Education Leader and Manager
June 2011
In this issue 4
The importance of trust
5
Governance and structure reviews in Wales
6
The Protection of Freedoms Bill
8
The future of state education
10
From EMA to bursary
Teaching Schools
11
Your employment rights
12
Careers education update
AMiE is the leadership section of ATL
Bob Vesey, President, AMiE
As schools, colleges and training providers try to cope with the uncertainty surrounding the new arrangements for student financial support, preparations for the start of the autumn term will be a little more complex for student services managers this year.
The Government consultation on financial support for learning, which concluded on 20 May, contained very little detail on the rules under which the new support scheme will have to operate. It is likely to be fairly late in the summer term before we know what these rules are and can complete the arrangements for putting the scheme in place. What we do know, however, is that the proposed bursary scheme will be under-funded, will be complicated and will effectively distance the Government from any responsibility, if the scheme proves to be ineffective or generates significant complaints. The bursary scheme will start with £180 million in the first year and – for one year only – will be supplemented by a further £194 million of transitional funding that will be paid to students who hold a three-year guarantee under the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) scheme.
From EMA to bursary continued from page 1
This compares with over £500 million in the current EMA funds. With regard to the transitional funding, no assurances have been given as to how much of the £194 million will transfer into the bursary in future years. The proposed bursary will give a guaranteed payment of at least £1,200 to some of the neediest students, for example those in (or leaving) care and those dependent on Income Support. For others, there will be a discretionary payment that will be determined by the school or college. While the overall sums available will be inadequate to meet needs, the method of allocating to individual institutions is likely to be based on historic data, perhaps EMA numbers. This will not, therefore, take account of the fact that the numbers of vulnerable young people – those who might be entitled to the guaranteed payment of £1,200 – are prone to significant variation between years for each institution. Schools and colleges will have the responsibility for paying the guaranteed bursary to the most vulnerable of their students, but not necessarily the resources to fund it.
2
There is a strong case for saying that the guaranteed element of the bursary should remain as part of a national scheme and should not be operated by schools and colleges. However, the Coalition Government is clear that it does not want to retain any kind of nationally managed scheme and wishes to distance itself from any complaints or problems that stem from the deficiencies in its bursary plans.
It is difficult to see how students will have straightforward access to clear information about financial support, when all providers will be free to determine significant elements of their own arrangements for running the bursary. The elements of localism that are central to the scheme, as well as central to Coalition thinking, can only lead to the development of a kind of postcode lottery in financial support for young people.
Lack of transparency
Transport costs
In the consultation, the Government invited comment on a very limited set of just three principles:
1 that support should be targeted on those facing the greatest barriers to participation
1 that payments should be conditional on young people meeting standards (for example attendance or behaviour)
1 that young people studying less than full-time Schools and colleges will have the responsibility for paying the guaranteed bursary, but not necessarily the resources to fund it
should be supported on a part-time basis. All three of these are reasonable and uncontentious, but what is missing is the notion of transparency. If the bursary is to succeed in helping to remove barriers to learning for the most needy, it is important that the scheme is easily understood by those for whom it is designed. Transparency is particularly important in the new environment in education, where the Government has significantly diminished access to independent advice and guidance.
At the same time, some elements of localism are welcome. There is no doubt that the financial barriers to access to education vary according to local conditions. In some parts of the country there is good access to subsidised public transport for students in the 16-plus age group, while in other areas, the cost and availability of transport is a major barrier to educational participation. The Association of Colleges and the National Association for Managers of Student Services in Colleges have both lobbied hard to ensure that support for transport can be provided, and it is right that schools and colleges should be able to make provision in this area of need.
Weekly payments? The former EMA scheme made weekly payments to students, providing that they had met attendance or other performance conditions for the week in question.
3
Institutions will now have to decide whether to keep to that model, which will be expensive, or to use a different payment profile. The Government acknowledges that: ‘schools and colleges will need to take account of students’ financial management skills and ability to cope with monthly or annual payments when allocating funds’. This will not be an easy decision and will impact on the cost to providers of running the scheme without the economies of scale that a national provider was able to deliver.
Flexible age boundaries Another area where greater clarity is required relates to the age range to which the bursary applies, as it is not clear from the early documentation what this is. The consultation document referred to 16–19 year olds in its title, but to those aged 16, 17 and 18 in the text. The likelihood is that the cut-off point will be age 18, as older students are now, in funding terms, the responsibility of a different government department. Many students, particularly those who have not achieved a full level 2 qualification by the age of 16, will need extra time to complete a level 3 qualification. Some will need support beyond the age of 18, and it is important that the bursary scheme is amended to enable that support to be provided. Without that flexibility around the age boundary, some of our most needy students will be disadvantaged.
No promises Colleges and training providers will also face further uncertainty in relation to financial support for students, because the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) are not working with each other on their plans for financial support. BIS has indicated to colleges that the Adult Learning Grant might be scrapped (with a larger allocation to colleges to compensate for that if it is), but at the time of writing, no decision has been made. This makes planning, and the provision of clear information for students, very difficult. It is perhaps notable that the Tory-led Coalition has made no promises about the longevity of the bursary scheme. Cynics will be forgiven for being concerned that localism will be carried a step further after a year or two, with funding for the bursary being shifted into institutional core budgets. Financial support for students would then have to compete with all the other conflicting demands on school and college budgets. After the local elections in May, Nick Clegg suggested that he intended to be more assertive in working within the Tory-led Government. If he wants to show that he means it, he could start by setting out to improve the financial support package for students in the 16–19 phase of education and to ensure that it is guaranteed for the future. For more information about the EMA replacement scheme, visit: www.education. gov.uk/16to19/studentsupport/a0064057/ financial-support-for-learning
Leadership qualities
The importance of trust
Yvonne Fleming, National Officer for Leadership and Management, AMiE
At a workshop for ATL/AMiE members at this April’s annual ATL conference in Liverpool, David Pardey, Senior Manager of Research and Policy for the Institute of Leadership and Management (ILM), took as his theme the issue of trust.
4
This is an area on which the ILM has done a great deal of research, especially in recent years, as the recession has made this a top priority for leadership teams.
The dimensions of trust David began by outlining what he called ‘the dimensions of trust’ or the elements perceived to be of the utmost importance to those in any organisation when judging the quality of their leadership teams. These include:
For heads and principals, ability and integrity are the most important aspects of trust
1 ability to do the job well 1 understanding the people you manage 1 fairness 1 openness 1 consistency 1 honesty 1 integrity. Interestingly, the research showed that for heads and principals, ability and integrity are the most important aspects of trust, while for line managers, all the characteristics were seen as being important, as they were easier for colleagues to assess on a daily basis.
The size of organisations is also important, with trust being lower in large institutions than in small ones. The longer a person is in post, the higher the trust quotient. Indeed, the point was made very strongly that there can be a high penalty for leaders who are perceived to be invisible to their staff. This is a lesson that leadership teams should take on board.
Promoting trust So what were the key tips that David offered those in positions of responsibility?
1 It is crucial to nurture a sense of purpose in your school or college, even though your own feelings may not be well developed at the beginning.
1 Having a positive outlook is essential, as is communicating this to your colleagues on a regular basis. This is where the visible leader is most effective.
1 It is very important to encourage innovation in a climate where people are not afraid of failure, but see it as a stepping stone to making things work.
1 Listening skills are crucial. 1 The ability to make your own decisions, and to explain them clearly to others, is also key. Without that clarity of explanation, trust can easily be lost – and lack of motivation can result. Moreover, this will help to build up a mutual feeling of respect within the organisation. When times are challenging and uncertainty is rife, leadership that displays integrity, honesty and an ability to deal with the issues and to make very difficult decisions will be the most effective. This does not mean that there is a need for micro-management; indeed, this can be the cause of even greater stress. Therefore, trust becomes even more important – not only within the leadership team itself, but also in trusting colleagues to get on with their work and thus to achieve common goals.
The view from Wales
Governance and structure under review Brian Thornton, AMiE Regional Officer for Wales
Two recent reviews reinforce the direction of travel for the education sector in Wales. 1 Welsh Assembly Government (March 2011) An Independent Review of the Governance Arrangements of Further Education Institutions in Wales (Chair of the Review Panel: Rob Humphreys), available at: http://wales. gov.uk/topics/ educationand skills/publications/ wagreviews/ fegovreview/? lang=en 2 Welsh Assembly Government (March 2011) The Structure of Education Services in Wales: Independent Task and Finish Group Report (Chair: Vivian Thomas), available at: http://wales. gov.uk/topics/ education andskills/ publications/ wagreviews/edu cationservicesre view/?lang=en
An independent review into the governance of FE1 and a report on the structure of education in Wales2 note the importance of greater consistency between and within institutions, and reaffirm the importance of collaboration at the regional level to improve planning and to increase efficiency.
Governance The review of FE governance, chaired by Rob Humphreys (Director for Wales at the Open University), recognises the rapidly changing environment. It seeks to ‘future-proof’ the governance of FE, by allowing the institution considerable flexibility, so that it can create a system of governance that suits its needs and allows it to maintain its ‘fleetness of foot’, while ensuring that all stakeholders can be engaged in governance effectively. The review recognises the strong profile of FE and does not seek to make major changes, such as the return of FE to local authority control or the removal of the incorporated status of FE. Its main proposal is the creation of a ‘membership body’ that sits alongside a slimmer board. Learners and staff representatives would sit on this membership body. Considerable flexibility is given to the FE institution to determine the membership of the board itself, as the report suggests that the present categories of membership be removed. This structure of governance is found in some social enterprises and reflects, it is argued, some of the models found in FE at present.
There is some concern over the possible overbureaucratisation of governance, by adding another group to scrutinise the college, and the possible slowing down of processes if a further layer is added to decision-making processes. There is also a concern (acknowledged by Humphreys himself) that the new membership body will not have the teeth of the board itself and that its ability to scrutinise and inform will 5 be at one step removed from the main decisionmaking body – in effect that the membership body will be second-level, second-hand and second-rate. Given that it is on this group that learners and other stakeholders sit – and that learners are meant to be at the heart of the education process – the issue of balance of power between the two bodies will be important. Due to its remit, the focus of the report is fundamentally on the governance of the institution itself and, perhaps as a result, the report may have missed an opportunity to build existing regional partnerships into the model.
Structure Similar partnership issues are picked up in more detail in a review chaired by Vivian Thomas (former Director of Education at the Neath/Port Talbot local authority) into the structure of education in Wales. The report suggests three options for the minister:
1 accept the present arrangements in Wales 1 move towards regional education departments that would collaborate with FE
1 set up a more hands-on regional education and skills authority with statutory powers that would encompass all providers. The first option will probably be too weak and the third may be a threat. So the signals are that education will continue to be directed firmly down the regional co-operation route. If FE in Wales can continue to improve the quality of its provision while managing the seismic changes in its structure, then it will more than warrant the high esteem in which it is now held.
Proposed legislation
The Protection of Freedoms Bill: AMiE’s submission to the Select Committee 6
The text below is AMiE’s submission (drafted by AMiE Council Member John Lowe) to the Select Committee considering the Protection of Freedoms Bill. The submission was made in May this year. Memorandum submitted by the Association of Managers in Education The Association of Managers in Education (AMiE) provides trade union and professional services for over 6,500 leaders and managers in colleges and schools: it is the leadership and management section of ATL, the education union. The Association wishes to comment on certain aspects of the bill that pertain to schools and colleges of further education.
Biometric data 1 The proposed requirement to obtain written permission, normally from both parents, before a school or college can obtain and process a child’s biometric data is an unnecessarily bureaucratic solution to a problem that does not exist. There is no evidence of abuse or misuse of such systems. In August 2008 the Information Commissioner issued a brief and balanced statement about the use of biometrics in schools. It contains a number of safeguards and while it addresses the issue of parental consent it does not advise that it is necessary to obtain written consent from both parents. 2 AMiE’s view is that Clauses 26 and 27 should be withdrawn and that if some further safeguard is necessary, parents should be given the option to withdraw their child from a biometric system in the same way that they can opt to withdraw them from religious education.
Restriction of the scope of the vetting and barring scheme 3 Clause 63: AMiE welcomes the fact that the government has reversed its decision to exclude children aged 16 and 17 from the protection afforded by the safeguarding legislation.
4 However, it has continuing concerns about the proposal to exclude supervised volunteers from regulated activity. Activity by supervised volunteers working with children or vulnerable adults (e.g. mothers or grandfathers assisting in a classroom) has been taken out of the scope of regulated activity. It will not be unlawful for a barred person to do it. And because it is not regulated activity even an enhanced CRB disclosure will not show that the person is barred. This is the nub of the problem caused by the two changes: it is reasonable to take supervised volunteers out of the scope of regulated activity so that the activity providers have the professional discretion to decide whether to carry out a CRB check but, by also changing the nature of the CRB disclosure so that it doesn’t include barring information if the activity is not regulated, the activity provider isn’t given the full picture about someone they think needs checking before being allowed to volunteer. The government is arguing that it will be possible to infer from the information on the certificate whether a person has been barred, but that will not always be the case and, if it is the case, why can’t the certificate say so plainly? 5 Clauses 64 and 65 mean that no activity carried out by further education colleges will come within the scope of regulated activity with vulnerable adults. AMiE is deeply concerned by this as many vulnerable adults with learning and physical disabilities are supported in their difficult lives by their studies in further education. It is essential that they are given the protection of this safeguarding legislation. 6 Clause 66 alters the test for barring decisions so that a person may only be barred if they have been, are, or might in future be engaged in regulated activity. It is impossible to be certain that someone who is considered for barring will never in the future engage in regulated activity.
Indeed, if someone has done something that warrants inclusion on a barred list, it is likely that they will in future seek employment or volunteer for a role that offers an opportunity for further misdeeds, but they are certainly not going to admit their intention to do so. People should be included on barred lists irrespective of their stated future intentions so that they will definitely appear on the list should they at some point apply to engage in regulated activity. 7 Clause 67 abolishes controlled activity. AMiE has long argued for this and welcomes the change.
Clause 68 puts an end to the proposal to establish the ISA registration database. Again, AMiE has long argued against this and welcomes the change. 8
9 Clause 70 deals with the review of barring decisions but it contains no proposals to change the arrangements for appealing against barring decisions. AMiE presented a successful motion to last year’s TUC Congress arguing that people should have the right of personal representation, not just written submissions, when appealing against a barring decision. Sunita Mason’s Phase 1 Review of the CRB regime in England and Wales recommends “that the CRB develop an open and transparent representations process” (recommendation 7). In the light of this and in the interests of natural justice and human rights, we would urge the government to allow personal representations in appeals against barring decisions. 10 Clause 76 rather surprisingly includes a provision changing the duty on a local authority to provide information to the ISA that might be relevant to a barring decision to mere discretion to do so. This seems perverse given that the Bichard Inquiry identified the failure to share information between authorities as the major failing leading to the Soham murders.
Changes to the CRB regime 11 Clause 77 means that CRB certificates will be issued only to the individual and not simultaneously to a potential employer. AMiE welcomes this change as it allows someone to make representations to the CRB about any inaccuracies in the certificate before it is seen by the employer. The crucial thing will be that this process should take place quickly so that employment opportunities are not lost. Nevertheless, we continue to support the position of ATL that the fee for CRB certificates should be paid by the employer rather than the employee.
12 Clause 79 also introduces welcome additional safeguards about the information that the police have the discretion to include in CRB certificates. These should also help to protect people from inaccurate allegations. 13 Clause 80 introduces a very welcome and simple procedure for updating CRB certificates and making them portable. This is so much better than the original ISA registration scheme and AMiE welcomes it wholeheartedly. 14
One final and vital plea concerning guidance:
We have already illustrated in paragraph 4 above the importance of the interaction between changes to the vetting and barring scheme and changes to the CRB regime. It is our understanding that the restrictions to the scope of regulated activity will not rule out the use of CRB checks for some non-regulated activity, principally that which was formerly regulated. The requirements and eligibility to apply for various levels of CRB certificates will be affected by this legislation, by sectoral regulations, and also by existing Statutory Instruments that might or might not be amended as a consequence of the legislation. Much of the controversy about the current regime has arisen because people have not understood the requirements concerning CRB checks and therefore in many cases interpreted them overzealously. It is essential that these matters are decided in a coherent and comprehensive way so that all the regulations are clear and consistent. It is similarly essential that the guidance that is to be issued about the new scheme clearly covers all aspects: vetting and barring in respect of regulated activity and CRB checks as they apply to both regulated and non-regulated activity. The guidance must bring together in one place this legislation, the associated statutory instruments, and sectoral regulations. Sunita Mason emphasises the importance of this: “I recommend that comprehensive and easily understood guidance is developed to fully explain the criminal records and employment checking regime” (recommendation 10). 11 May 2011
7
The future of state education
Having it all (or doing it all?) Nansi Ellis, Head of Education Policy and Research, ATL
Education is one of the Coalition Government’s priorities for England. It is clear, however, that the cumulative effect of this Government’s policies signals the end of state education as we know it.
8
Everything we value in the education system will gradually disappear
This may sound like scaremongering. New governments always make changes, and education is a dynamic system. As professionals, we are constantly learning and creating new ways of doing things. Tension is inevitable, as governments change the big picture and school leaders focus on local needs and vision.
As in many other areas of life, ‘having it all’ will mean ‘doing it all’. School leaders may find that they take on greater responsibility for the functions of human resources, payroll, and advisory services within their school, taking them further from teaching and learning than they might wish. Doing it all costs money, but we are facing:
1 huge funding cuts 1 a certain vagueness about the amounts of money available to schools
1 loss of financial support for pupils and their families
1 threats to pay and pensions. And those who find that ‘doing it all’ isn’t what they had intended, will find a range of private companies competing to take on those services and more.
But while the Government begins to hear (and perhaps to heed) some of the clashes in the health service, wholesale changes are being made to the education system in the name of international competition, and through cherry-picking from other countries’ education systems. And it’s being sold to us as offering greater autonomy for school leaders and more choice of provision.
The Secretary of State’s definition of school autonomy also includes enhancing the powers of the Secretary of State. Within the Education Bill there are plans for the Secretary of State to define the teaching standards and the national curriculum and to direct schools to take part in international assessments. Also included are powers to instruct schools to dismiss teachers, to direct councils to issue warning notices to schools based on performance standards or safety grounds, and then to close schools under warning notices – as well as the presumption that every new school will be an academy.
For government, autonomy means losing the local authority ‘straightjacket’. Without suggesting that the relationship between schools and local authorities is always an easy or supportive one, autonomy in this sense also means losing the safety net. And while this may not be a problem for the schools that choose to opt out, it diminishes the safety net for schools that cannot – or that do not wish to – opt out.
Those academies, which will include free schools, university technical colleges, special schools and pupil referral units, are likely to involve sponsorship from the private sector, from faith groups and from parent groups. Currently, they will be exempt from the national curriculum, from national pay and conditions and, where they are ‘outstanding’, from Ofsted inspection.
An extract from Barack Obama’s speech to the UK Parliament at Westminster Hall, London, 25 May 2011, on the importance of an educated workforce in the global economy.
the Information Age that arose from the office parks of Silicon Valley. That’s why countries like China, India and Brazil are growing so rapidly – because in fits and starts, they are moving toward market-based principles that the United States and the United Kingdom have always embraced. In other words, we live in a global
‘Adam Smith’s central insight remains true today: There is no greater generator of wealth and innovation than a system of free enterprise that unleashes the full potential of individual men and women. That’s what led to the Industrial Revolution that began in the factories of Manchester. That is what led to the dawn of
economy that is largely of our own making. And today, the competition for the best jobs and industries favours countries that are freethinking and forwardlooking; countries with the most creative and innovative and entrepreneurial citizens. That gives nations like the United States and the United
About AMiE
AMiE is the leadership section of ATL, and provides specialist support for leaders and managers in colleges and schools. We are a student- and service-centred organisation that champions the interests of leaders across the sectors. Our services Our services include:
1 representation, help and advice on all Michael Gove: an evangelical Secretary of State – but is he fair, effective or empowering? Professional autonomy, and the ability to meet the diverse needs and interests of pupils, should be underpinned by an understanding of common aims for education and commitment to universal entitlement for every pupil, and professional accountability to pupils, parents, communities and government. This Government seems intent on spending scarce resources on opening up a market to untried providers, on separating pupils into different pathways of learning as early as possible, on developing a national curriculum that most schools will not need to follow, and on propping up a testing system that is broken beyond repair. There is no past golden age to which we can return, the current system is not perfect, and school leaders will continue to do the best they can to make school work for the pupils in their care. However, if this Government’s plans come to fruition, everything we value in the education system will gradually disappear. The Future of State Education: how everything you value is disappearing (ATL, 2011) is available at www.atl.org.uk/speakoutforeducation I would like to hear from you if you have any comments: nellis@atl.org.uk Kingdom an inherent advantage. For from Newton and Darwin to Edison and Einstein, from Alan Turing to Steve Jobs, we have led the world in our commitment to science and cutting-edge research, the discovery of new medicines and technologies. We educate our citizens and train
our workers in the best colleges and universities on Earth. But to maintain this advantage in a world that’s more competitive than ever, we will have to redouble our investments in science and engineering, and renew our national commitments to educating our workforces.’
employment matters. Our casework service is recognised as simply the best offered by any trade union
1 publications and best practice guides on curriculum and management issues
1 policy influence in political circles 1 education news updates 1 pensions advice, including information leaflets on important topics such as improving your pension prospects
1 good deals on insurance and many other services and products.
Our membership We welcome college managers at all levels in further education colleges, sixth form colleges and adult education provision; school headteachers, deputy headteachers, bursars and heads of department. We also have many members in national organisations, training organisations and other areas of the education sector, including higher education.
To join Join AMiE online via our website www.amie.uk.com or by calling 01858 411 541. For further information, please email membership@amie.atl.org.uk
9
The Teaching Schools model
Teaching Schools: the debate goes on Yvonne Fleming, National Officer for Leadership and Management, AMiE
The first wave of Teaching Schools (see also page 3 of the April 2011 issue of ELM) will be with us by September.
10
After the initial round of applications (the second round is due to open in October this year) the National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services is in the process of deciding which 100 applicants, of the 1,000 applications they received, will become Teaching Schools in September 2011. This number will increase to 500 by September 2014. As a result of the consultation to which ATL/ AMiE contributed, the National College has taken on board several recommendations – both in terms of making the initial choice of schools and how the system will subsequently work. Much greater emphasis is being placed on the need for a collegiate approach. Only schools that can prove that they have already forged collaborative working relationships with other institutions will be chosen, and this is to be checked not merely by a form-filling exercise but by talking to partners. Moreover, accountability processes – probably over a four-year cycle – will be in place, which could lead to a school losing its Teaching School status if its performance is in doubt.
Much greater emphasis is being placed on the need for a collegiate approach
There will also be an attempt to gain good coverage of England, not only geographically but also with regard to rural and urban, small and large institutions. Indeed, to make it easier for smaller schools to be part of this initiative, existing partnerships or clusters will be considered as Teaching Schools. It is also cheering to note that higher education institutions (HEIs) will not be excluded from teacher professional development in Teaching Schools.
There has been an acknowledgement of the importance of the expertise of HEIs and the role that they will play. In a world where the Teaching School will be responsible for training – from initial teacher training to headship – there will be a need for a range of partnerships, to ensure that this works consistently and to a high standard. There has also been an acknowledgement that the new arrangements should be inclusive and that no school will lose out. This is because even with 500 schools by 2014, there will be gaps in provision unless current systems, based on local authorities, HEIs and third sector organisations, continue to exist. The new arrangements bring significant practical challenges for participating institutions. An initial start-up of £60,000 for the first year, followed by £50,000 in the second year and £40,000 in subsequent years is an insignificant amount when a school is responsible for:
1 training new entrants 1 continuing professional development 1 providing peer-to-peer support through senior leaders
1 promoting talent-spotting and succession planning
1 providing support for other schools. It has already been acknowledged that one Teaching School may not have the capacity or skills to cover all these areas and that strategic partnerships with existing providers will be crucial. What is also clear is that there will be a need for entrepreneurship, as the movement is towards self-funding systems. Let’s hope that the moral imperative of teaching and learning does not get lost in this drive to appease market forces. AMiE will continue to monitor the development of teaching schools and would welcome any experiences from members in any capacity as the new system begins to roll out. With informed feedback, we can continue to influence decisions at the highest level, so please contribute to the debate: yfleming@amie.atl.org.uk
Employment matters
An erosion of your employment rights? David Green, Director of Employment Services, AMiE
Not content with using public sector pensions to pay for £2.8 billion a year to subsidise the deficit cuts, the Coalition Government is once again targeting employment law. The numbers of staffing restructures faced by members has jumped significantly
* Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations
Despite Nick Clegg’s promise to exert his party’s independence in the Coalition Government more robustly after the poor election results for the Liberal Democrats on 5 May, it seems that the Tory influence is as strong as ever. Just six days after the elections, they announced a review of the law on TUPE*, collective redundancy consultation and compensation for discrimination. Now you probably realise that TUPE and redundancy consultation laws are designed to protect jobs. Yet in what many would see as nonsensical reasoning, the Employment Relations Minister, Edward Davey, was quoted by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills as saying: ‘The areas we are reviewing are priorities for employers. We want to make it easier for businesses to take on staff and grow.’
March for the alternative: TUC anti-cuts demonstration, 26 March 2011
Frankly, I’m not sure how making it easier to get rid of people meets these aims. My fear is that this is a cover for the Tories’ intention of diminishing job protection. Fortunately, all these matters are, to a greater or lesser extent, covered by European law. This means that the Government is unable to tear them up without falling foul of the European Court of Justice. But even so, with a Government focus on undermining job protection, AMiE will have to be vigilant, to ensure that when the Government’s proposals are published, we submit well-reasoned and well-researched counter-arguments.
11
Ironically, the Government’s review comes at a time when these laws have never been more necessary. The numbers of staffing restructures faced by members in colleges and schools has jumped significantly in the first quarter of this year, and there is no sign of any slowdown. Indeed, of some 200 active individual member cases currently being dealt with by AMiE officers, a massive 45% are concerned with restructuring and redundancy. In total, this issue accounts for over half of all active college cases and a third of all active schools cases. I’m sure that this will be no surprise to members. Since the start of the year (when the corresponding figures in January were 28% in colleges and 8% in schools), the proportion of requests for help on restructuring has jumped considerably. In addition, we have the latest round of college mergers to consider. Even with TUPE as it stands today, a merger will bring anxiety, reorganisation and possible job losses. Those of you who have been through a merger will know only too well that, despite the law, it is rarely a case of ‘business as usual’. So I’m sure you will be surprised to learn that Minister Edward Davey said that TUPE is being reviewed because employers say its protections are ‘gold-plated’. In our experience, these laws, if anything, don’t go far enough. They offer valuable protection, but only up to a point. Collective consultation can mitigate but not stop redundancies; and TUPE contains enough loopholes to ensure that under some circumstances, everything can – and will – be changed. So, at a time when public service workers are facing massive uncertainty, it seems that our Government is embarking on a path to erode our employment rights. I’m not alone in recognising the damage that such change might bring about. But does Mr Clegg share my views? And what, if anything, will he do about it?
Careers guidance
The changing world of caree Yvonne Fleming, National Officer for Leadership and Management, AMiE
One of the areas alluded to in the 2010 White Paper The Importance of Teaching,1 and then given more concrete form by the recent Education Bill, is careers education, information, advice and guidance (CEIAG).
12
This area of the curriculum, it was felt, could increase social mobility and thereby national economic prosperity. Further, it would improve the behaviour of young people, by helping them to make good progression choices, which would improve motivation and attainment. In short, CEIAG was seen as playing a very important role in the lives of young people in schools and colleges.
What does the Education Bill propose? Surprisingly, the Education Bill removes the duty on schools in England (though not in Wales) to provide careers education for Years 7 to 11. The argument put forward by the Secretary of State is that a statutory duty does not necessarily equal good practice.
The vision includes an integrated, more collegiate delivery, in which technology plays an important role
Instead, there is an expectation that CEIAG will probably be delivered in England under the auspices of personal, social, health and economic (PSHE) education, which will be subject to an ‘internal review’ by the Department for Education. At this stage, it is not clear what will happen to Work Related Learning, especially given the comments in the Wolf Report on vocational education2 that work experience should be reserved for the post-16 stage. However, there is still a duty for schools to secure independent guidance for all pupils in Years 9 to 11. This leads to the problem of the definition of ‘independent’, especially as many schools have invested a great deal of time and resources in training their own staff, many of whom are doing an excellent job in their institutions.
According to the Education Bill, ‘independent’ in this context defines someone who ‘is not employed by the school’, who must be impartial and who should provide information on options in 16–18 education or training, including apprenticeships. In practice, this means that staff in a school can begin the debate, but there must be another independent person as well, to carry on the discussion. This applies to all maintained schools in England, including special schools, pupil referral units and even academies through their funding agreement. FE institutions will still have to provide careers information as a duty. Finally, the Education Bill proposes that data about the kinds of activities that pupils go on to after they leave school or college be collected and published, though individuals will not be identified. The expectation is that the new duties will apply from September 2012. But what ‘independent’ adviser options does this leave, especially in light of the fact that, in many areas, the Connexions service has already closed down, leaving a gap in provision for young people; and there are no ring-fenced budgets for CEIAG.
eers education and guidance
13
Is this picture appropriate?
What are the likely effects? The overall effect of the legislation is to shift the paradigm of public, private and third sector services from one in which public institutions dominated to one where private and third sector services have a much greater role to play. The centrepiece of this is a new all-age careers service, which is due to be in place by April 2012. However, much still needs to be done in this area, especially as there seems to be some disagreement between ministers about funding for this enterprise. At the moment, only the online aspect of the service appears to be going ahead; it should be up and running by September. In the meantime, it will be up to schools to decide from which source they will access their ‘independent adviser’ – they will be in the commissioning role. Many local authorities are already setting up trading services, but anything from a sole trader to a co-funded community alliance could be the answer. Choice will probably not be an issue, but quality assurance may well be, as well as ensuring value for money and affordability.
The vision includes an integrated, more collegiate delivery, in which technology plays an important role through web portals and telephone support. The careers profession associations are now working together in an alliance to create a code of ethics, practice and professional standards, which will include a register of practitioners and/or a licence to practise linked to continuing professional development (in the hope that quality will be assured). While new systems are set up and tested, the job of educating and guiding young people goes on as before. Schools and colleges will once again bear the brunt of these innovations, while aiming to ensure that no young person is disadvantaged due to decisions beyond their control. In this interim period, the ‘Careers work innovation’ website (www.careersinnovation.net) provides a forum to share and learn of innovative ideas. If you are experiencing any particular difficulties as a result of these proposals, please do not hesitate to get in touch: yfleming@amie.atl.org.uk
1 Available at: www.education. gov.uk/b0068570/ the-importanceof-teaching 2 Available at : www.education. gov.uk/ publications/ standard/ publicationDetail/ Page1/DFE00031-2011
College governance survey While we know something about how college governors govern – from our observation, from research studies and from the minutes of college governing body proceedings – much less is known about the contribution to governance of senior staff in colleges. For example:
1 How much time does a vice-principal spend on writing reports?
1 Do senior staff attend governing body and/or committee meetings?
1 How appreciated by governors do senior staff feel?
1 How do senior staff view the performance of governors?
1 How much support and development do senior
14
staff receive in report writing for governors?
How do senior staff contribute to college governance? You tell us! NEW PUBLICATION
Vocational education in the global economy AMiE has recently published a guide to good practice in vocational education and training delivery. Developed as part of a partnership project between Mikumi Vocational Training Centre in Tanzania and Harrow College in the UK, this 56-page handbook is intended to support teachers and curriculum leaders of vocational education in Tanzania and the UK. Peter Pendle, Deputy General Secretary of ATL/AMiE, says: ‘We believe that in spite of the significant differences between Tanzania and the United Kingdom, for example in terms of the economy and resources, the principles of good practice that guide the delivery of vocational training and education are common.’ To obtain your free copy of the guide, please email Neha D’Souza at ndsouza@amie.atl.org.uk
These questions and others appear in an online questionnaire that has been emailed to AMiE members as part of a research study being conducted by the University of Southampton. The study is supported by AMiE, Baker Tilly (an independent firm of chartered accountants and business advisers) and the Learning and Skills Improvement Service. A report analysing responses to this questionnaire will be prepared for summer 2011, and we hope to feature it in ELM later this year. This is a great opportunity for senior college staff to influence the processes of college governance and any supporting senior staff training for college governance, so please follow the link in the email (www.surveymonkey.com/ s/6JTKYPF ) and complete the questionnaire. The closing date for returning the completed questionnaire is Thursday, 30 June 2011.
Contacting AMiE Contact the editor
Head office
AMiE members are warmly invited to contribute to this newsletter. We especially welcome contributions about good or innovative teaching and learning, or on key policy issues. Please send your article, letter or photograph to Nadine Cartner at editor@amie.atl.org.uk
AMiE 35 The Point Market Harborough Leicestershire LE16 7QU Tel 01858 461 110 Fax 01858 461 366 www.amie.uk.com National helpline Tel 01858 464 171 helpline@amie.atl.org.uk Peter Pendle Deputy General Secretary, ATL Tel 01992 571 823 or 020 7782 1507 Mobile 07810 481 467 Sukhi Chana Finance and Office Team Leader Tel 01858 411 543 Neha D’Souza Finance Administrator Tel 01858 411 544
Yvonne Fleming National Officer for Leadership and Management Tel 0191 370 9939 Mobile 07595 280 408 David Green Director of Employment Services Tel 01858 411 540 Mobile 07711 929 043 Julia Pearson PA to Management Team Tel 01858 411 542 Charlotte Ryder Membership Co-ordinator Tel 01858 411 541 Sara Shaw Acting Head of AMiE Tel 01858 411 546 Mobile 07545 438 061
AMiE regional officers Eastern Liz Salisbury Tel 01572 720 467 Mobile 07595 099 617 lsalisbury@amie.atl.org.uk
Central Cheryl Cumbley Tel 01543 274 821 Mobile 07834 321 928 ccumbley@amie.atl.org.uk
Wales Brian Thornton Tel 01639 897 317 Mobile 07595 099 619 bthornton@amie.atl.org.uk
South East Michael Gavan Tel 020 8471 1622 Mobile 07595 099 618 mgavan@amie.atl.org.uk
Northern Pauline Rodmell Tel 01204 660 440 Mobile 07711 929 037 prodmell@amie.atl.org.uk
London Kalbinder Herr Tel 01865 765 454 Mobile 07711 929 038 kherr@amie.atl.org.uk
South West Rachel Jennings Tel 01752 839 643 Mobile 07738 641 689 rjennings@amie.atl.org.uk
NORTHERN IRELAND Mark Langhammer Director, ATL, Northern Ireland Tel 02890 782 020 Mobile 07918 195 070 mlanghammer@atl.org.uk Scotland, Channel Islands, Isle of Man Contact the national helpline: Tel 01858 464 171 helpline@amie.atl.org.uk
15
The last word
It was interesting that the electorate decided to punish them so swiftly, by overwhelmingly rejecting AV in the referendum. Although it was swift justice, it was a shame that the level of debate on AV from both sides was so shallow. AV is a very poor substitute for proper proportional representation, but that also was a result of a lack of political backbone. Clegg should have held out for a referendum on a proper form of PR. Clearly, there were pros and cons to AV, but it would have been nice to have been able to have an adult conversation about them. While all the main political parties elect their leaders and candidates for electoral office using AV, most don’t think we should be allowed to use it to elect them. One of the fiercest criticisms of PR is that it throws up coalitions and minority governments; yet in the three places in Britain where PR is used, we have single-party administrations (Scotland, Wales and London), while the UK Government, elected on a first-past-the-post basis, is a coalition.
16
Peter Pendle, Deputy General Secretary, ATL
For those of us who enjoy observing the political environment, 2011 is turning into a vintage year. You are being recommended to vote YES in the ballot
Edited and designed by thingswedo (thingswedo.com) Illustrations by Keith Sparrow Printed by Blackmore Ltd, Shaftesbury © AMiE 2011. All rights reserved.
Our Coalition Government seems determined to spend more time on internal tussles and political intrigue than on solving the nation’s problems. I doubt that many school or college leaders would allow so much public disagreement in their senior leadership or management teams. Entertaining as it is to watch the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills attack the Chancellor, or to watch the Prime Minister and his deputy go for each other’s throats, one wonders who is running the country, because I would like to have a strong word with them and offer some advice! I gave a wry smile when I heard Nick Clegg moaning about being stitched up by his Coalition partners in the referendum on the alternative vote. It seems to me that the only reason the Liberal Democrats managed to get into the Coalition in the first place was because millions voted tactically for them in an attempt to stop the Tories getting into government. Nobody thought that the Liberal Democrats would be so keen to tear up their election pledges, just so they could get a share of power.
And so onto our own ballot on industrial action, which of course will be decided on a simple majority. When ACM was looking for a partner to merge with, the top priority was to find one that shared ACM’s vision and values – not least its approach to national negotiations and disputes. We found that with ATL. Little did we know that less than six months later we would have little option but to ballot for industrial action. ACM has never taken industrial action. ATL last had a ballot in 1979 – for one hour’s strike to attend branch meetings! I won’t go through the arguments why you are being recommended to vote YES in the ballot, other than to state that if the Government’s proposals on pensions go through unchallenged, you will have to pay more (with your contributions going up from 6.4% to 9.8%), work longer (with the normal retirement age rising to 68) and get less (with a career averaging scheme meaning 15% less in retirement). As a moderate union, ATL is being forced to take this action. Both NAHT and ASCL have also decided to ballot their members for industrial action – the clearest sign that the Government has gone too far. The Government is refusing to enter into discussions with us, so a big YES vote is essential to force them back to the negotiating table. With a big enough YES vote, hopefully a strike can be avoided. If the ballot is successful, and the Government does not return to negotiations, then we will be encouraging you to support the action – although of course, in line with ACM and ATL tradition, the final decision will be yours. The Coalition partners are playing fast and loose with their electoral promises; don’t let them do the same with your pension.