ELM April 2016

EDUCATION LEADER AND MANAGER

Representing leaders and managers in education P O L I CY

P R I M A RY

M A ST E R C L A S S

THE VERDICT ON REGIONAL SCHOOLS COMMISSIONERS page 6

ASSESSMENT

FOSTERING A COLLABORATIVE CULTURE page 18

IT’S BROKEN, SO LET’S FIX IT page 14

APRIL 2016 @ATL_AMiE

PERFORMING FOR PAY

WHY PERFORMANCE-RELATED PAY IS DAMAGING SCHOOLS, AND THE CHALLENGE FOR LEADERS page 10

We’re cutting down on sugar New sugar reduction programme Strict sugar targets for new products

71% Š 2016 Kellogg Company

16%

10%

www.kelloggsnutrition.com/cuttingsugar

30%

ELM / APRIL 2016

INSIDE 4

Education news including violence in the classroom

6 8

Schools commissioners

The view from Northern Ireland and Wales

10

How performance-related pay affects teachers

14

The perils of primary assessment

17 18

The latest from AMiE

Learning from a collaborative culture

20 22

Q&A: Work-related stress

Teacher recruitment

ELM is the magazine from ATL, 7 Northumberland Street, London WC2N 5RD Tel 020 7930 6441 Fax 020 7930 1359 Email info@amie.org.uk Website www.amie.atl.org.uk Editor Paul Stanistreet ELM is produced and designed for ATL by Think, Capital House, 25 Chapel Street, London NW1 5DH Tel 020 3771 7200 Email info@thinkpublishing.co.uk

Sub-editor Laura Dean-Osgood Art editor George Walker Advertising sales Michael Coulsey or Anthony Bennett 020 3771 7200 Account manager Kieran Paul Managing director Polly Arnold ATL accepts no liability for any insert, display or classified advertisement included in this publication. While every reasonable care is taken to ensure that all advertisers are reliable and reputable, ATL can

give no assurance that it will fulfil its obligation under all circumstances. The views expressed in articles in ELM are the contributors’ own and do not necessarily reflect ATL policy.

Official policy statements issued on behalf of ATL are indicated as such. All rights reserved. Material contained in this publication may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior permission of ATL. Cover: Alix Thomazi

PETER PENDLE AMiE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Welcome When will Government ministers and civil servants stop thinking they know it all and start listening to the professionals?

School leaders have been warning of the gathering storm in teacher recruitment for many months now, yet February’s National Audit Office report, which found that the number of teachers leaving the profession has increased by 11% over three years, seems to have come as a complete surprise to a department “determined to continue raising the status of the profession”.

When local authorities warned that secondary school places for all was “undeliverable”, thanks in large part to the Government’s fixation with free schools, the Department for Education press office dismissed the claims as “scaremongering”.

And when Mary Bousted and others in the sector raised teachers’ concerns about the workload implications of the Government’s primary assessment system, the schools minister, Nick Gibb himself, intervened, calling fears over primary assessment “nonsense” and accusing the “union fearmongers” of misleading teachers.

No one would argue for a moment that standards don’t need to improve. But the Government’s reforms are having the opposite effect.

The furore over baseline assessment is a case in point: a policy introduced in the face of evidence, with minimal consultation with teachers or parents, and guidance announced far too late to allow teachers to plan adequately. Now we hear from teachers implementing the policy that it is not only ineffective, but is actually harming the well-being of their pupils. It’s time ministers involved professionals in the major decisions that affect their work and gave them adequate opportunity to prepare for change. If the Government is serious about “raising the status of the profession”, it could start by showing teachers the respect they deserve.

GET IN TOUCH

www.facebook.com/atlunion @atl_amie

APRIL 2016 | ELM 4

NEED TO KNOW

NEWS IN BRIEF

KEEP UP TO DATE WITH THE LATEST EDUCATION SECTOR NEWS

WILSHAW UNINFORMED Comments by the chief inspector that colleges are in a “mess” and all 16- to 19-year- olds should be taught in schools have been widely condemned within the FE sector as ill-judged and uninformed.

In evidence to the Education Select Committee, Sir Michael Wilshaw told MPs that “the FE sector is in a mess – that’s why the Government is reviewing it at the moment”.

He said that vulnerable learners tend to “get lost” and “do badly” at FE colleges and questioned whether colleges are “delivering what the nation needs”.

Nansi Ellis, assistant general secretary of ATL, said: “Sir Michael Wilshaw should pay a visit to one of the many very successful FE colleges to understand the reality of the fantastic work being done. Teachers and lecturers in FE colleges have had their working lives made almost impossible by huge budget cuts (up to 35%) and unrelenting policy reform.

“Sixty-three per cent of 16- to 18-year-olds choose to study in FE colleges, and many of these have been disengaged with education in schools. FE colleges have developed expertise in working with some of the most vulnerable young people in society and the vocational education provision they offer is vital to improving the life chances of young people as well as meeting the skills needs of employers.”

4 ELM | APRIL 2016

PRIMARY ASSESSMENT PLANS MUST CHANGE CALLS ARE GROWING for the Government to change course on primary assessment.

Teachers and leaders in the schools sector have raised concerns about the impact of the education secretary’s assessment reforms on teacher workload and pupil well-being and questioned their likely usefulness and accuracy.

Despite the Government’s proclaimed intention to tackle excessive teacher workload, Nicky Morgan’s new system for the testing and assessment of key stage 1 and key stage 2 pupils seems set to greatly increase it. The key stage 2 teacher assessment guidance for writing explains that teachers will have to check six different pieces of work for every pupil against up to 33 different statements.

This, AMiE has warned, is likely to mean days of extra work for teachers who are already being submerged beneath a rising tide of demands.

Similar criticisms have been levelled against the Government’s baseline assessment scheme, which assesses four-year-old children in England as they enter reception. Research carried out by the Institute of Education for ATL and the NUT found that many teachers and leaders do not feel baseline assessment accurately reflects what four-year-olds can do. Not only does it provide teachers with little valuable

information about their pupils, they say, it also disrupts their start to school.

Survey respondents also report that baseline assessment is having a significant impact on workload, with 82% saying baseline assessment had increased their workload in the classroom and 84% saying it had increased their workload outside classes.

Guy Roberts-Holmes, one of the Institute of Education researchers who undertook the survey, said that attempting to reduce four-year-olds’ complex learning to a single number through a battery of “simplistic yes/no statements was not only absurd, but deeply disrespectful to young children and their families and teachers”.

ATL and AMiE have criticised both the Government’s changes on primary assessment and the way in which they are being introduced, with little consultation and essential guidance arriving too late to allow teachers to plan adequately. In some cases, ministerial statements have conflicted with official guidelines, creating more confusion within the sector. AMiE supports calls for baseline assessment to be scrapped and for the Government’s plans for primary assessment at key stage 1 and key stage 2 to be suspended, pending a proper evaluation of the changes. See page 14 for more on primary assessment.

ACT TO TACKLE TEACHER SHORTAGE AMiE and ATL have urged ministers to act urgently to tackle the shortage of teachers, following the publication of a National Audit Office (NAO) report, which shows that the Government has missed its recruitment targets for the past four years and must do more to demonstrate how new arrangements are improving the quality of teaching in classrooms.

The report, Training New Teachers, found that between

2011 and 2014 the number of teachers leaving the profession rose by 11 %, while the proportion of those choosing to leave the profession ahead of retirement increased from 64 to 75%. The recorded rate of vacancies and temporarily filled positions more than doubled, from 0.5 to 1.2 %, over the same period.

Increasingly, schools rely on a supply of newly qualified teachers to replace those

opting to leave. In the 12 months to November 2014, nearly 50,000 teachers left the state school sector – the highest leaving rate for 10 years. However, the NAO found that the Department for Education was failing to recruit enough trainees in the majority of secondary subjects, with 14 out of 17 subjects having unfilled training places in 2015-16 compared to just two in 2010-11.

NEED TO KNOW

LEADING AREA REVIEWS UPDATED GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE on FE area reviews sets out some of the options for implementation, including merger, the closure of unviable institutions and collaboration, and stresses the importance of transformational forms of leadership focused on changemanagement and project planning in making the review process work.

Effective implementation of a restructure requires a “different skill set to that required to run an institution which is in a ‘steady state’”, it says, urging colleges to ensure they plan effectively and have in place “the right people with the right skills”. Colleges should review the skill set of their governing body and senior management team at an early stage, the document says.

The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills emphasises the importance of “early engagement between colleges” and “early communication” with LAs and local enterprise partnerships. Colleges will be able to apply for time-limited “restructuring facility funding”

to cover a proportion of the costs of implementation, noting that in most cases, colleges should be able to fund short-term investment through private lending or asset sales.

Mark Wright, AMiE assistant director for leadership and management, said: “The key thing is that the guidance acknowledges a transformational style of leadership is required to deliver successful reviews. This will be quite a demand on leaders who, of necessity, have tended to focus on transactional styles of leadership, with a focus on process management.

“We are set to work with the Education and Training Foundation to help ensure leaders are in the right place to conduct successful restructuring processes flowing from the area reviews. We are also having regular meetings with the civil servants leading the review process. Members should contact us if they have any queries or concerns to raise.” See page 17 for details on how to contact AMiE.

HELP SHAPE AMiE'S FUTURE The benefits of involvement in AMiE’s Council, the forum through which members shape our policy and strategic direction, was to be demonstrated at this year’s annual ATL Conference.

At the time of going to press, a motion from AMiE Council members expressing concern at the trend towards “more hierarchical and corporatised” leadership in schools and colleges, and the “less than adequate care and respect” for staff and learners that resulted from “the thirst to succeed at all costs”, and also which called for the Executive Committee to produce an action plan to address the issues raised, was set to be debated by Conference and in a separate breakout session.

Membership of AMiE’s Council is a great opportunity to ensure your own concerns are reflected in our future advocacy work. If you would like to contribute, you may wish to selfnominate for the new term, which begins on 1 September. Elected Council members attend three Council meetings each year and are involved in the developmental activities of AMiE, as well as contributing to their own professional development. Members particularly value the opportunity to work collaboratively with colleagues from other parts of the sector.

The closing date for nominations is 28 April.

Nomination forms are available from www. amie.atl.org.uk or jpearson@amie.atl.org.uk.

FEARS OVER SCHOOL PLACES THE GOVERNMENT has let children down by failing to plan properly in order to fulfil its “fundamental duty” to ensure a school place for every child, AMiE/ATL has said.

Responding to councils’ concerns that they will not be able to provide all children with secondary school places, Mary Bousted said the Government had known about the increase in pupil numbers for years and ought to have acted. Local authorities complain they are powerless to respond to the growing demand for places, with some arguing that the Government’s fixation with free schools is preventing adequate planning and coordination.

“The Government must restore local authorities’ powers,” Dr Bousted said.

"They know their local area and should be able to respond to local need.

Admissions arrangements also need to be examined urgently. We know that the current situation lets down many children from disadvantaged backgrounds and this will only get worse. The Government must listen to advice and address this situation.”

VIOLENCE IN THE CLASSROOM Forty-three per cent of education staff have had to deal with physical violence from a pupil in the past year, according to a survey by ATL. Seventy-seven per cent of those who have experienced physical violence from a pupil have been pushed or shoved, 52% have been kicked, 50% have had an object thrown at them, and 37% have been punched.

Eighty-nine per cent of teachers and 90% of support staff say they have dealt with challenging or disruptive pupils in the past year. Over a third (35%) of staff said poor pupil behaviour had led them to consider a change of profession.

A similar proportion (36%) thought relentless testing had a negative effect on pupils’ behaviour.

“No member of staff should be subjected to aggressive behaviour, in any form, while doing their job,” said ATL general secretary Mary Bousted. “Many schools do excellent work day in, day out, to help pupils stay on track and to keep schools a safe place for pupils and staff. But schools need support from social and health services, and parents to deal with the complex issues many pupils face due to chaotic home lives or mental health issues.”

APRIL 2016 | ELM 5

P O L I C Y M AT T E R S

A

n Education Select Committee report on the role of regional schools commissioners (RSCs) has raised serious concerns about their scrutiny of academy schools, calling it “confused, fragmented and lacking in transparency”. The MPs found that the role of commissioners was “unclear”, with parents lacking information and confused as to where to report concerns about their child’s school. Despite their growing power and prominence in the sector, the report found there was a “lack of transparency in the way the RSCs operate”. MPs also had concerns about the quality of RSCs’ working relationships with schools, communities, local authorities and Ofsted, noting that the lack of clarity about the role was a barrier to the creation of effective relationships.

Unless these issues are addressed, the report concluded, “RSCs will be seen as undemocratic and opaque”. Nothing short of a “fundamental reassessment of accountability and oversight” is required to ensure coherence in the future, the MPs said.

The committee’s findings should embarrass the Government, highlighting clear flaws in the Department for Education’s (DfE’s) planning and implementation of the RSC system. Neil Carmichael, chair of the Select Committee, said the role of RSCs was a product of the department’s

“acting first, thinking later” approach to policy.

RSCs were introduced to ensure oversight of the growing number of academies. Eight RSCs were appointed in 2014, under the line management of the national schools commissioner, whose own role was described by MPs as “nebulous”. RSCs are responsible for approving and monitoring academies in their region, many of which, previously, operated without any local oversight – as highlighted in last year’s Public Accounts Committee report on school oversight, which noted “significant gaps in the department’s knowledge of performance in individual schools” and urged it to clarify its own expectations of RSCs. There is little to suggest the Government has listened. Overall, RSCs are now responsible for overseeing more than 5,000 academies. This gives commissioners what the committee describes as “an increasingly powerful position in the education system”, at the heart of “an increasingly complicated system of oversight, accountability and inspection”, in which competing systems often leave leaders uncertain as to whose guidance to follow.

This is all extremely damning, not only highlighting the need for a reassessment of school oversight, but also exposing the over-hasty, knee-jerk and overtly ideological approach to policymaking within the DfE. This is particularly true of RSCs, as Mark

Wright, AMiE’s assistant director for leadership and management, notes, since “RSCs are flag-wavers for the Government’s academisation policy”, with a remit to increase the number of academies and keep the programme “looking sparkly”.

Unclear responsibilities “It is clear the DfE has failed to address fundamental questions about the operation of RSCs,” said Mary Bousted, general secretary of ATL. “Schools are subject to multiple, overlapping and confusing accountability systems because Ofsted and the RSCs’ respective roles and responsibilities are unclear and uncoordinated. Parents are confused about who they should contact if they have concerns about their school, and most do not know that RSCs exist, or what their function is.” This, she explained, is because RSCs do not routinely publish their vision for their area, or their work plans, and do not have a consistent approach to their role. The Select Committee noted “too much variation in the approach that RSCs take to their work and the standards they apply”.

The committee also raised concerns about the way in which the impact of RSCs was measured. It recommended that impact “be considered in terms of the improvement in young people’s education and outcomes, rather than merely the volume of academy conversions or other levels of activity.

“CONFUSED, FRAGMENTED AND LACKING IN TRANSPARENCY”

The Education Select Committee issued a damning verdict on regional schools commissioners’ scrutiny of academies. A fundamental review of accountability and oversight arrangements for English schools is overdue WORDS PAUL STANISTREET

6 ELM | APRIL 2016

P O L I C Y M AT T E R S

straightforward. Without effective communication and transparency about aims and purposes, there can be no effective partnership with schools, local authorities and so on. And without that, as the committee suggests, the RSCs will not have the capacity to cope with the planned expansion of their role. More importantly, unless teachers, leaders, parents and communities can understand clearly the rationale for decisions that affect them, there is no reason whatsoever for them to have confidence in those decisions.

ILLUSTRATION: ALIX THOMAZI

“SCHOOLS ARE SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE, CONFUSING ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS BECAUSE OFSTED AND THE RSCS’ ROLES ARE UNCLEAR AND UNCOORDINATED.” This approach would mirror the way in which the effectiveness of local authorities is measured, such as the number of children attending ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ schools.” Wright welcomed the call for RSCs to meet more stringent performance targets “comparable with local authorities and the maintained sector” rather than “much simpler volumetric performance indicators”, such as the number of academy conversions. The test of RSCs should be whether they constitute a better system than local authority intervention, which they have replaced, he said, but warned that “this evidence will be in short supply given the way the department monitors RSC performance”.

The committee called for the review by the Government of key performance indicators (KPIs) for RSCs to eliminate potential conflicts of interest and provide assurance that RSC decisions are made in the interests of school improvement rather than to fulfil targets for the number of academies. Despite claims from the DfE that the impact of RSCs was monitored and that they were

held to account internally, the DfE struggled to provide the committee with data on the performance of RSCs, and was unable to provide any information whatsoever on three of the eight KPIs. The situation, Dr Bousted said, is “deeply concerning given the DfE’s poor track record in holding academies to account over their financial and governance arrangements”.

The committee urged the Government to produce an annual report on the work of RSCs, showing each commissioner’s performance against all of their revised KPIs and targets, and to regularly publish performance data online. RSC decision-making frameworks should be published, it said, and the rather obscure role of their advisory boards (the headteacher boards, which are supposed to hold RSCs to account, but which, according to MPs, have their own accountability issues) should be set out more clearly, to address concerns about lack of transparency. This would also make the jobs of academy leaders, who, too often, have to guess the priorities of their RSC, significantly more

An overstretched structure It should have been clear to Government from the start that a network of eight RSCs was not substantial enough to oversee more than 5,000 academies.

As Wright noted, the structure is already “overstretched” and likely to become more so as the mission of RSCs expands, for example, through its emerging role in the area-review process. Competing demands and deteriorating finances put the FE commissioner at similar risk of being overstretched, making a drift towards crisis management, for both FE and school commissioners, likely unless the system is placed on a more sustainable footing.

This weakness, in the case of RSCs, has been compounded by the design of the RSC regions and the lack of coordination between them. MPs suggest introducing a single RSC for London (the capital is currently divided between three regions) and ensuring RSC regions match Ofsted regions.

Their most important recommendation, however, is for a fundamental reassessment of accountability and oversight of English schools, including a re-examination of accountability of RSCs themselves.

As Carmichael argued, the DfE “needs to take a long, hard look at this picture once the number of academies stabilises, and design a more coherent system for the future that ensures proper accountability for schools”.

This is the very least we should expect of institutions in receipt of public funds, but it is even more critical when it is the education of our children that is at stake.

The present lack of accountability and transparency is in large part the result of the Government’s unseemly, blinkered rush to turn all schools into academies. While the committee’s recommendations may not offer a long-term solution to the problem, they are plainly a step in the right direction.

APRIL 2016 | ELM 7

COMMENT: WALES

Put education first WHICHEVER PARTY WINS, MAY’S WELSH ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS WILL HAVE A HUGE IMPACT ON THE EDUCATION SYSTEM IN WALES

A

s the sun sets on the Welsh Assembly’s fourth term, Cardiff Bay is shifting to election mode, and, in education at least, everything seems very much up for grabs.

In January, education minister Huw Lewis announced he would not be standing for election on 5 May. This means that whichever party is in Government, there will be a new minister in charge of education in Wales after the election.

The education profession will be watching the National Assembly elections very closely. This is your chance to influence how education will look during the Assembly’s next four-year term. That’s why we’re asking politicians in Wales to support the education sector and join our campaign to Put Education First.

We have seen plenty of changes to the education landscape since 2011, and, indeed, since education became a devolved matter in 1999. During this Assembly, for example, the Welsh Labour Government’s budget deals with the Lib Dems, and Plaid Cymru have introduced the pupil deprivation grant. There have been many new initiatives, not to mention the creation of new qualifications regulator Qualifications Wales, the Education (Wales) Act 2014 and new requirements for the registration of support workers. There have been big challenges too, not least from public spending reductions, with FE, in particular, experiencing what have been described as “savage cuts”.

Even if we remain on our current course, there will be significant changes during the next Assembly term. Initial teacher training could soon look very different in the wake of former DfE director John Furlong’s report. The curriculum is set to change radically following the Successful Futures report from Graham Donaldson. And we are promised reform to continued professional development

“THERE HAVE BEEN BIG CHALLENGES, NOT LEAST FROM PUBLIC SPENDING REDUCTIONS, WITH FE EXPERIENCING ‘SAVAGE CUTS’.”

8 ELM | APRIL 2016

COLUMNIST MARY VAN DEN HEUVEL POLICY OFFICER, ATL CYMRU (CPD) entitlement. What will happen to student grants in the higher education sector is another hot topic for debate. But with a new education minister come May, all this has the potential to change.

May is your chance to vote and have your say.

To influence what education commitments parties make, please use your Put Education First postcards to share your concerns. Send them back to us so we can make sure Assembly Members (AMs) are aware of the issues you face.

Members have shared concerns so far; let us know yours. Are you worried about workload? Are you considering leaving? Is supply teaching not paying enough? Has your college budget been cut? Are you threatened with redundancy? Can you get enough CPD? Don’t, however, be afraid to raise other issues, either with us or directly with your AMs. Above all, support our campaign to Put Education First.

You can help highlight the challenges to the education profession in Wales. This is a crucially important election. All 60 Assembly seats are up for grabs. About half the AMs elected in 2011 were new to the Assembly. The Assembly has been used to 30 Labour AMs, with the other 30 made up of Conservatives, Plaid Cymru and Lib Dems. But with 10 Labour AMs choosing to stand down, and opinion polls suggesting UKIP are likely to win seats, this could change. Help us make sure the next Assembly really does Put Education First.

3 MORE INFO If you have questions, please email puteducationfirst@atl.org.uk or join the conversation on Twitter #PutEducationFirst

COMMENT: NORTHERN IRELAND

Give teachers a pay rise HIGHER PAY, NOT PERFORMANCE PAY, IS CRITICAL TO IMPROVING EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS IN NORTHERN IRELAND

COLUMNIST MARK LANGHAMMER DIRECTOR OF ATL NORTHERN IRELAND

T

eacher pay talks in Northern Ireland have broken down.

Faced with a Government offer of a one per cent pay increase for 2016–17, the end to automatic incremental progression and a movement towards performancerelated pay (PRP), negotiations were always going to be difficult.

The Northern Ireland Teachers Council (NITC), which represents the five teaching unions, made a proposal in July 2015, the central element of which was a three per cent pay increase on all scales. NITC proposed negotiating away automatic progression in return for “progression through CPD”. This avoided PRP, suggesting, instead, a fair, independent, appeal system. Our proposal lay outside Stormont’s one per cent limit but, critically, recognised the contractual “buy out” involved.

The key thing for ATL and AMiE was to avoid the imposition of PRP. The revised Northern Ireland pay policy, issued in February, while stressing a desire to move away from automatic, “time-served” progression, does not now suggest further movement towards PRP. The AMiE/ATL campaign against PRP has, we believe, had an effect.

In our advocacy to Government ministers and political parties, we highlighted research from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and others, which shows that PRP does not improve educational standards.

Furthermore, we argued, PRP distorts teaching and narrows opportunity for students. Teachers working within PRP contexts tend to focus on matters relevant to their pay at the expense of

other matters. It steers teachers towards the easiestto-teach classes rather than the hardest to help.

Performance-related pay does not motivate teachers, but it does disrupt effective school improvement. It encourages teachers to work in isolation, rather than pooling their expertise. Schools should be learning communities. Good teachers build their students’ achievement on foundations laid by other staff. Imposing PRP damages collaboration within and between schools. Better surely to focus on the lessons of proven successes.

The quality of teaching cannot be measured, quantified or ranked in the way PRP demands.

Teaching is a professional skill rather than an exact science. While Northern Ireland has a surplus of well-qualified teachers, experience elsewhere shows that PRP will make it harder to recruit the best.

AMiE school leaders have stressed that the bureaucratic burden involved in PRP is simply unsustainable. School leaders and governors will find themselves involved in lengthy discussions and time-consuming appeals, diverting time away from improving learning and teaching.

We also argued that PRP could turn the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) into the Executive’s “pay police”. If ETI inspectors are expected to look at the relationship between teaching in the school and pay progression, and school leaders are required to justify pay progression decisions, this will undermine the already tenuous level of trust between schools and ETI. Linking pay to performance, in practice, is arbitrary, unfair and unlikely to motivate or improve outcomes for students. What does work is paying all teachers better. Another multi-nation OECD study in 2011 concluded that “higher pay leads to improved pupil performance” and that the highestperforming countries have well-paid teachers whose status in society is high. PRP will undermine professional cooperation and hamper school improvement. It will promote inequality and make pay determination costlier and more bureaucratic.

Getting PRP off the table is a success, but after months of negotiation, school employers offered only one per cent plus continued payment of increments – legally binding in any case. The offer was dressed up as representing a 2.13 per cent uplift.

In reality, taking account of increased living costs, national insurance and pension costs, the proposal is a real-terms pay cut. The offer is derisory to the profession and we could not accept it on your behalf.

APRIL 2016 | ELM 9

F E AT U R E

Unfair, unnecessary & unworkable Performance-related pay in schools is adding to teachers’ workloads and reducing their pay, according to a survey of members. It also poses significant challenges for school leaders WORDS PAUL STANISTREET ILLUSTRATION ALIX THOMAZI

ince September 2014, increases in school teachers’ pay have been dependent on their perceived success in the classroom.

Setting out his plan for the introduction of performance-related pay (PRP), the then education secretary, Michael Gove, boasted that linking teachers’ pay to performance would “make teaching a more attractive career and a more rewarding job” and give schools “greater flexibility to respond to specific 10 ELM | APRIL 2016

conditions and reward their best teachers”. The reality, as it turns out, has been rather different.

A survey of more than 10,000 teachers, conducted by ATL and the NUT, found that PRP is adding to teachers’ workloads, with 58% of respondents saying theirs had increased.

It also found that many teachers are being denied progression on their pay scales under the new system. More than one-third of teachers applying for progression to the upper pay scale (35.5%) or eligible for progression to the upper pay scale (39.4%) did not receive progression, while almost one in 10 teachers eligible for progression on the main scale, where progression had previously been automatic, did not progress (8.2%). Almost nine out of 10 teachers (87%) denied progression felt the decision about their pay progression was unfair. Denial of progression was significantly higher for black teachers and part-time teachers, who are more likely to be women, than for others.

Many other teachers are encountering delays in finding out whether they will receive a pay increase. Twenty per cent of teachers eligible for pay progression in September 2015 were still waiting in December to find out whether they would get their pay increase, while 19% of those who had been notified had been

told they would not get pay progression.

The survey also indicated that Government advice to schools, which stresses that there should be “no surprises” in pay decisions, is being routinely disregarded, with 89% of teachers denied progression saying they had had no warning that might happen.

Over half (51%) of all teachers say that PRP has undermined the value of appraisal for professional development purposes, while just under half (43%) of all teachers – whether eligible for progression or not – say their school’s pay policy is unfair. So much for making teaching a “more rewarding” profession.

Major concerns None of this should come as a surprise.

There were major concerns about the shift to PRP from the outset, as well as plenty of evidence to suggest that PRP would not have the desired results.

A study of PRP in teaching by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development concluded that “the overall picture reveals no relationship between average student performance in a country and the use of PRP schemes”. Furthermore, there is no evidence that PRP improves educational standards or motivates teachers. In fact, what evidence there is suggests the opposite. Performance-related pay

F E AT U R E

APRIL 2016 | ELM 11

F E AT U R E

3 TEN REASONS WHY PERFORMANCERELATED PAY IS NOT WORKING IN SCHOOLS

20%

of teachers eligible for pay progression in September 2015 were still waiting in December to find out whether they would get that pay increase.

19%

of eligible teachers who had been notified, however, had been told they would not get pay progression.

More than one-third

of teachers applying for progression to the upper pay scale (35.5%) or eligible for progression on the upper pay scale (39.4%) did not receive progression, while almost...

1 in 10

eligible for progression on the main scale, where progression has previously been automatic, did not progress (8.2%).

Denial of progression was significantly higher for black/black-British teachers (30%) and for part-time teachers (24%) than for other teachers.

89%

of those denied progression said they had had no warning they might not progress, despite Government guidance that there should be "no surprises" in pay decisions.

87%

of teachers denied progression thought the decision about their pay progression was unfair.

12 ELM | APRIL 2016

tends to narrow the school curriculum because assessment of teacher performance is overly dominated by pupil performance in written tests. This results in an approach to learning based on test preparation, rather than the real educational needs of children.

Perhaps the biggest problem with PRP for teachers, though, is the assumption that good teaching is something that can be straightforwardly observed and measured. This is quite plainly not the case. You can’t assess teacher performance as you would that of a worker on a production line, in terms of units produced over a given period of time. The Sutton Trust argues that schools should use a combination of approaches to gain a full picture of teacher effectiveness and never assess teachers on the basis of data from a single year. Given that any framework used to evaluate good teaching will, inevitably, be open to interpretation, there is evidently also a danger that cash-strapped schools will use their new flexibilities to suppress the pay of teachers, however well they perform.

The inadequacy of the evidence on which decisions about pay progression are based is bound not only to create widespread resentment among staff, but also to leave headteachers open to accusations of unfairness and discriminatory treatment.

Challenges for leaders The challenges for leaders in this area are enormous. The new regime adds significantly to the workload of school leaders, with heads and governors having to devote sizeable chunks of their time to discussion of pay progression, diverting them from the main business of teaching and learning. At the same time, PRP can have a distorting effect on school culture – encouraging teaching staff to hoard their skills and experience and to focus on appearing to do a good job rather than simply doing one – that good leaders will want to resist. Teachers who relish the challenge of working with a difficult or low-achieving class may well find themselves thinking again, swayed by the potential career benefits of teaching better-performing, less-demanding classes. It is clear that, in some cases, PRP is creating a culture of mistrust, resentment and competition, inimical

to the kind of collaborative, expertisesharing school communities that research shows are conducive to good teaching and learning.

“Some senior leaders have welcomed the flexibility that PRP brings, but they need to carefully monitor the performance of PRP itself,” said Mark Wright, AMiE’s assistant director for leadership and management. “We see too many cases where the ‘dis-benefits’ far outweigh the supposed benefits.

Leaders really do need to take a step back and consider whether PRP is, on balance, doing more harm than good. Is it leading to improved teaching and learning across the whole school? Some leaders have perhaps ducked the issue by using funding pressures as an excuse for saying that no one is getting a rise. It has certainly contributed to the problem of excessive workloads for both teachers and leaders. On that basis alone, it is an area of policy in need of review. In lieu of this, leaders need to evaluate the effectiveness of PRP at their school and seek to make changes where there are a few winners at the cost of many demotivated losers in the flawed competition for a pay rise.”

Highly punitive Robin Bevan, headteacher at Southend High School for Boys, agreed: “Nationally, teachers’ pay arrangements have become a shambles. This is a consequence of a deregulated pay scale coupled with a growing crisis in recruitment: where supply doesn’t meet demand then wages will rise irrespective of quality. Alongside this is the reality that most teachers are effectively underpaid by comparison with other graduate professions with a similar workload, so any attempt to curtail pay progression, on the basis of performance, is highly punitive.

This is, of course, exacerbated in those parts of the country where the cost of living is higher.

“So, it matters that annual performance review and pay are connected with an absolutely transparent system and ‘no surprises’. At this school, we look to assess the overall contribution of each colleague and steer away from isolated objectives measured in terms of pupil outcomes. The question is not whether the teacher’s class secured a particular set of grades or a certain

F E AT U R E

More than three-quarters of teachers (76%) denied progression, however, saw no point in appealing.

More than half of all teachers say PRP has undermined the value of appraisal for professional development purposes (51%) and has increased their workload (58%).

One-third

of all teachers (34%) either said their school does not have a written policy on pay progression or did not know if one existed.

But almost half of all teachers (43%) - whether or not they were eligible for or received pay progression – said their school’s pay policy is unfair.

measure of improvement; the question is whether the teacher did all that might reasonably be expected of a professional, in their context and with their experience, to achieve the best outcomes. For us, this becomes a simple test for annual progression. Has the teacher fulfilled those reasonable professional expectations (across the categories described in the professional standards)? If pay progression is to be withheld, then the teacher must have been informed well in advance by their line manager of which professional expectation is not being met. This is not based on pupil outcomes, although it may be informed by data, but on the classroom duties and practices of the teacher.

“Likewise, for progression within the upper range of the pay scale, we depend essentially on self-assessment. A teacher should know if their contribution meets our expectations for each of the upper pay spine points. It should be clear what they must do if that progression is not awarded. When pay progression has been declined, it is always made clear to the colleague precisely what aspect of their professional contribution needs to be developed.”

Transparency and fairness Another headteacher, who wished to remain anonymous, also painted a picture of a sector in which leaders were struggling to make the best of a flawed approach. Transparency and fairness were key. “We are complying with Government requirements, but trying not to let it damage the school,” he said. “I have, for example, amended targets and made pay progression dependent on them, but I have not yet prevented anyone progressing up a scale. Funding pressures are intense, but I think that if we don't treat our staff fairly then we’ll be in even worse problems.

Governors are

pretty understanding of this – they do obviously scrutinise pay decisions, but not in an aggressive manner.

“My view is that so long as a teacher has met their targets, they should get pay progression; and if they are in danger of not meeting them, they should get ample, clear warning. Performance issues should be addressed with amended targets where necessary, but then necessary support as well. I also don’t believe in numerical exam score targets for teaching staff.”

These headteachers are working hard to deal with the issues posed by PRP and to ensure teachers are treated fairly and with respect, even if that means swimming against the tide of Government policy. The survey findings show that not all school leaders have been able to do this. This is unsurprising given the funding pressures they face, the impact of Government policy on staff morale and the ability of schools to recruit and retain staff. ATL and the NUT are setting out these objections to ministers and calling for the removal of PRP. Our education system is underfunded by international standards and our teachers are underpaid. The evidence shows that the most effective route to improved standards is to improve the pay and conditions of teachers. If the Government is serious about raising standards, making teaching a more attractive profession and boosting the morale of the teaching workforce, it will pay teachers more and take serious steps to reduce their excessive workload. Creating unnecessary uncertainty about teacher pay progression is the last thing teachers and school leaders need, and will only serve to exacerbate the growing teacher recruitment and retention crisis. In the end, it is children and young people who will pay the price.

“Just under half of all teachers say their school's pay policy is unfair.

So much for making teaching a ‘more rewarding’ profession.”

APRIL 2016 | ELM 13

B

aseline assessment has come under intense scrutiny over the past few months, with school teachers and leaders voicing concerns about the accuracy and usefulness of the tests, and the welfare of the reception-year children who must sit them. A growing number are calling for the tests to be scrapped altogether, dubbing them harmful and disruptive. Concerns over the comparability of the different assessments schools must choose from has further impugned the workability and likely effectiveness of this costly policy.

The baseline assessment scheme, which assesses four-year-old children in England as they enter reception, has been piloted in thousands of schools this year ahead of wider roll-out in September.

However, research carried out by the UCL Institute of Education for ATL and the NUT found that many teachers and leaders do not feel baseline assessment accurately reflects what four-year-olds can do, and say it disrupts their start to school. As well as being time-consuming and distracting, it provides them with little valuable information about their pupils, they say. One teacher called it “another assault on a play-based curriculum”. Another said that, “this

kind of poorly considered policy makes me want to leave the profession”.

According to the research, 60% of teachers and school leaders do not think the baseline assessments accurately reflect children’s attainment. They feel four-year-olds are too young for testing, particularly in the first weeks of school when they are getting used to new routines and getting to know new adults. Fifty-nine per cent of teachers say baseline assessment has disrupted children’s start at school. Only eight per cent think baseline assessment is a fair and accurate way to assess children, while only seven per cent think it a good way to measure a school’s performance, citing concerns over accuracy and the variability of children’s patterns of development in primary school.

Teachers also expressed concern about the impact of baseline assessment on the relationships they were attempting to build with their pupils during this critical settling-in time.

They also said it was having a significant impact on workload, with 82% saying baseline assessment had increased their workload in the classroom and 84% saying it had increased their workload outside classes. The extra work generated includes training, time to make judgements, discussions with colleagues and inputting data.

Seventy-five per cent say baseline assessment is an additional burden on reception teachers, which is a serious problem when teachers are already struggling with excessive workloads.

Dr Guy Roberts-Holmes, one of the Institute of Education researchers who undertook the research, said: “Reception teachers already carry out thorough and meaningful baseline assessments in authentic and meaningful play-based contexts. They use these detailed and careful observational assessments for tracking and development. So, reception teachers are frustrated that their professional expertise in assessing young children is not respected by this new baseline. They also resent having to pay private companies for accountability training and analysis.”

Attempting to reduce four-year-olds’ complex learning to a single number through a battery of “simplistic yes/no statements” was, he said, “not only absurd, but deeply disrespectful to young children and their families and teachers”. The same belittling disrespect runs through the Government’s approach to primary testing, for which the flawed baseline assessment is intended to be the starting point. It can be seen in the education secretary’s new system for testing and assessment of key stage 1 and key stage 2 pupils and in particular

It’s broken, so let’s fix it

BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF FOUR-YEAR-OLDS IS INACCURATE, INEFFECTIVE AND HARMFUL TO PUPILS. IT’S TIME THE GOVERNMENT LISTENED TO THE SCHOOLS SECTOR AND CHANGED ITS APPROACH TO PRIMARY TESTING WORDS PAUL STANISTREET

14 ELM | APRIL 2016

ILLUSTRATION: ALIX THOMAZI

PRIMARY ASSESSMENT

PRIMARY ASSESSMENT

in the key stage 2 teacher assessment guidance for writing, which informed teachers that they would have to check six different pieces of work for every pupil against up to 33 different statements. This not only indicates a significant increase in the workload burden on Year 6 teachers, but makes something of a mockery of the Government’s claim that tackling excessive teacher workload is a “top priority”. It is likely to mean days of extra work for teachers who are already being submerged beneath a rising tide of demands (to which new “robust tests” at the end of key stage 1 may soon be added). Like other changes introduced by the Department for Education, it was announced in the face of teacher objections, with minimal consultation and with essential guidance

arriving far too late to allow teachers to plan adequately.

Lee Card, deputy head at Cherry Orchard Primary School in Worcester, said the “mutable nature of Government ‘guidance’ in the past 12 months” was fuelling concerns about workload and assessment. “Teachers are, in the main, compliant souls. We recognise that we are ‘in service’ to a great many bodies, from the Government and Ofsted to our parents and pupils. We ask only for clear, reasonable and informed guidance on our statutory responsibilities. The chaotic series of events surrounding primary assessment shows we are some way from achieving this. Among the 33 emails I received late Friday afternoon were three from the gov.uk alert system, sent at 4pm.

The subject lines led me to believe that these were links to further ‘updates’ on the key stage 1 and key stage 2 national curriculum assessments. Not for the first time, we were left scratching our heads. The ARA (assessment and reporting arrangements) documents, designed to offer clarification and guidance on statutory requirements, were, in fact,

“SIXTY PER CENT OF TEACHERS AND SCHOOL LEADERS DO NOT THINK THE BASELINE ASSESSMENTS ACCURATELY REFLECT CHILDREN’S ATTAINMENT.”

now giving dates for teacher assessment moderation that conflicted with the much-maligned ‘clarification’ letter by Nick Gibb in February. After a couple of hours of confusion and anger on Twitter, someone spotted that ‘the guidance will be updated shortly to reflect the new date’. Three emails to inform us of an update that has yet to be, but shortly will be, concerning information that we have actually known about for three weeks – the latest incarnation of indifferent ineptitude from those to whom we are in service. It’s indefensible.”

A number of other ATL and AMiE members have voiced concerns about the Government’s approach to primary assessment. One primary school headteacher expressed her “serious concerns” about “the welfare of children who are being made to sit hours of tests”, saying she feared they were being “set up to fail”. The spelling component of the tests, she said, would be “in direct breach of the Equality Act in relation to dyslexic pupils”. Like many others in the sector, she is talking seriously about the prospect of boycotting this year’s national tests.

“I have always said that I would never strike when it has a negative impact on the pupils, but teachers have to be given the opportunity to voice their strong objection to the disgraceful treatment of our young people.”

There is a great deal wrong with the Government’s approach to primary assessment, which is why schools minister Nick Gibb’s glib accusation that the Government’s critics were merely “scaremongering” is likely to come back to haunt him. Teachers, pupils and parents deserve better. Parents, at the very least, deserve to know their fouryear-old children are being tested in this way. Teachers’ and school leaders’ views need to be listened to and taken seriously.

It’s now clear that the Government would be making a big mistake if it pushed ahead with baseline assessment. It will not produce fair and accurate results, teachers and parents do not want it and it is likely to have a negative impact on children’s start to school and their relationships with their teachers. It’s time the Government changed course.

Ministers don’t always know best.

APRIL 2016 | ELM 15

R E S OUR CE S/C ON TA C T S

ABOUT AMiE

HOW TO PLAN MEETINGS

M

eetings are part of working life, but they can also steal time.

Pointless meetings, or meetings that are not as effective as they could be, are a common complaint among ATL and AMiE members, who have engaged in their thousands with our work-life campaign, It’s about time.

In fact, meetings are commonly cited as adding hugely to the workload burden.

In one school in the London area, an ATL rep met with members and asked them to write down the biggest causes of excessive workload. A table was then compiled of the issues raised at the meeting, and members were asked to come up with solutions. Both the problems and the solutions were taken to school leaders, and a leadership organising group, made up of assistant heads, was set up.

A number of issues are now being tackled by the assistant heads, including coordinating emails sent to staff so they are not bombarded with requests for information or overlapping in what they are asking for, and carrying out a review of meetings to look at their purpose and whether they are effective.

Conducting a similar review in your workplace could be one visible and tangible way of addressing workload.

See www.atl.org.uk/abouttime for more guidance on effective meetings.

Here’s a starter for 10.

Do you need to have the meeting?

Firstly, take stock by reviewing your meetings and asking: is the meeting necessary, or is it a habit?

What would happen if this meeting was not held? Could the meeting have been shorter? Once you have reviewed your meetings, there are ways to make sure those you need to have are as effective as possible.

Ask yourself these questions Does the meeting have a specific and defined purpose? Should technology be in the room? When people bring smartphones or iPads into the room, they may not be focusing on the meeting or contributing to it.

Tips for meetings Make sure your meeting has a clear agenda, and then stick to it. Keep to time and make sure actions are agreed and circulated promptly – and make sure actions are followed up.

3 MORE INFO

For more guidance on meetings, plus help and advice on how to carry out other tasks efficiently, including administration and marking, visit www.atl.org.uk/ abouttime.

LEADERSHIP COURSES FOR MEMBERS AMiE has a UK-wide network of elected representatives and members of staff who can help you with your queries.

For more information on your regional contact and their contact details, please see amie.atl.org.uk/ about-amie/your-union/contact-us.asp. Here is a selection of course names and dates.

GETTING THE NEXT FIVE PER CENT

London

London

15 July

17 June

LEADING OTHERS

CREATING A HIGH-PERFORMANCE TEAM London

MANAGING PERFORMANCE THROUGH CRITICAL CONVERSATIONS

24 May

Manchester 23 May Sheffield 21 June

For more information on these courses and to book, please see amie.atl.org.uk/join-in/cpd/overview.asp.

We are the only union to represent managers and leaders across the entire education sector, providing: • help, advice and support: a confidential helpline, online guidance and a network of professional and experienced regional officers to support you in your role as both an employee, and as a manager or leader • excellent personal and professional development: accredited training and development opportunities for you in your role as a manager or leader • a voice in the education debate: an opportunity to influence policy and get involved in issues that affect you • publications and resources: a range of free publications focused on contemporary leadership issues • more for your membership: discounts and rewards for you and your family on a range of products and services.

And, with 50% off your first year’s membership*, there’s never been a better time to join AMiE. Join online at amie.atl.org.uk/join or call 0845 057 7000 (local call).

Let AMiE take you further.

WHO CAN JOIN? Colleges: AMiE welcomes managers at all levels in FE colleges, sixth-form colleges and adult education providers.

Schools: We warmly invite school headteachers (including those in academies), deputy headteachers, assistant headteachers, acting headteachers, bursars and business managers to join AMiE. We also have many members in national organisations, training organisations and other areas of the education sector, including HE.

CONTACTING AMiE AMiE 35 The Point, Market Harborough Leicestershire LE16 7QU Tel: 01858 461110 Fax: 01858 461366 amie.atl.org.uk National helpline Tel: 01858 464171 Email: helpline@amie.atl.org.uk David Green Assistant director of AMiE (employment services) Tel: 01858 411540 Mobile: 07711 929043 Email: dgreen@amie.atl.org.uk Mark Wright Assistant director of AMiE (leadership and management) Tel: 020 7782 1530 Mobile: 07436 805330 Email: mwright@amie.atl.org.uk For membership queries, please contact the membership department on 020 7782 1602 or email: membership@atl.org.uk. *TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLY, VISIT AMIE.ATL.ORG.UK FOR FULL SUBSCRIPTION DETAILS, MEMBERSHIP ELIGIBILITY AND FURTHER INFORMATION.

APRIL 2016 | ELM 18

MASTERCLASS

Staying the course

FUNDING PRESSURES AND CONTINUOUS REFORM MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR IMPROVING COLLEGES, SUCH AS SOUTH ESSEX COLLEGE, TO MAINTAIN THEIR PROGRESS. CREATING A SUPPORTIVE, COLLABORATIVE CULTURE FOR STAFF IS ESSENTIAL, SAYS PRINCIPAL ANGELA O’DONOGHUE WORDS PAUL STANISTREET

A

ngela O’Donoghue joined South Essex College as principal five years ago, shortly after it had been formed through the merger of South East Essex College and Basildon and Thurrock College. She inherited an institution that had “taken its eye off the ball” in terms of teaching and learning. “Mergers are hugely destabilising to an organisation,” she explains. “People focus on getting the processes right and getting the merged organisations to work together. Managers here worked incredibly hard to get a new structure in place, to align all the processes, getting the right staff in post and making sure the management structure was right, all the things you have to do in a merger. But that also meant that teaching and learning was not the main focus any more and results began to drop. That has happened in the majority of mergers in the sector. Success rates have dropped because attention is on process

18 ELM | APRIL 2016

rather than what is going on in the classroom. I’m not convinced the area review process has understood this yet.”

When O’Donoghue became principal she made it clear that teaching, learning and assessment were the “core business” of the college. She introduced a “learning framework” to support the development of high-quality, innovative practice in the classroom, strengthened the college’s approach to performance management and provided relevant training and resources to teaching staff. The college has used its Moodle platform to share good practice and other material useful in the classroom. Central to the improvement process has been the creation of a community of “advanced practitioners”, whose role it is to support improvements in teaching and learning across the organisation. “Advanced practitioners are highly skilled professionals who have demonstrated over a period of time that they are very good teachers,” O’Donoghue explains. “They work with individuals on

a one-to-one basis, not just people who are underperforming, but those who need support to become outstanding teachers.

That’s what you need to do if you want a really good organisation that excels in teaching and learning. They also provide support to outstanding teachers. For me, being a teacher is a process through which you are continually learning. You can always improve. Even if you are classed as an outstanding teacher, you can still get better. The very poor ones may need more support in order to step up, but it’s important that the advanced practitioners work with a whole range of people across the organisation.”

The aim, O’Donoghue says, is to encourage teachers to become “selfevaluative. The idea is not for the mentor to tell the teacher how to do it, but to help them look at themselves and identify what they need to do in order to improve.

That way, it becomes their improvement.

I want self-evaluative teachers because they are the ones who will talk to each

MASTERCLASS

“I’M A GREAT BELIEVER IN BEING VERY HONEST...

PEOPLE RESPECT YOU MORE IF YOU TELL THE TRUTH RATHER THAN WRAPPING IT UP IN COTTON WOOL.”

Angela O’Donoghue, Principal of South Essex College

other about how they are going to improve. If they all know they have got to improve, it promotes peer support and people are encouraged to go into one another’s classrooms to look at what they are doing. That has had a big impact.”

At the same time, O’Donoghue has tried to minimise the administrative burden on teaching staff, streamlining systems to allow them to be able to concentrate on lesson planning and marking. “One thing we’ve done is to ensure the data teachers need is at their fingertips,” she says. “If they are having a tutorial with a student, they can go onto the system and access all the relevant information about that student: what their attendance rate is, overall and per class, where they are with assignments, where they are up to on handing in work and what their marks are in relation to that work. It will also identify if they have any additional support needs. It enables the teacher to quickly analyse where the student is up to so they can start to talk through with the student how they can improve. The system has helped make things easier for teachers.”

The changes the college has introduced have resulted in significant improvements in teaching and learning, O’Donoghue says, with progress recognised in last May’s Ofsted report, which praised, in

particular, the role of the restructured management team in raising standards and managing staff performance.

Teachers, the report said, “value highly the individual coaching and mentoring they receive from practitioners”. The change journey is far from complete and is made more difficult by the external challenges the college faces. “The main challenge is the financial constraints we are under as an FE college. We are in a position where we have to make savings year on year. That impacts on a whole range of things, including teaching hours.

The increase in delivery of English and maths is another massive challenge.”

A further challenge, O’Donoghue says, is to maintain staff morale when “everything keeps changing”.

“We haven’t just got area reviews coming on board, we have also got changes in what we have to deliver.

We have the introduction of study programmes and the English and maths delivery, and we’ve got changes in qualifications, with a lot of the qualifications specs changing. We’ve got massive changes in apprenticeships, with the employer levy and money for apprenticeships going to employers, and employers then buying back from us, which is a huge change. Then there are the trailblazers where the specs of

apprenticeships are changing based on employer needs. It is endless. If there were one or two things happening, you’d think, OK we can cope, but for teachers, things are changing on every front. That is a huge pressure.” The area review process is another potentially “destabilising” factor for teachers, she says, creating uncertainty among staff, some of whom will await the outcome with trepidation.

The only way to mitigate the impact of these uncertainties, O’Donoghue argues, is to “keep people as up to date as you possibly can...I’m a great believer in being very honest with people and saying, ‘look, we’ve got an issue here, this is what we are going to have to do, these are the risks’. People respect you more if you tell them the truth rather than wrapping it up in cotton wool. They appreciate being kept in the loop so they can make their own decisions and form their own judgements.” Openness is key to the management culture O’Donoghue has tried to create, with managers at all levels now much more accountable and much more accessible to staff, and everybody clear as to what is expected of them and what the focus of their work should be: the students. Her aim is to foster collaboration across the organisation, with teachers and departments sharing experience and advanced practitioners identifying good practice and bringing together staff who can learn from each other. Where good practice is identified, whether through student feedback or the advanced practitioners, it is shared with the teacher. “One of the targets I set myself was to be able to walk around and hear teachers talking about teaching and learning,” she says. “That didn’t happen before, but it is starting to now.”

APRIL 2016 | ELM 19

ADVICE

Stress in the workplace

What can leaders and managers do to prevent incidences of work-related stress and promote a culture of well-being?

A member of my staff has just returned from a period of sickness due to work-related stress, and has settled back into work very well. However, this has made me realise how unprepared we are for dealing with stress. As headteacher, I would like to try to prevent or reduce the likelihood of anyone else being affected.

What steps can I take?

Work-related stress is a serious condition that can have a profound effect on individuals, as well as a damaging impact on organisations. Putting in place policies and practices to prevent stress, as part of a wider well-being strategy, is therefore a wise and practical approach.

Work-related stress is a health, safety and well-being issue, and should be tackled in much the same way as other safety issues. This means assessing risk and introducing effective control measures. But any such approach requires a clear commitment from senior management. If you are not fully behind the process, or prepared to act on your findings, the confidence of your staff will be undermined.

To that end, it is vital to ensure you hold regular, meaningful meetings with union reps to develop a workable policy; and that you make sure staff at all levels are fully engaged in the process.

20 ELM | APRIL 2016

In terms of risk, you should not only assess obvious physical hazards. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) identifies six primary sources of stress in a workplace. If you can manage these effectively, incidences of work-related stress should be greatly reduced: • the demands made on staff, such as an excessive workload • the degree of control over how work is organised, or the physical conditions of where it takes place • the nature of relationships between staff, eg how is conflict resolved?

Is there a blame culture? Is there any bullying?

• the support given to staff, eg are concerns dealt with effectively?

Do managers recognise good work from their team members?

• the role of individuals in the organisation • how change is managed, eg is there effective consultation?

Once you have assessed risk, you will need to introduce control measures that minimise the chances of staff being affected by stress. A sensible approach is to look at each of the six areas above, and, with input from union reps, work out the steps that can be taken. For more information on this, see our employment relations leaflet,

“A STRESS POLICY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF AN OVERALL STRATEGY TO PROMOTE WORKPLACE WELL-BEING.”

Work-related Stress (ER10) and the HSE web page on the management standards for avoiding stress and on risk assessments.

When developing your policy on prevention, remember to include systems for training, raising awareness, reporting, monitoring and policy review. Remember, too, that, to succeed, the policy must apply to everyone, so you should lead by example.

As I’m sure you know, a major cause of stress in schools and colleges is workload. Currently, the union is running a major campaign called It’s about time, which aims to empower our members and colleagues to find ways to tackle the issue, to reduce hours and reduce unnecessary workload.

Please take a look at our website and encourage your staff to do so.

As noted earlier, a stress policy should be considered as part of an overall strategy to promote workplace wellbeing. This means finding out what needs to change, and creating a culture where staff are motivated, inspired and safe. Again, this requires a genuine commitment from your leadership team, as well as effective engagement with staff and their representatives.

We’ve looked at well-being in previous issues of ELM, including in ‘When it comes to staff happiness, there’s no such thing as a quick fix’ (October 2014).

You can find out more in our booklet.

3 MORE INFO Well-being: Leading and Managing a Well Workplace and Work-related Stress (ER10) are available free from the resource bank of our website: www.amie.atl. org.uk. Find out more about our workload campaign at www.atl.org.uk/abouttime, and get information about risk assessment and work-related stress from www.hse.gov.uk/risk and www.hse.gov.uk/stress.

U N I O N M AT T E R S

CAUGHT IN A WIDER NET The Treasury has extended its proposals for a public-sector exit payment cap, meaning yet more members will be affected WORDS PETER PENDLE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF AMIE

L

ast December, I wrote about the Conservatives’ manifesto commitment to capping public-sector exit payments (‘Caught in a net’, ELM December 2015). I reported that the Treasury had launched a consultation proposing that the cap be set at £95,000 and outlined the potential implications for education-sector employers and employees. Well, things have moved on since my article. The Government has decided that £95,000 is too high a cap, and is now proposing that many public-sector workers who do receive an exit package should not be allowed to work anywhere else in the public sector for 12 months. If they do, all or part of their exit package will have to be repaid. These proposals will directly affect AMiE members in senior leadership positions.

The Treasury’s amended consultation on these reforms was launched in February 2016.

It proposes to take the following action across all major public-sector compensation provision: • setting the maximum tariff for calculating exit payments at three weeks’ pay per year of service • capping the maximum number of months’ salary that can be used when calculating redundancy payments to 15 months • setting a maximum salary for the calculation of exit payments of £80,000 • tapering the amount of lumpsum compensation an individual is entitled to receive as they get closer to their pension retirement age • requiring employer-funded early access to pensions to be limited or ended.

The consultation also proposes that general limits be imposed on most employerfunded payments made in

relation to leaving employment, including compensation packages for exits in impending or declared redundancy situations, or in other situations where individuals leave public-sector employment with employer-funded exit packages, such as negotiated departures.

Not content with ensuring that employees being forced to leave their jobs through redundancy or

• applying the policy to any part of the public sector, instead of only to those returning to the same part of the public sector • reducing the recovery amount over time for a return at any point up to 12 months from exit • including in the recovery amount employer-funded pension ‘top-up’ payments made under the Local Government Pension Scheme.

“THE PROPOSALS PRESENT A BLEAK FUTURE. YOU MAY BE FORCED TO LEAVE FOR LESS AND THEN FORCED TO PAY IT BACK IF YOU GET ANOTHER JOB.” reorganisation have exit packages limited to £80,000, the Treasury launched yet another consultation in January 2016, this time covering public-sector exit payment recovery regulations. These allow for the recovery of exit payments when a relatively high earner returns to the public sector shortly after exit. The proposals extend the scope of the regulations and include the following provisions: • lowering the minimum earnings threshold for individuals subject to the recovery provisions to £80,000

Who will be caught out by these proposals?

The new provisions will apply to “all current and future public sector employees”. Academies are classed as part of central Government and local authority-maintained schools are classified as part of local Government: workers in both are defined as public-sector employees.

Elsewhere, the position is less clear.

In 2012, English FE colleges and sixth-form college corporations were reclassified into the private sector.

But don’t be surprised to see another set of proposals in the not-toodistant future moving these employees back into the public sector. Not unsurprisingly, academy trusts appear to be excluded from the proposals.

For those colleagues still some way from retirement and facing the prospect of losing their jobs through redundancy or restructuring, the Government’s proposals present a bleak future. You may be forced to leave for less than you expected, and then forced to pay it back if you get another job.

FEBRUARY 2015 | ELM 21 APRIL 2016

FINAL WORD

T

raining New Teachers is the title of the new National Audit Office (NAO) report on the effectiveness of the Department for Education’s (DfE’s) oversight and delivery of teacher supply. The results of the NAO’s forensic investigation of teacher training are extremely worrying, as is its observation that “we cannot conclude that the arrangements for training new teachers are value for money”. As £700 million is spent each year on training new teachers, this is a lot of money for which the DfE has no adequate assurance of effective spending.

The figures in the report tell their own story. Schools rely on a constant supply of newly qualified teachers to replace the exodus of teachers from the profession (in the 12 months to November 2014, the state sector lost nearly 50,000 teachers – the highest leaving rate for 10 years). More than half (53%) of new entrants to teaching in state schools were newly qualified – so the provision of clear and wellunderstood routes into teaching is essential if there are going to be enough teachers to replace those who are leaving.

However, the NAO finds that the multiplicity of routes into teaching is creating confusion among both potential trainees and school leaders who find the complexities of initial teacher training (ITT) routes, School Direct-fee or School Directsalaried courses, school-centred ITT programmes, university-led

22 ELM | APRIL 2016

postgraduate courses, and so on, difficult to navigate.

From there, the NAO’s criticisms of the DfE become, frankly, embarrassing, for both civil servants and the Government. The auditors found that the DfE’s teacher supply model may inaccurately predict schools’ needs for trainee teachers because it has “important knowledge gaps, which means that the DfE does not have data that allows it to quantify teacher shortages reliably”.

In particular, the model does not aim to resolve pre-existing teacher shortages, including those caused by previously missed recruitment targets. So, each year, the slate is wiped clean, existing shortages in subjects are erased, and the model starts all over again.

The DfE has missed its targets for filling training places over the past four years, with secondary training places particularly difficult to fill.

In 2015–16, 14 out of 17 secondary subjects had unfilled training places (compared with two subjects in 2010–11). This means that nearly every

ANOTHER FINE MESS M A RY B O U ST E D, AT L G E N E R A L S E C R E TA RY

“THE MULTIPLICITY OF ROUTES INTO TEACHING IS CREATING CONFUSION AMONG TRAINEES AND LEADERS.” secondary subject is a shortage subject – and, in addition to well-known difficulties in recruiting teachers in STEM (science, technology, engineering, maths) subjects, there are shortages, also, in the EBacc subjects of geography and modern foreign languages, and in creative subjects such as art. Design and technology comes bottom of the recruitment league table, with only 41% of its training target met.

School leaders have been complaining for some time now that the Government is refusing to acknowledge their recruitment problems. This is not surprising when the NAO judges that the DfE “has more to do to understand important local and regional issues” and reveals that the department “does not use its teacher supply model to estimate how many teachers are required locally or regionally and largely relies on the school system to resolve problems” (at this point, I can hear school leaders shouting, “We told you so!”).

The NAO makes several important recommendations to improve teacher supply, among which is the common-sense and long-overdue, acknowledgement that school leaders know a thing or two. It is entirely welcome that the NAO tells the DfE to work with school leaders to “develop a good understanding of local demand for, and supply of, teachers”.

Clearer and more accessible information for prospective applicants is another improvement to the teacher recruitment crisis advocated by the NAO, a recommendation that is so obvious as to illustrate, more clearly than anything else, the mess the Government has got itself into with teacher recruitment.

Enhance your teaching with Pearson We are recruiting teachers to work as Examiners across our GCSE and A Level Subjects.

This is an excellent opportunity to: • Develop your career in education • Gain invaluable insight into assessment • Earn some extra money in a part-time role, alongside any full time commitments you may have.

T o find out further information, please visit www.edexcel.com/aa-recruitment

We’re looking for exam markers in A-level English, A-level Sociology, A-level Geography, A-level Economics and GCSE Religious Studies

• Enhance your teaching skills.

• Inform your understanding of the exam process.

• Earn extra income alongside your teaching career.

• Home based, flexible working.

aqa.org.uk/apply

Apply now to mark 2016 GCSEs, AS and A-levels

aqa.org.uk/apply