particular circumstances. Where there is a temporary arrangement, the additional payment should likewise be on a temporary basis.


Additional Responsibilities for Extended Services

166. With respect to additional responsibilities for extended services, the NUT proposed in our October 2007 submission that the Review Body should examine whether the STPCD should recognise and reflect the management of extended services and provide for appropriate payment for such responsibilities.

167. The NUT has given further consideration to the issue of these wider responsibilities, including Children’s Centres. We now hold the view, expressed in our response to the last STRB report, that much extended provision in areas such as health and social care is not education or teaching provision; and that such provision should not be incorporated within the STPCD framework even if the primary legislation (the 1991 Act) was amended to permit this. The conditions of employment of leadership group teachers should not, therefore, be amended to permit additional responsibilities for non-education services to be incorporated within their contracts as leadership group teachers or rewarded as part of such contracts.

168. The NUT believes that where leadership group teachers take on additional responsibilities for extended services within the scope of education or teaching provision, the STPCD should be amended to include an additional criterion requiring such responsibilities to be considered when determining the individual pay range for head teachers and for deputy and assistant head teachers; and an additional criterion permitting the exercise in such circumstances of the power to exceed the normal maximum for that school group in the case of head teachers’ pay.

169. Where leadership group teachers take on additional responsibilities for extended services which are not education or teaching provision, those responsibilities should be detailed in separate contracts of employment which provide for appropriate payment. The nature and levels of such payments will be beyond the scope of the STPCD. It might, however, be appropriate for the DCSF to publish guidance for local authorities and governing bodies on the nature and levels of additional payments which can be made to school leaders who take on such responsibilities. The NUT would wish the same processes of consultation to be followed in the production of such guidance as in the case of statutory guidance within the STPCD.

National Union of TeachersSeptember 2008


APPENDIX A

NUT MODEL OF CORE PROFESSIONAL DUTIES FOR TEACHERS

1. Knowledge and Understanding

Teachers have a detailed knowledge of relevant aspects of the National Curriculum and other statutory requirements. They have a secure and up-to-date command of their specialist subjects and areas of learning. They demonstrate knowledge and understanding of, and take account of, wider curriculum developments relevant to their work, adapting their teaching appropriately to take account of new findings and ideas.

2. Planning and Setting Expectations

Teachers plan courses and lessons on a short, medium and long term basis, informed by a professional understanding of pupil progression. Such planning demonstrates clear teaching objectives, lesson structure and coherent sequences of lessons.

3. Teaching and Managing Pupil Learning

Teachers teach assigned pupils, on a whole class, group or individual basis, according to their educational needs, using methods which, in their professional judgement, enable all their pupils to learn effectively. Teachers apply teaching methods which keep pupils interested, engaged and motivated. They ensure their learning objectives are met, they maintain pace and challenge and they make the best use of teaching time. They can cope securely with questions pupils raise and common pupil misconceptions or mistakes. They make good use of questioning and have good presentation skills. They use assessment to inform and guide their future teaching.

Teachers secure and maintain good order and discipline, pre-empting and dealing appropriately with problems and insisting on high standards of behaviour through the consistent use of a range of classroom management strategies. They safeguard pupils’ general health, welfare and safety on and off school premises, on authorised school activities.

4. Assessment and Evaluation

Teachers set and mark assigned pupils’ work providing constructive written and oral feedback consistent with their professional assessment of pupil needs and development. They make thorough and accurate assessments. Where appropriate, they apply homework strategies to reinforce and extend what has been learnt in school.

5. Pupil Achievement

Teachers have appropriate and demanding expectations for pupil learning, helping them to progress regardless of their circumstances, needs and background. Teachers make consistent and effective use of information about


pupils’ prior attainment to set clear and realistic targets for pupils. Teachers secure progress towards pupils’ targets, demonstrating that, as a result of their teaching, pupils achieve well relative to prior attainment.

6. Relations with Parents and the Wider Community

Teachers recognise the importance of working in partnership with parents/carers and encouraging them to support their children’s learning, behaviour and progress. They communicate and consult with parents/carers through written reports.

Teachers support the place of the school in the community. They communicate and co-operate with external agencies in the interests of pupils’ wellbeing.

7. Managing own Performance and Development

Teachers review and evaluate their own teaching methods and programmes of work critically on an ongoing basis, to improve their effectiveness. They maintain and develop their skills, knowledge and expertise through taking responsibility for their own professional development and set objectives for using this to improve teaching and learning. They keep up to date with research and developments in pedagogy and the subjects they teach.

8. Managing and Developing Staff and Other Adults

Teachers support colleagues, sharing their own expertise and insights and learning from those of their colleagues. They contribute to the appointment and CPD of other teachers and support staff. They contribute to other teachers’ appraisal and assist the head teacher in carrying out threshold arrangements. They co-ordinate the deployment of and manage support staff and other adults effectively, building productive working relationships with them in the interests of pupils.

9. Managing Resources

Teachers use time, support staff, ICT and other learning resources effectively, to enable teaching objectives to be met.

10. Strategic Leadership

Teachers advise and work with the head teacher and other teachers on the development of the curriculum, pedagogy and pastoral arrangements, school planning and school improvements. They take responsibility for implementing school policies and practices. They participate actively in school meetings relating to those issues.

Teachers appreciate the implications of their own professional status in society. They inspire trust and confidence. They demonstrate the characteristics they try to inspire in pupils and set a good example to pupils in their own presentation and personal conduct.


11. Pupil Well Being

Teachers promote the general wellbeing and progress of pupils. They provide guidance on educational and social matters and record and report on pupil’s personal and social needs. They promote equality of opportunity, responding sensitively to differences in pupils’ home backgrounds.


APPENDIX B

STRB 17th REPORT PART 2:NUT RESPONSE TO SECRETARY OF STATE’S STATUTORY CONSULTATION

The paragraph numbering below is the paragraph numbering in the original NUT Response.

The Leadership Group - Strategic Context and Vision for Leadership

General Comments

25. The NUT’s comments on the Review Body’s proposed vision for leadership are set out below.

26. The Review Body’s general approach to its ‘Vision for Leadership’ is welcome. With its emphasis on leaders creating a learning environment of excellence, the Review Body identifies the key role of leaders and, in particular, the key role of head teachers as lead professionals. The statement rightly emphasises both the importance of leaders distributing responsibility and the role of schools within their communities.

27. The NUT has played a role in the OECD’s work on its Leadership Report, to be published in June 2008. Like the OECD’s study, the Review Body focuses on leadership in general not just on leadership as it applies to the Leadership Group.

28. As the OECD asserts in its forthcoming report on school leadership:

“Leadership does not need to be confined to formal or positional roles but can be the function of anyone at any level in the school who wields influence …. classroom teachers need to be encouraged to think of themselves as leaders as a first step towards proper succession planning.”

29. In considering the vision, therefore, the Secretary of State will need to be mindful of the fact that the vision applies to leadership distributed throughout each school. The NUT’s response to the draft Review Body takes this into account while at the same time focusing on the vision for leadership and the reward principles.

30. The prominence given in the draft vision to high quality, equality and learning supports the NUT’s view that head teachers should be experienced and qualified teachers. This is further emphasised by the Review Body’s references to instructional leadership, in terms of orchestrating team work and collaborative ways of working, monitoring and evaluating teacher performance, conducting and arranging for mentoring and coaching and facilitating teacher professional development. Understanding and supporting teachers and keeping up with the latest developments in pedagogy can hardly be undertaken effectively if the head teacher is not a qualified teacher.


31. The NUT’s view is supported strongly by the findings of a recent survey of its Leadership Group members. The large majority of respondents (92 per cent) thought that previous educational experience was very important for those undertaking the role of head teacher. Six per cent thought it was quite important and only one per cent (two respondents) thought it to be relatively unimportant.

“Having experience of educational establishments not run by people of headship – educational examiners – I felt strongly that anyone involved in managing schools should have direct experience of teaching.” (Secondary Assistant Head)

32. The large majority (90 per cent) also felt that qualified teacher status (QTS) was very important for those undertaking the role of head teacher. A further five per cent thought it was quite important. Only two per cent thought it was not very important and two per cent had mixed views or were unsure.

“The role of organising an effective learning environment demands an understanding of how children learn – and keeping up to date with good practice in teaching and learning.” (Secondary Head Teacher)

“I am involved in all aspects of school. Staff appreciate that I still teach and therefore understand ‘shop floor’ problems.” (Primary Head Teacher)

33. It is clear from the evidence, both national and international, that headship is not separate from the rest of the teaching profession but the highest point in the continuum of teachers’ careers.

34. Before commenting in detail on each of the six aspects of the Review Body’s vision of leadership, the NUT would wish to make a number of observations about them as a whole. The Review Body appears to have identified broadly the four areas of responsibility which are commonly acknowledged as being vital to improving teaching and learning, that is, teacher quality; accountability; strategic management; and collaboration with external partners.

35. There are, however, gaps in the Review Body’s vision. Those who seek to distinguish between effective leadership and effective management ignore the inter-relationship between the two.

36. Indeed, the current OFSTED school inspection framework asks, “how effective are leadership and management in raising achievement and supporting all learners?”

37. Head teachers need to be good classroom teachers, skilful organisers, have an ability to manage change, have a sound knowledge of the curriculum and pedagogy and be firm but sensitive in disciplinary matters. These values are not exhaustive but do represent a holistic balance between the professional and managerial demands of the job.


38. The Review Body’s draft vision can be examined in the context of NUT Leadership Group members’ perceptions of head teacher roles and responsibilities.

39. Table 1 shows that there is a symmetry between the Review Body’s vision in terms of the importance of strategic leadership, focus on high quality teaching and learning, the development of staff and engagement with parents and the wider community. Nevertheless, there is a greater awareness amongst NUT Leadership Group members of school leaders’ managerial responsibilities, in particular.

Table 1Definitions of role & responsibilities of head teacher per cent

High quality teaching and learning/education of children 38.8

Strategic leadership/vision/ethos 33.5

Lead/develop staff/ensure welfare of staff 25.4

‘All encompassing’/multi-faceted 13.4

Ensuring welfare/wellbeing of children/ pastoral role 11.6

Budgeting/financial management 8.5

Drive to improve school/raise standards 7.5

To inspire/motivate 5.8

Managing health and safety issues 4.5

Working with parents 4.5

40. Yet, as Table 2 shows, when issues are ranked by the amount of time head teachers spent on each aspect of school leadership, there would appear to be a significant divergence between the Review Body’s vision and what many head teachers are actually expected to do.

Table 2Aspects of headship Average estimated %

time actually spent by heads

Average estimated % time that should be spent by heads

Bureaucracy/paperwork 33.2 7.1

Interaction with children 20.8 30.0

Strategic educational leadership 14.1 36.0

Staff management and development 12.4 19.7

School premises 12.0 6.3

School budget 8.8 8.8

Multi-agency working eg health, social services

8.1 8.7

Partnership working with other schools 6.5 8.4

External links eg business, community 4.5 6.4


41. According to the recent PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) study of school leadership, 78 per cent of primary schools had no senior support staff on their leadership team. In addition, five per cent had no deputy or assistant head teacher, with a further 14 per cent having only one deputy or assistant head teacher. This difference in the amount of support available to primary and secondary head teachers and the capacity of schools to embrace the concept of distributed leadership should be factored into the STRB’s vision and its final recommendations.

42. Such a view is supported by research by Smithers and Robinson for the NUT, which noted an interesting difference in perception between secondary head teachers, who were dismissive of the notion that the job of head teacher had become ‘too big’ and primary heads who felt it had. This is hardly surprising, given that head teachers in smaller schools have to comply with the same accountability and legal requirements, with fewer resources than their counterparts in larger schools. Secondary respondents commented that, by delegation and careful organisation, they were able to make the job work for them. It was clear from written comments to the NUT’s in-house study, where 70 per cent of respondents came from the primary sector, that these strategies were not options because of the lack, in some cases, of any senior management team.

43. The STRB’s vision rightly highlights the exercise of school leaders’ influence as a driver for school improvement. It is concerned primarily, however, with influence within the individual institution and, possibly, the wider school community. There is, however, little reference to the capacity of leaders to influence the education system as a whole or to be active in policy development. As the OECD notes:

“School reform is more likely to be successful if school leaders are actively involved in policy development and formulation. Continuous dialogue and consultation between policy makers and those who lead schools at the front line are thus essential.”

44. As noted below in reference to the third bullet point of the Review Body’s vision, leadership should not be confined to merely delivering Government policy – it must also play a part in making it.

45. The Review Body also omits direct equality references. This is odd since the Review Body recommends itself that the Department and the Welsh Assembly Government monitor the diversity of the work. Any vision for leadership should include a responsibility to recognise current and relevant equality issues as they relate to all children and young people including their access to learning and as they related to the employment, pay, conditions, promotion and access to professional development of all staff.

“Strategic and rigorous in delivery, with teams working together to meet the highest standards and ensure the best pupil outcomes, setting challenging goals, continuously improving and adapting to changing circumstances”

46. The use of the word ‘delivery’ in this principle of leadership is entirely inappropriate. Delivery gives the strong impression of being required to deliver,


without the creative agency of the leaders themselves, the programmes and policies of others. All the evidence of school improvement research is that leaders, with their staff, need to identify, own and embed, the elements of improvement specific to their schools. The term ‘deliver’ contradicts the Review Body’s support for innovation later in its vision and is also contrary to school improvement research findings. The ability of schools to influence decisions about the curriculum, for example, appears to be related to positive pupil performance. According to findings from the latest PISA study, the percentage of schools that reported having considerable responsibility for decisions on course content accounted for 27 per cent of the variation of performance between countries.

“Professional and fulfilled, creating a learning environment of excellence, setting personal examples of reflective practice and continuous professional development”

47. The Review Body’s recognition of the importance of instructional leadership is welcome. The NUT has expressed consistently the view that school leaders should, primarily, focus their energy and activity on being the lead professional. Although this role will be influenced by factors such as school size, the top priority for school leaders should be the improvement of teaching and learning and the development of staff. Such a view is endorsed by Richard Elmore, a leading expert in the field of school improvement and leadership, for example:

“It requires more or less continuous investment in knowledge and skill, both because the knowledge base around instructional practice is constantly changing and because the population of actual and potential leaders is constantly depleting and replenishing itself. In this view, leadership is a knowledge based discipline”.

48. It could be strengthened still further, however, by the inclusion of a responsibility for identifying and providing professional development for all school staff including the professional development of leaders, rather than focusing solely on leaders providing personal examples of professional development.

“Strong and unified, with the whole team founded on clarity of purpose, embracing full accountability for achievement, and a ‘can do’, innovative culture that distributes responsibility boldly and celebrates and rewards success”

49. From the moment they enter the profession, teachers act as leaders. All the roles in which teachers learn to exercise the skills, attitudes and understandings associated with effective leadership and management should be acknowledged as by the Review Body as ‘school leadership’ in its widest sense.

50. All the evidence, both nationally and internationally, is that distributed leadership is the most effective form of leadership. Although distributed leadership has become something of a ‘buzz word’ recently, there has been little practical action centrally to disseminate what the concept means in practice to schools. It is unsurprising, therefore that PwC found that 96 per cent of head teachers believed leadership was distributed in their school but only a small minority of teachers


and support staff agreed, saying that there was inadequate communication and consultation with staff for leadership to be truly distributed.

51. In order to achieve genuine distributed leadership, participating staff need to be able to contribute to real decision making about real resources, structures and processes that have real consequences about the way their school is run.

52. More informal processes of distributing leadership would therefore need to be developed, based on expertise rather than position, by developing ad hoc groups based on current challenges or needs.

53. PwC identified a number of important constraints on the development of distributed leadership which would need to be addressed before the Review Body’s model of leadership could be expected to be embraced by all schools. These included the legal requirements placed on head teachers; lack of appropriate staff; and the inability to reward teachers for taking on tasks.

54. The NUT jointly sponsored with GTC(E) research work on this issue, which identified a number of conditions which were necessary for its successful implementation in schools:

“The factors that have promoted teacher leadership are firstly, a flatter management structure providing opportunities for everyone to take part and make a difference. Secondly, CPD is given a high priority. Thirdly, there is strong leadership from the head teacher that is supportive of teachers taking the lead. Fourthly, teachers have time to meet and plenty of opportunity to discuss and work together. Finally, there is good communication amongst staff who feel that they are listened to and that what they say is valued and impacts positively upon school improvement.” (Warwick University, GTCE, NUT)

55. The NUT would commend this analysis. It re-emphasises the point it made in its submission to the Review Body the fact that distributed leadership is not an easy option. School leaders need time and the capacity to introduce and foster distributed forms of leadership, otherwise it may become simply a term used to describe the devolvement of tasks to other staff. As the OECD concludes in its report on leadership:

“although learning communities and distributed leadership share the leadership responsibilities and can lighten the load of some duties of the principal, the principal’s responsibilities in such contexts are in no way diminished: they are if anything more sophisticated and demanding of expertise.”

56. There is a very great difference between distributed responsibility and distributed leadership. It’s quite possible for a Head teacher to be autocratic and distribute responsibility. Distributed leadership is about teachers empowering teachers to play to the strengths of their leadership qualities in the areas for which they are responsible and at the same time maintaining coherence and direction in schools’ approaches to school improvement. Rather than using the words ‘distributes


responsibility’, the statement should speak of “… a ‘can do’ innovative culture of distributed leadership …”

57. There is a tension between the Review Body’s insistence on accountability, ‘can do’ attitudes and an innovative culture. As mentioned above, some of the principles in the vision imply that compliance with Government policies is a desirable feature of school leadership. Current accountability mechanisms, particularly OFSTED inspections, are a constraint on innovation. Forty-two per cent of respondents to the NUT’s in-house survey, for example, found themselves very often driven by external priorities or policies rather than those identified by the school, with a further 42 per cent experiencing this quite often.

58. The flaw in relying on externally determined priorities and goals is that they limit the extent to which the head teacher can genuinely innovate and place their vision of the school at the heart of its direction and development. An important frustration for head teachers, and a significant disincentive to take up headship in the first place, is the limited opportunity to go beyond performance goals and to give equal importance to wider social, moral and intellectual goals for the school.

59. If the STRB’s vision and its subsequent application as the basis for recommendations on pay and conditions are to be valid and equitable for all those in the Leadership Group, it should acknowledge the full range of school contexts and the very different sets of challenges faced by leaders in different schools. The caveat in the Review Body to the fact that it is “unlikely” that there will be “any single best model for all schools” could appear in the vision itself.

60. The majority of head teachers in England and Wales work in primary schools. Failure by the Review Body to analyse and reflect school sector differences may lead to inaccurate and unfair recommendations. A ‘one size fits all’ vision of school leadership is not sufficient. It is not one that the National College for School Leadership, for example, believes in. Neither is it commonly held. Account must be taken of these contextual factors if the Review Body is to meet the different needs of head teachers and others in the Leadership Group in different types of school.

61. Schools need critical, questioning, reflective leaders who have a sound philosophical and intellectual framework within which to operate. Effective leadership is dependent on an ability to examine and evaluate all of the information available on the current operation of a school. Decisions need to be based on knowledge and experience which encompasses every section of the school community, including an understanding of the impact of external influences on the organisation. A school leader who combines sound education and political judgements would be able to read and evaluate accurately developments in the policies of the Government and its national agencies, the local authority and teacher, parent and governor organisations. The inclusion of these skills and attributes would enhance the Review Body’s vision of school leadership significantly.


“Motivating, maximising the contribution and confidence of all team members to continuously improve performance and igniting the enthusiasm and ambition of students to learn and achieve to their full ability”

62. ‘People skills’ associated with establishing professional relationships, meaningful consultation, effective communication, negotiating skills, delegation, motivating adults and inclusive decision making should be at the heart of any vision of school leadership. It is most commonly the absence of such skills which teachers and other members of school communities highlight when they are asked why a certain person proved to be a poor manager or ineffective leader. As indicated in the discussion about the concept of distributed leadership above, however, this section could be strengthened further by an emphasis on empowering staff to be active agents in school improvement work.

63. An omission from the Review Body’s vision, which is highlighted by this particular principle, is the pastoral aspect of school leaders’ work. It appears to be concerned only with pupils’ cognitive achievements and does not reflect, for example, the emotional and social outcomes which are equally important, not only for pupils’ academic performance but for their ability to become fulfilled and well-rounded members of society. As indicated above, the Review Body has neglected what is often referred to as the ‘moral purpose’ of school leaders and their concern for the principles of equality and inclusion in the education their school provides.

64. This does not reflect the views of serving school leaders. There was clear agreement across the NUT in-house survey, the Smithers and Robinson report and the PwC report, for example, that working with children, helping them to achieve their full potential and ‘making a difference’ to their lives is perceived as the most important, and most rewarding, aspect of the head teacher’s role. No vision of school leadership can be complete, therefore, without appropriate emphasis being given to this dimension of their work.

“Engaging and collaborative, building effective relationships with colleagues, students, parents, other professions and the community”

65. In addition to the collaborative style of institutional leadership reflected throughout the STRB’s vision, this principle appears to hint at support, expressed elsewhere in the report, for the concept of systemic leadership, where leaders are “almost as concerned about the success of other schools as he or she is about his or her own school”. It does not go far enough, however, in exploring what this actually means for school leaders who may be exercising systemic leadership through hard federations of schools or through roles such as School Improvement Partners or National Leaders of Education and also through the co-ordination of multi-agency work as part of the Extended School or other community outreach programmes.

66. This is a particularly demanding aspect of school leadership, as head teachers must make decisions about whether to focus primarily on their own school’s performance or beyond. Most head teachers will chose the former as their key concern, as it is also the focus of their own performance evaluation. In addition, school leaders may not be well prepared to take on the challenges of leading collaboration beyond the school. The OECD reported, for example, that:


“In England, for example, where the systemic agenda has been moving forward quite quickly, teachers identified the need for better skills for the management of extended services as their most important future training requirement.”

67. This is supported by findings from the NUT’s in-house survey of members, where 35 per cent of respondents felt entirely unprepared for the Extended Schools' initiative with a further 25 per cent unsure or had mixed views.

68. This complexity looks likely to increase still further, not least because of the Government’s encouragement of local development of the Every Child Matters (ECM) agenda, combined with the need to make available the Extended School universal ‘core offer’ by 2010. This places particular pressures on school leaders in terms of identifying need, strategic planning, multi-agency working and delivery.

69. The difficulties of attempting to integrate the requirements of the ECM agenda with schools’ and local authorities’ other plans, as well as other national priorities, should not be under-estimated. For head teachers, the demands of ECM can and do have serious implications for their workload. The increased numbers of staff working in schools, from a variety of disciplines, require managing and raise serious questions about accountability. Similarly, funding decisions become more complex when services other than education have to be factored in to school budget management. School leaders need sufficient time and skills to ensure that what they do is right for the communities they serve, rather than driven by externally imposed deadlines and targets which may compromise the quality of services in the longer term.

70. Whilst the management of many of these aspects of extended provision could be undertaken by someone other than the head teacher, it is essential that overall responsibility for them continues to lie with the head teacher. An atomised approach to school leadership, which would seek to compartmentalise aspects of schools’ provision, would dilute the focus on the ‘core business’ of schools, that of providing the highest possible levels of learning for all their pupils, through the best possible teaching.

71. In addition, the NUT would recommend that participation in national programmes designed to promote systemic leadership, such as the School Improvement Partners and National Leaders of Education should not be assumed or required by the Review Body, so that head teachers do not feel compromised between meeting the Review Body’s vision and fulfilling the internal and external demands placed on them in school.

“Courageous and decisive”

72. The STRB should reconsider the inclusion of this principle in its vision, as it is extremely subjective and does not support the concept of a school leader as a professional. Being ‘decisive’, for example, is not necessarily a positive attribute if decisions are made too hastily and may also undermine the collaborative view of leadership supported throughout the rest of the STRB’s vision.


73. The NUT would commend the OECD’s view as set out in its leadership report on this issue:

“We need to be sceptical about the “leadership by adjective” literature. Sometimes these adjectives have real meaning but sometimes they mask the more important themes common to successful leadership, regardless of the style being advocated.”

74. This aspect of the vision should be revised to include a more active and dynamic definition of leadership, in which the emphasis is on doing. Verbs rather than adjectives should be used such as leading and facilitating developments in pedagogy, understanding and changing the culture of the school for the better or integrating and co-ordinating the work of other agencies.

75. The NUT believes that this change in emphasis would be helpful in encouraging teachers from under-represented groups to take up leadership positions. An important theme which emerged from NUT research found that vague notions of personal ‘suitability’ for leadership can sometimes work to the disadvantage of women. Some respondents to this research project reported that the feedback which they were given demonstrated stereotypical presumptions about the characteristics of an effective manager. One respondent was told that she was “too nice, kind, thoughtful, too supportive, not hard enough” to be a head teacher.

Other Issues in the Review Body Report

76. The NUT would also wish to comment on two other important issues raised by the Review Body in this section of its report.

77. Paragraph 3.72 asserts that, “it may not be possible for some schools – especially small schools with limited resources and those underperforming – to succeed under the current traditional arrangements” and that federation would be a desirable alternative “to enhance the quality of education and aid staff development, efficiency and partnership working”. Despite emphasising the importance of developing appropriate leadership arrangements for schools to reflect the variety of different contexts in which they might be situated earlier in the report, the Review Body appears to be recommending a ‘one size fits all’ solution to school leadership here.

78. The NUT would challenge both the leadership model and the perceived weaknesses of small schools advanced by the Review Body. The most recent survey by OFSTED of small schools reported that. “The quality of education provided by small schools compares well with what is provided by larger schools.” It noted that the school ethos, spiritual, cultural, moral and social development of pupils and close links with parents and the community, including other schools, were all strengths of most small schools. It also reported that “it is a tribute to the commitment of teachers in small schools that, by and large, they are able to teach the full range of knowledge, skills and understanding required by every subject in the National Curriculum”.

79. The majority of the literature on the subject, including the PricewaterhouseCoopers study of school leadership, which is cited extensively in


the Review Body’s report, stresses the importance of sufficient flexibility in leadership models to meet the needs and particular circumstances of schools in the a wide range of contexts. As the OECD concludes: “there should be room for individualisation by size and type of school and by local, regional and country context”.

80. Given the large proportion of head teachers who work in small primary schools within the total number of heads in England and Wales and the role small schools play in the traditional career path to leadership of larger schools, the Review Body should have given greater consideration to how the role ambiguity and burdens of the small school head teacher can be reduced, such as models of distributing leadership or sharing responsibilities across clusters of schools, rather than propose the abolition of small schools as separate entities and their replacement with federations.

81. It is important to note that half of respondents (52 per cent) in the NUT in-house research felt entirely unprepared for the policy shift towards school federations. In addition, respondents to both the Smithers and Robinson and NUT in-house research were sceptical about the efficacy of structural changes to school leadership such as federation, because of accountability issues and the sheer volume of work involved in leading more than one school, which was referred to in a number of written comments by NUT in-house study respondents. This attitude was best summed up by the following comment from the NUT in-house study:

“The head teacher recruitment crisis will hit in five years time unless the nature of the job is reviewed. This does not mean federations, unqualified head teachers, part-time head teachers. It means less stress, a better quality of life, less bullsh**t, reduce paperwork – reform OFSTED, LA initiatives, increase pay and let us get on with the job!” (Primary head teacher)

82. NUT in-house study respondents were more concerned with what could be done to let them concentrate on raising standards, rather than changes to structures. By removing extensive paperwork, reducing the range and level of head teachers’ personal accountability and responsibility as well as reducing Government initiatives, it was stressed that head teachers would have the time, and energy, they needed to focus on their core tasks of raising the standards of teaching and learning in their school.

83. Whilst there are arguments for federating small schools, especially small rural schools which face closure, federation should not be used as an imposed solution. It must be on a voluntary basis, driven by need.

84. The new models of school leadership which involve head teachers working with more than one school, which are being promoted by Government currently and which are referred to by the Review Body in its report may represent a short term solution to recruitment difficulties rather than a longer term strategy to develop leadership capacity. They may be able to offer experienced heads new challenges and incentives which would enable them to renew and refresh their practice, but in the longer term such models may also contribute to the ‘burn out’


and early retirement experienced by many heads. There is a need for careful monitoring of this development to ensure that it does not have any unintended consequences.

85. For these reasons, the NUT is extremely concerned by the Review Body’s comments in paragraph 3.73 that “establishment of new structures and leadership models seem to be ad hoc and dependent largely on local managers’ capabilities and openness to change. There is no coherence and the pace of change is slow. Stronger central guidance and challenge may be necessary to remove barriers”. Few school leaders would agree that “the pace of change is slow” and the OECD supports such a view:

“The government of the English education system has a strong framework for large scale education reform, which appears to be working. At the same time, the sheer number of initiatives and programmes and the speed at which schools are expected to implement them may be counterproductive.”

86. In addressing this issue, the Review Body must address the unreasonable pressures being placed on head teachers’ shoulders by the Government, OFSTED and Estyn and local authorities, rather than seek to place the blame on them for not being more open to change. These pressures are not a ‘given’ around which new forms of leadership have to be modelled. The current pace of imposed change would warp and distort any model of leadership.

THE LEADERSHIP GROUP – PAY ISSUES

87. We see the STRB’s recommendations as providing, in effect, for a two stage review of the leadership group pay framework. The first stage would see certain issues addressed within the confines of the existing framework and as part of the STRB’s next remit. The STRB, at least, envisages the second stage as being a more fundamental review of the framework on the basis of the STRB’s Reward Principles.

Leadership Group Pay

88. The STRB clearly believes that fundamental change to the structure is required. In para 3.92 of its Report, the STRB says that “it is our view … that the existing arrangements will not suffice for the medium to long term” and cites changes to emerging leadership structures in support of this view. Earlier in para 3.92, however, the STRB acknowledges that “consultees consider that the existing pay arrangements, with minor adjustments, should remain in place for the future”.

89. The Secretary of State has agreed that work to allow leaders to be paid “for the full range of leadership arrangements” should be taken forward by the STRB as part of its next remit. He has been less enthusiastic about the STRB’s proposal for more fundamental reform, saying only that the Government would want to consider the STRB’s vision for leadership and reward principles and consider broader changes further following the outcome of the next STRB remit.


90. The NUT is content with the decision to take forward work on the reform of the current structure. We have said previously that, although some amendments to the current structure are clearly necessary, we see no case for fundamental change to the current leadership group pay structure. The 43-point leadership pay spine, based on the current unit totals system, provides the capacity to reward all leadership group teachers according to their differing levels of responsibility and the different categories of leadership group post they occupy. It can accommodate changes of the kind the NUT sees as necessary, including guidance to promote consistency and to reflect recent changes such as federations.

91. We do not, however, support all of the emerging models of leadership. Equally we do not see all of these emerging models as capable of being easily incorporated within the STPCD framework as the STRB suggests. For example, some leaders also undertake work outside their own schools as SIPs or National Leaders, under the direction of and indeed under contract to external bodies. This work is funded completely separately to their home school’s budget. It would not, in our view, be appropriate for one employer to determine the pay for work done for another employer. Similarly, much extended provision in areas such as health and social care – as listed in para 3.19 – is not teaching or education provision. The current statutory framework of the 1991 Act does not allow the pay for such work to be determined under that Act and it is questionable whether it should do so.

92. The NUT is opposed to the wider reform of the leadership pay structure proposed to the STRB. As we have said, we believe that the necessary changes can be achieved within the scope of the current structure. This position is shared by other consultees, as the STRB itself acknowledges.

93. More fundamentally, we do not endorse all of the principles for leadership pay set out by the STRB as appropriate to underpin this further reform. Some of the STRB’s principles are unexceptionable. We are, however, strongly opposed to principle (vi) which advocates a significant extension of performance related and merit pay. We are also cautious with regard to principles (vii) and (viii) speak of “tailored remuneration packages” and “flexible career paths”. These reward principles clearly seek to introduce pay models more familiar to the private sector model and the Union is opposed to their adoption. In particular, such approaches do not promote consistency and equity. They tend to incentivise shallow and apparent improvements at the expense of quality and durable solutions.

94. The STRB’s proposed pay flexibilities for the leadership group give the impression that schools should be very actively encouraged to set their own pay rates. This would result in intensified competitive recruitment between schools. Those in more comfortable financial circumstances would be able to “poach” effective leaders from those with more limited resources. The end result would probably be that smaller schools and schools in challenging circumstances would suffer. We will continue to argue strongly that guaranteed and higher professional levels of pay are the most appropriate solution for leadership group teachers as for all teachers.


Support to Governing Bodies

95. The STRB has recommended that DCSF address issues such as “ensuring governing bodies’ access to expert pay advice” and “specialist remuneration committees working across a group or federation of schools/services”.

96. We share the STRB’s concern about the ability of governing bodies to carry out their responsibilities on pay issues. This applies in all areas where discretion exists, not only for leadership group teachers. Anecdotally, we know that local management and outsourcing of payroll services and HR advice has meant that some local authorities cannot properly support governing bodies. In addition, a shortage of professionals with skills and experience in education HR affects local authorities and private sector providers alike. The result is that even though local authorities remain the employer of teachers in their community schools, they are prevented from exercising appropriate influence and sometimes even lack information about what teachers are paid.

97. The STRB has not made precise proposals on this area. There may be scope, as the STRB suggests, for greater co-operation between governing bodies in sharing good practice and the expertise of individual governing body members. The availability of professional advice is, however, much more important, particularly in the primary sector. The NUT believes that the role of the local authority in providing professional advice on HR issues to governing bodies should be enhanced. This would help to ensure consistent and non-discriminatory pay practice within the family of local authority schools. The recent Green Paper on post-16 commissioning suggests the Government has growing confidence in local authorities’ ability to help deliver effective outcomes. Authorities should therefore be encouraged - or required - to provide the assistance governing bodies need in this area.

98. The NUT wishes, of course, to play a full part in the work of the stakeholder working group on governance issues which will also consider this area.

Data about Women Teachers, BME Teachers and Disabled Teachers

99. The NUT has raised this issue consistently in its submissions to the STRB and not solely in relation to leadership posts. Without data, it is impossible to discern inequalities in pay and career progression or in the impact of criteria or practices which may amount to indirect sex, race or disability discrimination. We are therefore pleased that the STRB has this year made a recommendation on this area.

100. We welcome the fact that the Schools Workforce Census will begin to provide, from 2010, an ongoing set of data which will help evaluate this area at a national level.

101. The STRB report and your response do not, however, consider the responsibility of local authorities and governing bodies in taking this issue forward at local level.

102. The NUT has proposed that governing bodies and local authorities should be required to carry out regular audits of teachers by gender, race and disability in relation to promotion and pay progression in particular. Although the STRB has


not made any recommendation on this area, you will know that statutory duties to promote gender, race and disability equality in employment are already in place.

103. They apply to local authorities and school governing bodies and therefore already require such action to be taken. The way the Race Relations Amendment Act, Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and Equality Act 2006 were drafted recognised that, only by collecting data, could governing bodies and local authorities assess the impact of how pay structures impact on different groups of teachers. Governors and local authorities are required by law to indicate in their gender, disability and race equality schemes, which parents, students and staff they have consulted, and which policies they have assessed in order to promote equality in employment and reduce discrimination.

104. Although the DCSF has published three documents on the Teachernet website which contain guidance about meeting the three duties for schools, the advice primarily addresses using the duties to raise outcomes for pupils in terms of race, gender and disability discrimination. School leaders and governors have received no advice about how to use the duties to improve outcomes for women, black and disabled teachers or to prevent sex, race and disability discrimination in pay systems.

105. The NUT believes that the DCSF should work with local authorities, head teachers and governing bodies in England and Wales to ensure that they gather and monitor evidence about pay and gender, race and disability and take action to promote equal pay, through equal pay audits and the action plans which are required by law.

106. The NUT believes that Ofsted should be required to request to have sight of school race, gender and disability equality schemes.

107. The NUT also believes that the NPQH qualification for future school leaders should train school leaders about developing equality schemes which prevent discrimination in employment and promote fair treatment of women, black and disabled teachers.


Documents

Introduction - National Union of Teachers - NUT Submission to STRB Sept 08.doc · Web viewSecondment/sabbaticals for head teachers enable deputy head teachers and other members of