STRB REPORT FEBRUARY 2007:
MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS AND
SECRETARY OF STATE’S RESPONSE
The STRB’s Sixteenth Report and the Secretary of State’s response to that Report were published on 6 February 2007. This document provides information on:
· the issues remitted to the STRB by the Secretary of State;
· the STRB’s recommendations on each issue;
· the Secretary of State’s response and proposals for implementing those recommendations; and
· a summary of the NUT’s view on each issue.
MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE AND OTHER PRIORITY SUBJECTS
The STRB was asked to look at: “whether there are steps that should be taken to improve the use of current pay incentives and flexibilities to improve the recruitment, retention and quality of science and mathematics teachers;” and “whether science teachers who are not physics and chemistry specialists should receive an incentive to encourage them to complete physics and chemistry CPD, leading to an accredited qualification, to enable them to teach those subjects effectively”.
The STRB recommended that the DfES:
· undertake a programme of action to secure a significant increase in the use of existing flexibilities in the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD) to address local teacher shortages in priority subjects;
· focus this programme on three areas, namely more effective support for local managers, a sharper framework of accountability, and school budgets;
· teachers receive a financial incentive for completion of accredited qualifications in priority subjects designated by the Department or, for teachers in Wales, the Welsh Assembly Government;
· the Department and the Welsh Assembly Government consider using the golden hello payment as the mechanism for this purpose; and
· the effectiveness of this approach be evaluated as part of the pilot for the mathematics, physics and chemistry diplomas.
The STRB’s recommendations on a financial incentive were based on the award of a non-consolidated golden hello payment – currently worth £5,000 – as if the teacher were a newly-recruited science teacher. Payments would be made for diplomas and other qualifications designated by the DfES or Welsh Assembly Government.
The Secretary of State said in response that the DfES would consider “with partners” the action suggested by the STRB on increasing the use of existing flexibilities. He noted that schools were free to spend their budgets in line with their own priorities including recruitment and retention incentives. He welcomed the STRB’s recommendation on financial incentives for completion of accredited courses in priority subjects. He proposed to consider the most appropriate mechanism for these and how to pilot their implementation.
The NUT welcomes the STRB’s recognition that teacher shortages are not simply confined to mathematics and science, but also affect other priority subjects. Although the Secretary of State’s remit specifically asked the STRB about mathematics and science, the STRB’s recommendations related to shortage or priority subjects more generally. The NUT’s view is that teacher shortages affect many areas of the curriculum and must be addressed by means of a substantial pay increase for all teachers.
The issue of teacher shortages is even more urgent given that inflation is running well ahead of the 2.5 per cent pay increase for teachers implemented in September 2006. The NUT has already written to the STRB to ask them to seek as quickly as possible a remit from the Secretary of State to review teachers’ pay in accordance with their previous recommendation and the Government’s acceptance of that recommendation.
SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS (SEN) ALLOWANCES
The STRB was asked to look at: “the extent to which SEN allowances fulfil an appropriate function in the teachers’ pay and conditions system, whether they are used appropriately and whether there is overlap in theory or practice with other permitted payments, in preparation for further evidence in 2007 and possible change in 2008.”
The STRB recommended that the DfES provide additional evidence relevant to its remit, focusing in particular on the evidence requirements that it had highlighted in relation to the labour market, teachers and current local practice in schools and services.
The STRB reviewed the representations made by consultees about the functions of SEN allowances prior to making its recommendation. It will give further consideration to the issue of SEN allowances after further evidence has been provided, with possible change in 2008. Options included retaining, replacing or abolishing SEN allowances.
The Secretary of State proposed to accept the recommendation that the DfES should gather additional evidence in preparation for further consideration by the STRB. He proposed to work with interested parties on the basis of including potential review of SEN allowances in the STRB’s remit for 2008.
The NUT’s view is that SEN allowances have an important, specific function in the pay system. They should continue and any revised criteria for them – for example, to reflect the differing circumstances in both special and non-special schools – should be subject to discussions involving all parties.
EXCELLENT TEACHER SCHEME (ETS)
The STRB was asked to make recommendations on: “what framework may be appropriate to enable relevant bodies to set a spot salary for Excellent Teachers within the ranges recommended by the STRB in its 15th Report; and if so, on what basis the spot salary may be reviewed.”
The STRB recommended that:
· when individual schools and services determine spot salaries for ETS posts within the ETS salary range, they have regard to the nature of the work to be undertaken, the degree of challenge of the role, and any additional criteria they consider appropriate;
· once determined, individual spot salaries for ETS posts be reviewed by the school or service:
- if there are significant changes in the nature of the work to be undertaken, in the degree of challenge of the role or in relation to any additional factor the school or service considers appropriate;
- as part of any wider review of salaries.
The Secretary of State agreed with the proposed criteria relating to the nature of the work and degree of challenge. He expressed concern, however, at the proposal to allow schools to determine additional local criteria. He requested views on whether this would be workable and, if so, what help schools would need. He accepted the recommendation on when ETS salaries should be reviewed, but emphasised that this should only be in relation either to the criteria established for the post at the outset, or to a wider review of salaries.
The NUT remains opposed to the ETS and seeks to secure consistent national standards and rewards for teaching skills. As long as it remains in existence, the ETS too needs to have national and standard requirements. Spot salaries determined by schools would lead to further fragmentation of the pay structure, inequity and a lack of transparency.
PART-TIME TEACHERS
The STRB was asked to look at: “whether, following the STRB’s endorsement in its 15th Report of the principle that part-time teachers should be treated equally with full-time teachers, it is now possible to move towards a standardisation of approach to part-time teachers’ pay and conditions within the STPCD, in the light of possible solutions to be identified and presented to the STRB in evidence.”;
The STRB recommended that:
· the Department, in consultation with interested parties:
- develop provisions for the STPCD to stipulate how pro-rata salaries for part-time teachers should be calculated and working time specified;
- give particular attention to the basis for (a) remunerating part-time teachers for additional working time; and (b) calculating pro-rata salaries and remuneration for additional working time for part-time teachers on the Fast Track scheme, in AST posts and in leadership group posts;
- ensure that provisions for the STPCD are fully compliant with employment law;
· provisions resulting from this work be introduced to the STPCD as soon as practicable.
The Secretary of State welcomed these recommendations and undertook to work “with partners” to develop the provisions the STRB has identified with the intention to incorporate them into the STPCD from September 2008. The resultant cost pressures on some schools would need to be taken into account and that the STRB needed to consider this issue in its next report.
The outcome is welcome for the NUT’s campaign for fair treatment for part-time and supply teachers. The STRB accepted the NUT’s specific criticisms of the RIG proposals, which were that they would not guarantee appropriate payment for additional working time for part-time classroom teachers or fair treatment for part-time leadership group teachers. The Government in turn has now accepted that part-time teachers’ working time needs to be more accurately reflected in their pay so that they are treated in the same way as full-time teachers. The NUT’s view is that consultation on how this is achieved must include all teachers’ organisations, not simply the Government’s “partners,” and must include the pay of supply teachers.
TEACHERS’ PERFORMANCE AND PAY PROGRESSION
The STRB was asked to make recommendations: “with specific reference to the discussions and recommendations in your previous report, the extent to which there should be changes to the provisions of the STPCD to ensure the outcomes of performance management reviews provide the basis for decisions about pay progression, including evidence about the outcomes of CPD; and the extent to which provisions in England and Wales should be identical.
The STRB recommended that:
· all progression on incremental pay scales follow a performance management review and determination by the individual school or service that the individual teacher’s performance has satisfied an explicit, performance-related criterion for pay progression in the STPCD;
· consequential amendments to the STPCD be made, including to make explicit the criterion of satisfactory performance for pay progression on the main scale and the pay scale for unqualified teachers, and to remove provisions concerning how teachers’ performance should be managed;
· as recommended in our Fifteenth Report, the Department require schools and services to include details in their pay policy about how performance is assessed for pay purposes.
The STRB noted that there would be some differences in the management of teachers’ performance between England and Wales once the 2006 Regulations came into effect in England. Nevertheless, the pay progression criteria set out in the STPCD would continue to apply in both countries and the provisions of the STPCD therefore needed to be identical in England and Wales.
The Secretary of State welcomed the STRB’s reaffirmation of “the principle that there should be a formal link between performance management reviews and pay progression.” He said that there will need to be careful consideration of how to amend the STPCD, to ensure that it is consistent with the requirements of the School Teacher Performance Management (England) Regulations 2006 and School Teacher Appraisal (Wales) Regulations 2002.
The Secretary of State accepted that the STPCD should be amended to clarify that Main Scale and Unqualified teachers should complete performance management reviews. He did not, however, propose any change to the current pay progression arrangements.
The Secretary of State was not minded to accept the recommendation that schools and services should include details of their performance management arrangements in pay policies.
The NUT continues, of course, to oppose any link between performance management and pay. The NUT therefore opposes the STRB’s recommendation for greater use of performance-related pay and welcomes the Secretary of State’s decision not to change (at this stage) the current arrangements for teachers moving up the main pay scale.
APPROACHES TO PAY IN ENGLAND AND WALES
The STRB was asked to consider: “given the independent educational developments and directions in England and Wales in the light of devolution, whether the STRB considers that it is appropriate for an identical approach to pay matters across both England and Wales to be maintained or whether a more flexible approach might be adopted. As indicated above, this is a longer-term issue on which the STRB’s initial views are sought.”
The STRB did not make a recommendation on this, concluding that the existing framework gave sufficient flexibility to take account of the differences that have arisen between England and Wales, but suggested that the two governments keep the matter under review.
The Secretary of State accepted that the existing framework should continue, but said that this would be kept under review. The STRB and other consultees needed to alert the DfES and/or Welsh Assembly Government to any developments that might call the current arrangements into question.
The NUT’s view is that any changes to the current arrangements would raise significant issues relating to the pay structure and funding. The NUT has previously written to Jane Davidson, Minister for Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills in Wales, expressing serious concern at the possible devolution of teachers’ pay and conditions to Wales. In her reply, Jane Davidson gave the NUT an assurance that there were no current proposals for devolving teachers’ pay and conditions.
TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
In his remit letter to the STRB the Secretary of State said that he expected its report to include a response on: “whether a description of teachers’ professional role and responsibilities is needed, following the recommendations in your 15th Report, together with a recommendation on next steps.”
The STRB recommended that:
· the Department, in consultation with interested parties, prepare new statements of teachers’ professional roles and responsibilities which are:
- focused on high standards and pupil outcomes;
- clear and accessible;
- credible and relevant to teachers;
- concise, enabling and flexible;
- in a dedicated section of the STPCD, separate from other conditions of employment; and
- distinct from, but complementary to, GTC publications and professional standards;
· new statements be prepared after the review of the leadership group has been completed, and take account of developments in relation to TLR payments, SEN allowances and the ETS and AST schemes.
The STRB also said that teachers’ professional roles and responsibilities should continue to be included in the STPCD. The STRB agreed with the NUT that these should be separate from the conditions of employment and working time provisions of the STPCD. The STRB said that it was attracted to the Scottish model of concise, specific statements that did not function as a prescriptive list.