Download
1 / 37
E N D
1. “Bad News Day” Suffolk NUT School Reps’ Training No payments safe, nearly all members affected
not an assimilation exercise
linked to remodelling and based on cutting the teachers’ paybill
restructuring could remove any payments
three year cash safeguarding only
cuts in pay and pensions for many teachers
fewer career prospects for others Fewer career prospects for others – some members might think that, because they do not as yet have a management point, the proposals will not affect them, but there will be fewer opportunities for younger teachers to get promoted posts.
Fewer allowances and
Some “pastoral tasks” will not count as “teaching” posts!Fewer career prospects for others – some members might think that, because they do not as yet have a management point, the proposals will not affect them, but there will be fewer opportunities for younger teachers to get promoted posts.
Fewer allowances and
Some “pastoral tasks” will not count as “teaching” posts!
2. WHAT IS THE “RIG”? “Rewards & Incentives Group”
DfES
National Employers Organisation
ATL, NASUWT, PAT, SHA – and formerly NAHT
joint proposals to STRB, accepted by STRB and by Secretary of State
NUT excluded from RIG
When we say the NUT was excluded, that is just what it was.
The DfES would not allow the NUT into the workforce remodelling “agreement” because we refused to sign up to the clauses in that agreement which allow unqualified staff to teach whole classes and to the part of the agreement which said that sufficient resources were available.
Of course, the money was not, and is not there, as we no ref. PPA time. But that is why were excluded.
We could have joined at any time, if we had sold out completely on the principle that only qualified teachers should ever be in sole charge of a class.When we say the NUT was excluded, that is just what it was.
The DfES would not allow the NUT into the workforce remodelling “agreement” because we refused to sign up to the clauses in that agreement which allow unqualified staff to teach whole classes and to the part of the agreement which said that sufficient resources were available.
Of course, the money was not, and is not there, as we no ref. PPA time. But that is why were excluded.
We could have joined at any time, if we had sold out completely on the principle that only qualified teachers should ever be in sole charge of a class.
3. THE NUT’S STANCE Continued opposition to TLR system - It’s not broke, so don’t fix it
Opposition to reduction in number of posts of responsibility
Protection for members against any loss of pay resulting from introduction of TLRs Reps should have had the “No teacher should face a pay cut” cards. Lots of posters have gone out from HQ to start the campaign.Reps should have had the “No teacher should face a pay cut” cards. Lots of posters have gone out from HQ to start the campaign.
4. NUT card or e-mail to Secretary of State: These changes have far reaching consequences. They should not be rushed. The time allowed should be extended accordingly. Thousands of teachers face pay cuts and many of them will have reduced pensions. I call on you to allow more time to consider these changes and to guarantee that no teacher will face a cut in pay or pension. There should be proper and permanent safeguarding of all teachers’ existing pay scales and allowances. One of the first things the Union did was to organise a postal / e-mail lobby. I hope you all received the cards and sent them off, or went on line.
It’s not too late – you can still post them, or go on to the Union’s national website to do it on line.One of the first things the Union did was to organise a postal / e-mail lobby. I hope you all received the cards and sent them off, or went on line.
It’s not too late – you can still post them, or go on to the Union’s national website to do it on line.
5. SUMMARY OF THE TLR SYSTEM (1) No nationally prescribed levels or values for TLR payments
Schools to decide:
number of posts of responsibility (if any!)
number of different levels of TLR payments
actual values of TLR payments A departure from previous national pay awards!
First time since regional pay was abolished in the 1920s. In Suffolk, we would do well to remember the Lowestoft teachers’ strike in 1922 – it was because teachers in Lowestoft were paid less than teachers in the rest of the county and the rest of the country!
Huge equal pay implications. The same job in virtually identical schools could have completely different remuneration for the same level of responsibility. NUT expects there to be a number of test cases fairly rapidly.
Number of posts – IF ANY.
The Stipulation in the RIG proposals are that they should be “cost neutral” but for reasons that you will see later, this means that there will have to be fewer TLRs than Mas because the TLRs are worth more.
“actual values” is because each school can fix their points between a minimum and maximum range.A departure from previous national pay awards!
First time since regional pay was abolished in the 1920s. In Suffolk, we would do well to remember the Lowestoft teachers’ strike in 1922 – it was because teachers in Lowestoft were paid less than teachers in the rest of the county and the rest of the country!
Huge equal pay implications. The same job in virtually identical schools could have completely different remuneration for the same level of responsibility. NUT expects there to be a number of test cases fairly rapidly.
Number of posts – IF ANY.
The Stipulation in the RIG proposals are that they should be “cost neutral” but for reasons that you will see later, this means that there will have to be fewer TLRs than Mas because the TLRs are worth more.
“actual values” is because each school can fix their points between a minimum and maximum range.
6. But there must be savings: we would expect the overall cost of TLR payments to be less than the current total paid on management allowances, given that a proportion of management allowances is currently awarded for responsibilities that would not meet the new criterion (RIG). Quotation is from the RIG “Guidance”, paragraph 37.Quotation is from the RIG “Guidance”, paragraph 37.
7. SUMMARY OF THE TLR SYSTEM (2) Two TLR bands
Prescribed minima and maxima:
TLR1: minimum £6,500 maximum £11,000
TLR2: minimum £2,250 maximum £5,500
more than 1 level of payment possible within these limits
Just to confuse matters, TLR2s are worth less than TLR1s (the opposite way of number or lettering allowances to what we have been used to for 50 years!).
Schools could decide to have two TLR1s (TLR1a, TLR1b) and three TLR2s (TLR2a, 2b and 2c)
That pattern would look like the existing structure of Management Allowances 1-5.Just to confuse matters, TLR2s are worth less than TLR1s (the opposite way of number or lettering allowances to what we have been used to for 50 years!).
Schools could decide to have two TLR1s (TLR1a, TLR1b) and three TLR2s (TLR2a, 2b and 2c)
That pattern would look like the existing structure of Management Allowances 1-5.
8. CRITERIA FOR TLR PAYMENTS (1) To qualify for any TLR payment
significant responsibility not required of all classroom teachers
focused on teaching and learning
requiring teachers’ professional skills and judgement Management Allowances could be attached to more or less any job description. They were mostly used for subject or KS coordination, but also for Heads of Year, Exams officers, Visits coordinators, careers counsellors, etc. The NUT maintains that there are still perfectly good reasons for saying that MANAGING each of these actually requires “teachers professional skills and judgement”. The RIG people muddled managing and directing these important educational areas was the same as the clerical work that often accompanied them. Of course, the clerical work should be done by secretarial help, but the decision making and guidance to pupils and other staff actually does require the skills and professional judgement of a teacher. Management Allowances could be attached to more or less any job description. They were mostly used for subject or KS coordination, but also for Heads of Year, Exams officers, Visits coordinators, careers counsellors, etc. The NUT maintains that there are still perfectly good reasons for saying that MANAGING each of these actually requires “teachers professional skills and judgement”. The RIG people muddled managing and directing these important educational areas was the same as the clerical work that often accompanied them. Of course, the clerical work should be done by secretarial help, but the decision making and guidance to pupils and other staff actually does require the skills and professional judgement of a teacher.
9. CRITERIA FOR TLR PAYMENTS (2) To qualify for any TLR payment (contd)
leading, managing & developing a subject or curriculum area
OR leading, managing & developing pupil development across the curriculum
impact on educational progress beyond the teacher’s assigned pupils
leading, developing and enhancing the teaching practice of others
The first of these criteria is probably the one most used in most schools for Management Allowances.
If it was possible just to assimilate all those allowances across to the nearest (higher) TLR, then there would be few problems, but remember the proviso that the staffing review has to be “cost neutral”.The first of these criteria is probably the one most used in most schools for Management Allowances.
If it was possible just to assimilate all those allowances across to the nearest (higher) TLR, then there would be few problems, but remember the proviso that the staffing review has to be “cost neutral”.
10. CRITERIA FOR TLR PAYMENTS (3) To qualify for TLR1 payments
having line management responsibility for a significant number of people
Responsibility for which a TLR is awarded should be clearly defined in the job description All the RIG proposals have been devised with the NASUWT and ATL representing class teachers. They have very few members in Primary Schools, so the position of primary schools have been ignored throughout. That is why we are in a mess over PPA as well – they do not understand that primary school teachers did not have “non-teaching periods” to start with!
So here, “significant responsibility for a number of people” – these criteria only have the larger school in mind.All the RIG proposals have been devised with the NASUWT and ATL representing class teachers. They have very few members in Primary Schools, so the position of primary schools have been ignored throughout. That is why we are in a mess over PPA as well – they do not understand that primary school teachers did not have “non-teaching periods” to start with!
So here, “significant responsibility for a number of people” – these criteria only have the larger school in mind.
11. NUT News 16: Could this mean the end of pastoral education? Student Welfare – Year Leader: APT&C Scale points 33-38 (£27,036 - £30,606)
The Year Leader will work with both teaching staff and other support agencies in supporting, guiding and managing the welfare of the young people in their charge, so that their individual needs are met and their learning thrives. The guidance was silent on the role of heads of year, year tutors and on pastoral responsibilities generally. Surely they wouldn’t give Heads of Year jobs to non-teachers? Take a look at NUT News 16The guidance was silent on the role of heads of year, year tutors and on pastoral responsibilities generally. Surely they wouldn’t give Heads of Year jobs to non-teachers?
12. LEVEL OF PAYMENTS (1) Schools determine their values
Decisions on payment levels must :
“have a clear rationale”
“be made against clear published criteria with differences between posts attracting different levels clearly delineated”
“take into account differential job weight and meet the provisions of equal pay, equality and other relevant legislation” (RIG proposals) NUT Representatives will clearly need to be looking carefully at draft proposals and trying to influence them. In particular, we need to monitor carefully the equal opportunities issues right from the start.
Whenever re-structuring creates fewer promoted posts, women always fare worse than men – fact! And women of child bearing age probably do worst of all, as it happens!NUT Representatives will clearly need to be looking carefully at draft proposals and trying to influence them. In particular, we need to monitor carefully the equal opportunities issues right from the start.
Whenever re-structuring creates fewer promoted posts, women always fare worse than men – fact! And women of child bearing age probably do worst of all, as it happens!
13. LEVEL OF PAYMENTS (2) Spot values not scales
More than 1 level possible in each band:
Minimum differentials of £1,500
Up to 3 levels possible at TLR2
Up to 4 levels possible at TLR1 i.e. 7 possible TLR grades, as opposed to the current 5 MAs.
So, it would be possible to “reflect” the current 5 point scale as TLRs, but the problem is cost.i.e. 7 possible TLR grades, as opposed to the current 5 MAs.
So, it would be possible to “reflect” the current 5 point scale as TLRs, but the problem is cost.
14. New Opportunities? In devising the structure, headteachers will need to take into account all previously-held responsibilities, paid or unpaid, and consider those for which there is a continuing need. A structure should not be based on the assumption that teachers who have previously had additional unremunerated responsibilities focused on teaching and learning will continue to carry them out. (RIG) This is a cruel deception – those primary schools where staff have taken on heavy coordination and even second in charge (I/c when head not present) without allowances are here given a straw to grasp. NUT Reps should pursue it, but the overarching proviso that there must be savings will militate against governors agreeing to spend more on TLRs than they were on MAs.
This is a cruel deception – those primary schools where staff have taken on heavy coordination and even second in charge (I/c when head not present) without allowances are here given a straw to grasp. NUT Reps should pursue it, but the overarching proviso that there must be savings will militate against governors agreeing to spend more on TLRs than they were on MAs.
15. 3 into 2 won’t go RIG: “Where a post is a combination of a number of existing responsibilities held by current staff then the post should be advertised to those post holders only and appointed from that group following interview.”
NUT: Although “ring-fenced”, this is unfair and will involve teachers applying for their own jobs. Reps need to be aware and seek to influence the new structure to avoid reducing existing number of promoted posts.
16. Apply for your own post? RIG: Where a post is identified as a new post it should be subject to normal recruitment procedures.
NUT: Reps would be advised to ensure that all “new” posts are identifiably similar to existing posts. Even RIG advises against redundancies!
17. “Assimilation Model” Remember that the Management Allowances figures here were frozen since April 2002! So the + figure in the third column should be reduced by 4-5% inflation anyway. This means that TLR1c would not be any benefit to a MA5 post holder and so TLR 1c should be increased to be fair and maintain differentials.
In smaller schools, especially where there is just one Management Allowance, we will need to press for that allowance to be converted into a TLR2a at the minimum rate, even though it will cost the school more.
The likelihood is that where there is just one MA1, it will simply disappear. We will look at what is laughingly called “the safeguarding” next.
Remember that the Management Allowances figures here were frozen since April 2002! So the + figure in the third column should be reduced by 4-5% inflation anyway. This means that TLR1c would not be any benefit to a MA5 post holder and so TLR 1c should be increased to be fair and maintain differentials.
In smaller schools, especially where there is just one Management Allowance, we will need to press for that allowance to be converted into a TLR2a at the minimum rate, even though it will cost the school more.
The likelihood is that where there is just one MA1, it will simply disappear. We will look at what is laughingly called “the safeguarding” next.
18. SAFEGUARDING Cash safeguarding is for 3 years only
only the difference between existing MA and any TLR awarded will be safeguarded
may be lost earlier due to promotion or incremental progression
does not apply at all to teachers with post-April 2004 “temporary” MAs
Additional responsibility or work may be required to retain safeguarding As well as agreeing to bin National Pay elements for these TLRs, the NASUWT and ATL have gone along with the NAHT and SHA to sell out on the principle of safeguarding.
Up to now, if a school re-organised, or even closed / merged, teachers redeployed were guaranteed their former allowance for as long as they stayed in their redeployed post. If they had a protected MA1, then ever time the allowance was increased, they received the increase.
Now, the Government’s social partners have sold out on this principle and have actually formally agreed to worsen conditions of service for teachers. That is the NASUWT and the ATL have accepted it and signed up to it.
Now it is only the cash value of any allowance which is safeguarded and then only the difference between the former salary with allowance and the new salary without the allowance.
HOWEVER, provided it is done before Dec 31st 2005, a temporary allowance CAN be EXTENDED by up to one year. We would always try to delay any change which could lead to loss of pay, of course.
This is quite complicated but of vital importance to our members and your colleagues who may not be NUT members and have not been alerted to what their associations have let them in for:As well as agreeing to bin National Pay elements for these TLRs, the NASUWT and ATL have gone along with the NAHT and SHA to sell out on the principle of safeguarding.
Up to now, if a school re-organised, or even closed / merged, teachers redeployed were guaranteed their former allowance for as long as they stayed in their redeployed post. If they had a protected MA1, then ever time the allowance was increased, they received the increase.
Now, the Government’s social partners have sold out on this principle and have actually formally agreed to worsen conditions of service for teachers. That is the NASUWT and the ATL have accepted it and signed up to it.
Now it is only the cash value of any allowance which is safeguarded and then only the difference between the former salary with allowance and the new salary without the allowance.
HOWEVER, provided it is done before Dec 31st 2005, a temporary allowance CAN be EXTENDED by up to one year. We would always try to delay any change which could lead to loss of pay, of course.
This is quite complicated but of vital importance to our members and your colleagues who may not be NUT members and have not been alerted to what their associations have let them in for:
19. “Only the difference” – the original proposal from RIG To see the effect, we need to look at a few examples. Let’s take someone who is on M6 with one Management Allowance. We will assume a 2.5 inflation per annum (in line with the current 3-yr pay “award” we are now enjoying.) This also assumes that this teacher does not apply for the threshold.
In this situation the teacher has no pay increase from September 2005 to August 2008!
REMEMBER THIS WAS NEGOTIATED BY THE NASUWT AND ATL!To see the effect, we need to look at a few examples. Let’s take someone who is on M6 with one Management Allowance. We will assume a 2.5 inflation per annum (in line with the current 3-yr pay “award” we are now enjoying.) This also assumes that this teacher does not apply for the threshold.
In this situation the teacher has no pay increase from September 2005 to August 2008!
REMEMBER THIS WAS NEGOTIATED BY THE NASUWT AND ATL!
20. “Only the difference” (2) – the original accepted by RIG If the same teacher does apply for and cross the threshold, the Management Allowance disappears even more quickly
The effect of these provisions is that teachers whose previous MA1 payments are not replaced by any TLR payments will immediately lose the whole of their safeguarded sum (£1638) if they make any incremental progression on 1 September 2006. Similarly, teachers whose TLR payments are lower than their previous MAs will immediately lose the whole of any safeguarded sums up to c.£2000 if they make any incremental progression on 1 September 2006. If the same teacher does apply for and cross the threshold, the Management Allowance disappears even more quickly
The effect of these provisions is that teachers whose previous MA1 payments are not replaced by any TLR payments will immediately lose the whole of their safeguarded sum (£1638) if they make any incremental progression on 1 September 2006. Similarly, teachers whose TLR payments are lower than their previous MAs will immediately lose the whole of any safeguarded sums up to c.£2000 if they make any incremental progression on 1 September 2006.
21. DfES concedes: whole cash value of allowance safeguarded – but not for temporary MAs!
22. - and still limited to 3 years, then stops
23. - or only until basic pay catches up with safeguard
24. “Safeguarding” does not apply at all to teachers with post-April 2004 “temporary” MAs Since April 2004 heads have not been able to appoint to new permanent Management Allowances, even when filling vacancies.
So, when teachers accepted these they accepted that their post was not safeguarded and could disappear, with any allowance, from January 2001, unless they get a TLR in the new structure.
25. Additional responsibility or work may be required to retain safeguarding Teachers in receipt of safeguarding can be required to carry out additional responsibilities “commensurate with the safeguarded sum”, even if they are still carrying out the full responsibilities of their posts. Any teacher who unreasonably refuses to carry out such additional duties can be given one month’s notice of the withdrawal of safeguarding. I got picked up the other day for calling this so-called “safeguarding” a “punitive system” – I think this certainly can be used punitively and those who lose out are not going to be feeling very cooperative. Again, I can see that we will have a number of grievances where people lose MAs and get told to do more to “earn” their safeguarding. I got picked up the other day for calling this so-called “safeguarding” a “punitive system” – I think this certainly can be used punitively and those who lose out are not going to be feeling very cooperative. Again, I can see that we will have a number of grievances where people lose MAs and get told to do more to “earn” their safeguarding.
26. What about existing safeguarded allowances? RIG had not thought about that
Would not be fair for those already given permanent safeguarding to lose it
Would not be fair to let previous safe-guarding to continue while new safe- guarding is curtailed
In short – a right mess! In fact, David Hart, outgoing Secretary of the NAHT has written to the Secretary of State complaining that those with existing safeguarding are currently getting away with it. He wants them to suffer as well. It looks as though they will – will be a breach of contract claim, perhaps?
While these provisions accord with the STRB’s recommendations on safeguarding specifically for MAs, they do not accord with its other recommendations on a revised overall framework for safeguarding to replace other existing safeguarding provisions. Those recommendations specifically stated that, while pay increases due to incremental progression should be taken into account, annual increases in the values of the pay scales should be excluded from consideration. The NUT intends to raise this issue with the STRB and seek to gain amendment of the current provisions.
The DfES has not yet published proposals to implement the revised overall framework for safeguarding. These are due to be published later in the year. In fact, David Hart, outgoing Secretary of the NAHT has written to the Secretary of State complaining that those with existing safeguarding are currently getting away with it. He wants them to suffer as well. It looks as though they will – will be a breach of contract claim, perhaps?
While these provisions accord with the STRB’s recommendations on safeguarding specifically for MAs, they do not accord with its other recommendations on a revised overall framework for safeguarding to replace other existing safeguarding provisions. Those recommendations specifically stated that, while pay increases due to incremental progression should be taken into account, annual increases in the values of the pay scales should be excluded from consideration. The NUT intends to raise this issue with the STRB and seek to gain amendment of the current provisions.
The DfES has not yet published proposals to implement the revised overall framework for safeguarding. These are due to be published later in the year.
27. TIMETABLE for IMPLEMENTATION TLRs to be introduced from 1 January 2006
MAs to be abolished after 31 December 2005
Staffing structures to be reviewed and revised by 31 December 2005
Three year transition to new structures See colour printed “timeline”See colour printed “timeline”
28. PHASE 1 – REVIEWING STAFFING STRUCTURES (1) Schools are required to:
review the structure in consultation with union representatives & staff
determine proposals for implementing TLRs and any other changes, plus plan for implementation, by 31 December 2005
Schools are not required to alter the structure – only to determine how to implement TLRs in place of MAs
29. Suffolk LEA’s letter to Heads Suffolk has written to all heads to explain:
Review should be announced now
Letter to be sent to staff and Unions
Draft review should be starting now
Review to be completed by October
Consultation to be completed by Dec
Whole scheme to be ready by 31/12/05 See colour-printed time-line
Necessary to be involved right from the beginning.
Reps should be asking the headteacher for regular up-dates in staff meetings, briefings, etc. including copies of any proposals under consideration. Don’t want to wait for a draft to have gone through a governors’ meeting to start fighting for what we want.
See colour-printed time-line
Necessary to be involved right from the beginning.
Reps should be asking the headteacher for regular up-dates in staff meetings, briefings, etc. including copies of any proposals under consideration. Don’t want to wait for a draft to have gone through a governors’ meeting to start fighting for what we want.
30. PHASE 1 – REVIEWING STAFFING STRUCTURES (2) NUT position:
“No detriment” and minimum changes
Reorganise the structure?
alter or reduce responsibility payments
alter or reduce teaching posts
extensive consultation, disruption and disaffection
not required by law - is it needed?
31. PHASE 1 – REVIEWING STAFFING STRUCTURES (3) Mismatch between MAs and TLRs
minimum TLR2 (£2250) > MA1 (£1638)
next level of TLR2 (£3750) > MA2 (£3312)
keeping the same number of responsibility payments will cost more
MA3 (£5688) is between the TLR bands
should MA3s become TLR2 (with lower pay) or TLR1 (with higher pay)?
32. PHASE 1 – REVIEWING STAFFING STRUCTURES (4) The case for retaining the existing staffing structure
the existing structure is already based on the needs of the school
teachers’ pay is protected
pastoral posts are protected
increases in workload are avoided
pitfalls of discriminatory outcomes are avoided
33. PHASE 2 - IMPLEMENTING CHANGES (1) Decide how to implement any changes
minimum changes allow an assimilation process
if not, decide how to appoint, when to ring-fence, how to deal with grievances, etc
3 year cash safeguarding for those who lose out
34. PHASE 2 - IMPLEMENTING CHANGES (2) Decide when to implement changes
Three year transition period:
starting 1 January 2006, ending 31 December 2008
35. PHASE 2 - IMPLEMENTING CHANGES (3) Immediate implementation?
NUT believes schools should where possible implement immediately, if no detriment
Delayed or phased/staged implementation?
problems with new appointees “leapfrogging” Implement immediately, IF there is no detriment to members. If there is to be problematic safeguarding delay might be wise. “Leapfrogging” might illustrate lack of fairness, and possible equal pay claims.Implement immediately, IF there is no detriment to members. If there is to be problematic safeguarding delay might be wise. “Leapfrogging” might illustrate lack of fairness, and possible equal pay claims.
36. IN SUMMARY The Choices
Retain, as far as possible, the existing structure
manageable cost, no reason to change
Reorganise the structure
unnecessary workload, disruption, disaffection and oppositio
37. Other Ways: SEN, Leadership Spine, AST, Excellent Teacher (ET?) Criterion for SEN 1: “where the relevant body consider that the classroom teacher makes a particular contribution to the teaching of pupils with SEN in the school which is significantly greater than that which would normally be expected of a classroom teacher”. TLRs are instead of Management allowances only, they do not replace:
SEN allowances (we can be held in addition to a TLR)
Leadership Spine Posts (no limit)
Advanced Skills Teacher posts
Excellent Teacher posts (coming 09/2006) – problem is that no one knows the criteria as yet – Extra terrestrial?
The criteria for SEN 1 have become more a matter of interpretation.
So this might give you some leads, perhaps in a small school where there is only one MA and no SEN points.TLRs are instead of Management allowances only, they do not replace:
SEN allowances (we can be held in addition to a TLR)
Leadership Spine Posts (no limit)
Advanced Skills Teacher posts
Excellent Teacher posts (coming 09/2006) – problem is that no one knows the criteria as yet – Extra terrestrial?
The criteria for SEN 1 have become more a matter of interpretation.
So this might give you some leads, perhaps in a small school where there is only one MA and no SEN points.
38. NUT Websites www.teachers.org.uk
www.suffolknut.org.uk Just about everything that comes out nationally is also on the website “teachers.org.” site.
There is also local information for Suffolk members on suffolknut.
These can often answer your queries and there are copies of briefing documents.Just about everything that comes out nationally is also on the website “teachers.org.” site.
There is also local information for Suffolk members on suffolknut.
These can often answer your queries and there are copies of briefing documents.
