Elm July 2014

July 2014

Education Leader and Manager

In this issue

4–5

Cover story Neuroscience in education: fad or fact?

6 A new dawn for FE in NI 8 Child social services for sale 10 Education matters, talk to us 12 Fighting for FE 18 The last word AMiE is ATL’s section for leaders in education

Introduction

Report from AMiE’s leadership seminar

Held to account inspection and Peter Pendle, AMiE chief executive

Welcome to the latest edition of Education Leader and Manager.

2

Members may have noticed that the coalition partners in government are beginning to squabble about a range of issues and that many of them relate to education, including a fight on whether funding should go towards Michael Gove’s expansion of free schools or to Nick Clegg’s scheme to extend free meals. I guess that this signals that a general election is on the horizon so in this issue we focus on how AMiE and ATL are working to influence the policies of the main political parties via our Shape Education campaign and the launch of ATL’s manifesto for 2015.

And in the ‘Last word’, ATL’s general secretary, Mary Bousted, critiques the Labour party’s policy review document, Putting Students and Parents First, prepared by the former Secretary of State for Education, David Blunkett.

Elsewhere in this edition is a briefing on developments at the National College for Teaching & Leadership (NCTL) and at the Education and Training Foundation (ETF), a report from our man in Northern Ireland on a major negotiation victory for college managers and, finally, a report on AMiE’s activities at ATL’s Annual Conference in April, including the AMiE rep awards.

This is also the first opportunity we have had to congratulate the Exeter College principal, Richard Atkins, on his election as the new Association of Colleges’ (AoC) president.

Richard has been a long-standing member of AMiE and ACM before it; he is a former ACM president and oversaw ACM joining the TUC. Richard has a record of leading outstanding colleges in achieving excellent inspection outcomes. AMiE values its relationship with the AoC and we look forward to working closely with Richard in his new role over the next 12 months. Finally, you will notice a few changes to the September edition of Education Leader and Manager; don’t hesitate to let us have your views and feedback.

Judging by the responses we received from AMiE’s leadership seminar, held back in March on governance and inspection – topics which preoccupy the minds of many members – it gave food for thought and time for action. What did we learn from the day?

Governance Emma Knights, chief executive of the National Governors’ Association, highlighted that no sector has yet to get governance right. The boards of banks, for instance, didn’t do their jobs properly in the run up to the financial crisis, and this ‘no perfect system’ message sounds a cautionary note given the clamour to embrace private sector practice in school and college governing bodies. During the seminar, Emma identified eight key elements to effective governance:

1 getting the right people round the table 1 understanding the role and the responsibilities 1 good chairing 1 professional clerking 1 good relationships based on trust 1 knowing the organisation – the data, the staff, the parents, the students, the community

1 commitment to ask challenging questions 1 confidence to have courageous conversations in the interests of the children and young people.

A growing portion of AMiE’s casework relates to issues arising from confusion over roles and responsibilities – ie where governors and leaders have a conflicting view of their role. For those in schools in England it is worth consulting the Department for Education’s (DfE) Governors’ Handbook1 in an attempt to clarify them.

The roles can so easily become confused given that the challenges are similar.

t: governance, you For example, distinguishing between the strategic and the operational, staff development and performance-related pay, external support and the need to collaborate, finding time for new responsibilities, finding new ways of working, funding, performance management; the list could go on.

3

The governors’ role is made easier when leaders are clear about what governors expect of them. This includes:

1 a good understanding of governance 1 willingness to be held to account and be challenged

1 time taken to support recruitment and induction of governors, including staff governors

1 professional relationships between the senior leadership team and the governing body

1 support for governors’ CPD 1 better, smarter reporting.

FE is generally more advanced in the way in which governance operates when compared to schools. This is largely because it draws heavily from the business community and benefits hugely from professional clerking. The professional clerking model is recommended for schools that are able to operate in this way.

Inspection We learned that Ofsted is required to improve.

Despite a four-month notice period their speaker wasn’t ready in time for our seminar so they were required to field a last minute replacement. HMI Chris Wood did a sterling stand-in job but it was not an ideal situation.

While life can happen despite the best laid plans etc it’s a pity that Ofsted doesn’t accord a similar understanding when making their judgements of schools and colleges subject to the vicissitudes of working life.

Chris was able to supply an on-the-ground view and confirmed that a good inspection result tends to be typified by schools and colleges where leaders work with governors as much as governors work with leaders. The best leaders help their governors improve.

The best governing bodies adopt a process of self-review to challenge what they are doing, what they are trying to achieve and what difference they have made. Also, ideally, they should challenge whether they are the right blend of people in order to accomplish these goals.

Governors should not be afraid to shine a light on the organisation to determine what is not good enough and to ensure there are plans in place to rectify this. Inspectors report that leaders often try to hide these problem areas and Chris is clear that this is the wrong approach.

There was criticism of the burgeoning use of ‘mocksteads’ which have pretty much become an industry. These are often not stretching enough so if a school or college is going to expose itself to external review in preparation for an inspection it needs to ensure that it is sufficiently rigorous. It’s far cheaper to encourage governors to build their challenge role with an aim that there is a constant readiness for inspection. Governors therefore need to be encouraged to be devil’s advocates, to not accept facts on face value but to dig deeper and seek a triangulation of evidence before open acceptance that leaders are on the right track.

Further seminars As AMiE members found this seminar useful, we will be staging further seminars and CPD sessions in the future. We are keen to hear from you about the areas that are most pressing so that we can continue to ensure that we cover the areas of greatest interest to you. Please email your ideas for future seminars and CPD to Mark Wright at mwright@amie.atl.org.uk.

1 See www.gov. uk/government/ uploads/ system/uploads/ attachment_data/ file/270398/ GovernorsHandbookJanuary-2014.pdf

Cover story

Neuroscience in education: Mark Wright, assistant director of AMiE (leadership and management)

It’s proving to be quite a controversial topic – does an understanding of neuroscience, the study of the physical functioning of the brain, have a direct application to education?

Or is it just a fad? There are AMiE members rooted firmly on both sides of this argument.

4

In fact, two AMiE members proposed a motion to ATL’s Annual Conference in April entitled, ‘Neuroscience, technology and globalisation’.

The motion implored Conference to recognise that the developing understanding of neuroscience and the potential for the brain to develop in ways not previously understood are both likely to have an impact on new strategies, techniques, and organisational frameworks for supporting teaching and learning. Allied to technological innovation this is likely to lead to learning becoming freed from fixed locations or institutions, to be more personalised and to be more open. The motion only squeezed through following a ballot vote; such is the level of uncertainty around the topic.

This Conference motion triggers action for us to develop policies, training materials and professional development programmes to support members’ understanding of the ways in which neuroscience, technology and globalisation are combining to change the roles of teachers, leaders and managers.

Alienation is the problem, integration is the solution

The government certainly appears keen to embrace technology at lightning speed. Minister of State for Skills and Enterprise, Matthew Hancock, says: “I think we can harness technology to drive up standards. It’s about empowering teachers and using technology to improve and strengthen teaching. That may mean there are some changes to how teaching occurs, for instance, by becoming more mentoring and more imparting of those very human characteristics you can’t get from the internet.” This links with a desire to see much more learning via online means – an increase of as much as 50% by 2017.

While the pedagogically untested march of education technology gathers pace, the associated application of neuroscience is stirring debate within the education community.

Earlier this year the Education Endowment Fund and the Wellcome Trust launched a £6 million scheme to fund neuroscience research into learning. However, Professor Dorothy Bishop, a specialist in neuropsychology at Oxford University, doubts the fund will find projects that actually constitute neuroscience rather than psychology, which she feels does have relevance for improvements in learning.

Meanwhile, eminent scientist, Sir Harry Burns, a chief medical officer for Scotland, has given up his role specifically to promote an evidence-based understanding about the impact neuroscience has on health and, by extension, education. He speaks of the damaging effect a poor early start has on a child’s life and how it can result in a loss of coherence, “without this the world around them is noise, not information”. He presents evidence suggesting that “what we do through society erodes children’s cognitive function” and therefore limits their educational potential - more proof that it isn’t all schools’ fault! Sir Harry graphically illustrates the brain changes involved in “the neuroscience of a hug” as part of his focus on the real challenge for improving learning – which he believes to be alienation. He uses brain scans and trend data to show that “alienation is the problem, integration is the solution”.

As interest in neuroscience attracts more focus and funding there may be developments in the future that enable some form of brain scanning to identify personalised learning needs. However, neuroscience studies can contribute to learner segmentation profiles with behavioural indicators highlighting the type of strategies needed to optimise the learning potential of each profile group.

Entrepreneurs One such learner group could, for example, be those marked out as potential entrepreneurs.

This was the subject of a standing-room only neuroscience-tinged fringe meeting organised

by AMiE at ATL’s Conference to tie in with the motion on this issue. Dr John Kelly and Dr Brian Cummings from Stranmillis University College outlined their research investigating entrepreneurial learning preferences.

fad or fact?

One might readily assume that thinking and learning preference theory exists that provides us with a better understanding of how entrepreneurs think and learn, and thus act.

However, alarmingly, little research exists on entrepreneurial thinking and learning. This is a problem given that UK PLC is only likely to continue to thrive in a globalised commercial world if it optimises its entrepreneurial strengths.

This in-depth study of 55 Northern Ireland entrepreneurs looked to: 1 explore if a pattern of learning preferences exists among successful local entrepreneurs across a variety of sectors 1 determine if it is possible to offer an entrepreneurial model for curriculum development and transformation 1 match curriculum content and delivery to the way in which entrepreneurs think and act 1 offer insights into why some successful entrepreneurs rejected, or failed to respond to, formal education.

Factors selected by the entrepreneurs as contributing to their success in enterprise were classified in terms of right and left dominance and it is clear that those factors considered very significant in entrepreneurial success were predominantly right-brained factors. This means that information is processed holistically or globally; there’s a focus on the big picture and a preponderance of whole– to –part thinking.

The results suggest that any curriculum developed to encourage and stimulate enterprise needs to be sufficiently ‘right hemispheric’ to inspire as well as inform potential entrepreneurs.

Entrepreneurs tend to be ‘concrete’ learners who do not learn by studying theory for testing by terminal examination. Learners with entrepreneurial potential are likely to be non-conforming and question accepted views and approaches. This has significant implications for an education system that by default leans toward a left-brained focus on details, processes information logically and sequentially and prefers part- to whole-thinking.

However, as AMiE members in the entrepreneurial focused Gazelle group of colleges will be aware, there is a growing recognition that other forms of delivery are being shaped in order to meet the learning needs of this increasingly important segment of learners who ideally will benefit from a more personalised approach during their school career.

If the curriculum, the testing instruments and teachers predominantly recognise and only reward conformity there may be a problem for the enterprising/entrepreneurial learner. If education does not take this into account it is these individuals who are more likely to become disengaged and even appear to be ‘disruptive’.

Professor Terence Brannigan, former chairman of the CBI Northern Ireland, hailed the research as being: “The most exciting, unique and groundbreaking project that I have ever seen to do with the interface between business and education”.

However, while interesting and possibly indicative of where education strategies might need to change, the research is not yet sufficiently robust enough to underpin such change. Further work is being undertaken on a larger scale, hopefully including a control group, to explore questions such as:

1 Are traditional learning areas/subjects/ sectors more left-brain dominant and what does this mean for entrepreneurship education and does it matter?

1 Do formal educational establishments have the time and resources to accommodate nonconforming, questioning students – is this trait only welcome in some non-mainstream elements of formal educational provision?

1 Are right-brained characteristics valued in staff and students – do education staff tend to be left-brain dominant – has this been necessary in order to succeed in the profession?

Hopefully, the emergence of valid and reliable research evidence will make the impact of neuroscience in education much clearer over time and changes to teaching practice can become settled on a firmer foundation than at present. Until then the debate around the application of neuroscience in education will continue, and we will endeavour to tread carefully as we shape the resources designed to help you make sense of the changing landscape resulting from the developments in neuroscience, psychology and technology in an increasingly interconnected globalised world.

5

The view from Northern Ireland

A new dawn for FE in NI 6

Mark Langhammer, director, Northern Ireland

Sir Bob Salisbury’s Review of Industrial Relations framework: Further Education in Northern Ireland has been welcomed by AMiE1.

1 See www.anic. ac.uk/uploads/ documents/ FE%20 Report%20 Final%20 Report.pdf 2 See www. delni.gov.uk/ nwrc-review 3 See www. northernireland. gov.uk/ index/mediacentre/newsdepartments/ news-del/newsdel-060314-farrywelcomes-review

Sir Bob conducted his review at the behest of the College Employers’ Forum following the McConnell Report2. Salisbury himself comes with a strong pedigree as headteacher of The Garibaldi School in Forest Town, Mansfield, going onto become professor in the School of Education at the University of Nottingham. He was knighted in 1998 and moved to Northern Ireland in 2001 where he has worked at the Queen’s University and the Regional Training Unit as chair of the government’s literacy and numeracy task force. Prior to this review of FE he was chair of the review of the common funding formula for schools in Northern Ireland.

The McConnell Report investigated industrial relations concerns at the North West Regional College and, amongst the wider conclusions, was an assertion that the current regional negotiating machinery in FE was ‘dysfunctional’ or ‘fractious’.

In the view of AMiE members in FE, the collective bargaining arrangements appeared to deliver little more than an opportunity for adversarial grandstanding. It was obvious to all that things could not limp on under the current machinery.

The review, which was commissioned by the Board of Colleges Northern Ireland, made 17 recommendations to improve negotiations, communication and consultation across the six colleges. The 17 recommendations for modernising the industrial relations framework within the FE sector, have been accepted in full by college employers.

Dr Stephen Farry, the Minister for Employment and Learning, said: “Staff employed in our colleges are vital to ensuring that Northern Ireland has a progressive and vibrant FE sector that can deliver the learning and skills required by students and employers. I welcome the publication of this report3 which will put in place a modern, employee relations framework, which gives all staff a voice. My department is committed to working with all key stakeholders, including college employers, trade unions and staff, to ensure that these recommendations will be implemented in full.”

AMiE sought, through our growing membership, to influence the report by setting out a number of key proposals aimed at ameliorating industrial relations. We proposed that the scope of negotiations be narrowed to the critical issues of pay, hours and statutory matters. We argued for the replacement of the current adversarial ‘cross table’ system with a ‘round table’ negotiating machinery inclusive of everyone - managers, lecturers and educational support staff and their unions.

We argued for more structured consultation at college level through European style works’ councils or staff forums. We sought specific recognition for middle managers, a key failing of the current model. We also sought an effective, speedy, binding and unilaterally triggered, arbitration ‘deadlock breaker’ through the Labour Relations Agency.

The achievement of all of these goals is significant and will give industrial relations in the FE sector breathing space to develop in a constructive, collegiate and productive way. It also demonstrates to FE staff that the reasoned, rational approach of AMiE can deliver real results.

The position now is that the colleges have accepted the report in its entirety. The next step for the unions is to join the implementation task force to apply the recommendations of the report. At the time of writing it is unclear what the position of the unions will be.

Salisbury offers all parties in FE a way forward to a new dawn. The Salisbury Review deserves a fair wind.

Union matters

National CPD landscape Latest developments at the NCTL and at the ETF. Schools AMiE members in schools report having concerns around quality and access in relation to leadership CPD; the latest plans from NCTL are likely to exacerbate such concerns. The NCTL works with licensees across the country to deliver its national qualifications. It believes that national support is no longer required and is stepping away to allow a ‘transition to a fully school-led system’. NCTL is therefore handing over the design, delivery and awarding of these qualifications (NPQML, NPQSL & NPQH) to the schools and organisations currently licensed to offer the qualifications. This means:

7

ATL members enjoying their induction course

1 licensees will continue to deliver the national qualifications to new and existing participants until 2016

1 licensees, rather than NCTL, will decide who can go onto their NPQH programme

1 NCTL will no longer develop the training materials for the qualifications

1 levels 1 to 3 (NPQML, NPQSL and NPQH), the Clerks to Governing Bodies’ Training Programme and the Chairs of Governors’ Leadership Development Programme will continue to be delivered by licensees

1 NCTL will not now be launching levels 4 and 5 of the leadership curriculum.

From 2016, the NCTL will therefore no longer have a responsibility for quality and awarding.

We need to keep a close eye on this to help ensure that whatever structure takes its place is fit for purpose and does not lead to considerable variation in standards.

The NCTL’s aim is to cease scholarship payments by 2016 with an expectation that schools or individuals will ultimately fund their involvement themselves. Given a likely squeeze on school budgets following the next election we are looking at a time when more leaders and managers will be expected to pay for their own CPD. The NCTL will not be licensing the school business management programmes. Instead its school business management materials will be made freely available to the school system.

From September 2014, the NCTL’s membership website will be closed down. Some of the content will be moved to the www.gov.uk website and the online forums will be adopted out to licensees and schools.

FE The ETF has produced a set of aspirational professional standards that clearly define the professional requirements of teachers and trainers in the FE and skills sector. Hopefully, these will engage and motivate both practitioners and employers, as well as enhance the reputation of the sector by supporting the initial and lifelong development of committed and highly-skilled teachers and trainers.

The ETF has also undertaken a ‘leadership conversation’ consultation aimed at establishing a knowledge base from which a professional and career framework for leadership and management in the education and training sector can be developed. The report from this is due this month and hopefully heralds a move towards this much needed framework.

To augment the ETF’s capacity, a new pool of associates is in the process of being recruited to assist in its key programmes. They encompass a range of levels. Associates will act as researchers, technical authors and specialist operators, while strategic associates will support the design and delivery of programmes. A small number of visiting associates will be appointed by the chief executive officer for one-off or singular occasions.

The ETF will have been in existence a year next month and given the short time in which it needs to earn its spurs it is important that it now really starts to build momentum. AMiE is working with the ETF to help ensure that its goal of boosting the capacity of leadership and management in the sector is as successful as possible given the limited funding available.

Delegation of children’s social care

8

Child social services for sale John Lowe, AMiE Council member

Such was the startling main headline on the front page of The Guardian on 17 May. What prompted this sensationalist claim was the paper’s somewhat belated discovery that exactly a month earlier the DfE had published a consultation document called Powers to Delegate Children’s Social Care Functions1. This was not fully referenced in the article but I searched the DfE website and tracked down the source of the story.

Will the proposed changes deliver what is promised, or will they make it more likely that some children’s services still fail to protect the most vulnerable in our society?

The very brief consultation document sets out proposals for regulations extending the range of care functions that may be delegated to third parties by local authorities (LA). This sounded like yet another tranche of privatisation introduced by the coalition government.

However, the real source of the proposal lies in the Children and Young Persons’ Act (CYPA) passed under the Labour government in 2008.

The CYPA allowed LAs to delegate to third parties their statutory functions relating to looked-after children and those leaving care. This was done in a number of pilot authorities and then in 2013 all LAs in England were permitted to delegate these two functions; the CYPA also contained provision to extend the range of these delegated functions.

This consultation proposes to extend delegation “to cover nearly all LA social services’ functions related to children” (3.3).

The only exceptions relate to adoption.

LAs are not to be allowed to delegate the function of the independent review of determinations relating to adoption nor adoption agency functions themselves, unless the third party is a registered adoption society operating as a charity and not for profit.

All delegated functions must be carried out, or at least supervised, by registered social workers. Nor does delegation take away LA’s responsibility for ensuring that their statutory obligations are met. Functions carried out by third parties will be considered

by Ofsted as part of its single framework inspection arrangements and in this way the LAs will be held to account should they choose to delegate any such functions.

The document argues that “these changes will broaden the range of approaches available to LAs as they look to secure the best outcomes for children in their area.

They will allow authorities to harness third party expertise, and/or set up more agile delivery structures outside traditional hierarchies” (4.6). The proposals are presented as supporting the DfE’s Children’s Social Care Innovation Programme2.

The document argues that “the current position, where innovation of this kind can only take place in the context of failure and as a result of government direction, is illogical and is already causing some LAs difficulties as they re-think how best to provide services” (4.6).

But will the proposed changes deliver what is promised, or will they make it more likely that some children’s services still fail to protect the most vulnerable in our society?

Letter writers to The Guardian were certainly in no doubt that the proposals would be detrimental to child protection. On 17 May, 37 senior professionals signed a letter expressing their concerns that such sensitive services should be opened up to the market and provided by private sector companies such as G4S, Serco and Atos whose track record in providing other public services has been marred by well publicised failings. This was followed on 21 May by a chorus of objections with the same central concern that the private sector, motivated by profit and the need to satisfy shareholders, was not likely to provide sensitive and dedicated care to vulnerable children.

Such concern could be dismissed as a left-wing, knee-jerk reaction to any privatisation, whether in health, education or social care – ‘public sector good, private sector bad’. On the other hand, it could be yet another instance of the opposite ideology with privatisation seen as the answer to all public service ills. Tony Blair once complained that he bore the scars on his back of trying to reform public services. Is there a more balanced and informed view of this debate?

On 26 February the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) published its report, Contracting Out Public Services to the Private Sector3 in which it took evidence from Atos, Capita, G4S and Serco. It concluded that “Government is clearly failing to manage performance across the board, and to achieve the best for citizens out of the contracts into which they have entered.

Government needs a far more professional and skilled approach to managing contracts and contractors, and contractors need to demonstrate the high standards of ethics expected in the conduct of public business, and be more transparent about their performance and costs. The public’s trust in outsourcing has been undermined recently by the poor performance of G4S in supplying security guards for the Olympics, Capita’s failure to deliver court translation services, issues with Atos’s work capability assessments, misreporting of out of hours GP services by Serco, and most recently, the astonishing news that G4S and Serco had overcharged for years on electronic tagging contracts:

these high profile failures illustrate contractors’ failure to live up to standards expected and have exposed serious weaknesses in the government’s capability in negotiating and managing private contracts on behalf of the taxpayer”.

In another report4 published on 20 May PAC warned of the risks associated with the forthcoming privatisation of the probation service: “The new arrangements and structures have not been fully piloted and the Ministry of Justice has a poor track record of procuring services”.

Surely such authoritative criticisms should be taken into account when considering the possibility of contracting out virtually all children’s social care to this same private sector which clearly lacks regulation. What is even more concerning is that in another littleknown piece of legislation currently going through Parliament, the Deregulation Bill, there is a clause that removes the requirement that third party providers of children’s services should be registered with Ofsted (Clause 61 in the current version of the Bill5). The consultation document simply asserts that this is because this registration process does not offer any genuine additional safeguards.

We are all too familiar with the appalling tales of neglect and abuse of very young children by parents and carers that public authorities, including teachers and social workers, have failed to detect and prevent.

These are undoubtedly complex cases but one common factor seems to be the failure of all the public agencies involved (eg schools, social services, police, hospitals) to share information and collaborate in the interests of the child. The introduction of private third party providers will surely only exacerbate this already difficult problem.

Incidentally, the very low-key consultation closed on 30 May, but there is no need to be too disappointed if you missed your chance to respond; there were only two questions: 1. Do you agree that the draft regulations will give LAs freedom to explore a wider range of approaches to discharging their social care functions?

2. Do you agree with the proposed regulations?

No prizes for working out how to get full marks in that test!

9

1 See www.gov. uk/government/ consultations/ delegatingchildrens-socialcare-functions 2 See www.gov. uk/government/ uploads/ system/uploads/ attachment_data/ file/304679/ Overview_of_ the_Children_s_ Social_Care_ Innovation_ Programme.pdf 3 See www. publications. parliament.uk/ pa/cm201314/ cmselect/ cmpubacc/777/ 77702.htm 4 See www. publications. parliament.uk/ pa/cm201314/ cmselect/ cmpubacc/1114/ 111404.htm 5 http://services. parliament.uk/ bills/2013-14/ deregulation.html

Union news

Education matters, talk to us L–R: Nick Gibbm MP, Steve McCabe MP, Ian Mearns MP

10

The need to give young people a stake in society by creating an education system fit for the 21st century is at the heart of the unions’ education manifesto, which was launched in Parliament on 14 May.

parity for vocational education; quality of jobs for young people; and the return of financial support and career advice for students.

The event saw over 50 MPs, peers and stakeholders from across the political spectrum meet with AMiE members to discuss the manifesto’s ideas on how to: create a curriculum and an assessment system that prepare young people for life; replace Ofsted with local inspections; and to value and respect staff through a national pay framework and quality CPD.

Members have been meeting MPs in constituency offices, at workplace and branch events to debate the issues in order to influence the content of political parties’ education proposals. Once party manifestos are unveiled, the unions will be talking to members about how their vision for education compares to the pledges of the politicians.

Members discussed the manifesto’s aims with MPs and peers, including Nic Dakin MP and Baroness Howe from the All-Party Group on education governance and leadership; Kevin Brennan MP, shadow minister for education; and Simon Wright MP, co-chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party Committee on education, families and young people. Many MPs filled in Twitter boards outlining their key election pledges using #ShapeEducation.

Ian Mearns MP, an Education Select Committee member, hosted the event, with speeches from Mary Bousted, ATL general secretary, and Toni Pearce, NUS president, who welcomed the unions’ manifesto’s aims, particularly around the need for:

Created as part of the unions’ Shape Education campaign, the manifesto encapsulates a vision for education developed by thousands of ATL and AMiE members during events, conferences, through surveys and from postcard messages for MPs over the last year.

In defining how best to give young people a stake in society by creating an education system fit for the 21st century, the manifesto states:

1 young people need an assessment system and curriculum that are broad and balanced

1 transition from school to FE, HE and work needs financial support and excellent careers guidance

1 education and students’ futures need to be prioritised over profit

1 education professionals need an end to excessive working hours and a genuine career path through a national pay structure and CPD

1 schools and colleges need an accountability system based on collaboration, with local inspection and a new role for Ofsted.

About AMiE

us Nick Dakin, MP for Scunthorpe

Whatever you face as a manager or leader, AMiE can help you. With support from AMiE, you can focus on what’s really important in your role.

We are the only union to represent managers and leaders across the entire education sector, providing:

1 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

1 excellent personal and professional development: accredited training and development opportunities for you in your role as manager or leader

1 a voice in the education debate: an opportunity to influence policy and get involved in issues that affect you

1 publications and resources: a range of free publications focused on contemporary leadership issues

1 more for your membership: discounts and rewards for you and your family on a range of products and services.

The manifesto also calls for politicians to talk to the profession to develop a high quality education system together using their experience and expertise.

A full version of the manifesto can be found at www.atl.org.uk/manifesto and details of the Shape Education campaign can be found at www.atl.org.uk/shapeeducation.

Members are encouraged to set up more meetings with their MPs to talk through the manifesto’s themes. ATL’s organising team can be contacted for support via organise@ atl.org.uk and you can follow the debate on Twitter using #ShapeEducation.

Follow AMiE on Twitter @atl_amie Follow the debate with #ShapeEducation

And with 50% off your first year’s membership*, there’s never been a better time to join AMiE. Join online at www.amie.atl.org.uk/join or call 0845 057 7000 (local call). Let AMiE take you further. *Terms and conditions apply, visit www.amie.atl.org.uk for full subscription details, membership eligibility and further information.

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.

11

Union news

12

Fighting for FE Speaking at ATL’s Education matters manifesto launch event in May (see previous page), Toni Pearce, National Union of Students (NUS) president, spoke of the need to not “lose a generation.”

In Toni’s view, ATL’s manifesto “proposes some essential asks of government and looks to an education system which equips young people with the skills and knowledge they need to contribute to this country’s economy”.

Back in March, Toni spoke to ATL’s Report magazine and it was clear that she has a lot to achieve in her year as NUS president.

“It’s a huge shame that FE is overlooked by policymakers and the media. Sometimes somebody needs to make a fuss about FE,” says Toni.

Young people might try to express what they feel but they don’t feel listened to

As the first NUS president not to attend university, Toni is extremely proud of her FE background and is very much prepared to make a fuss about it, having risen to her current position through what she describes as “a series of fortunate events”.

The first of these does not sound very fortunate: discovering when she began at Cornwall College at the age of 16 that she needed operations on her hips due to a hyper-mobility disorder that meant she needed to use a wheelchair.

See ATL’s manifesto at www.atl.org.uk/manifesto

“It was the issues you don’t appreciate until you’re in a wheelchair or can’t get into classrooms,” she recalls. “Such as getting the automatic doors to work in the library.

That was the first campaign I became involved in.

It was quite a small thing, but it proved to me that you can make a difference if you do it right. It’s about understanding what other people are trying to get out of the situation and the right arguments to use.”

As NUS president, she hopes to engage a wider range of people. “The NUS has generally represented university students of a certain type - traditionally age 18 to 21 Russell Group students,” she says. “They do need representation, but the demographic of students is changing, with people working while studying, mature students with families, people who wouldn’t primarily identify themselves as students.”

She is also keen to balance up the perennial divide between academic and vocational courses.

Toni believes the divide is exacerbated by there being a greater incentive for schools to get pupils to university than into an apprenticeship, and calls for a genuinely independent careers advice and guidance service to point young people in the most appropriate direction for them.

Toni believes not just that vocational subjects are viewed as inferior but also that those who teach them are not given sufficient credit, reward or status.

“This isn’t about us saying we want you to cut people’s pensions to pay for our free transport,” she explains. “You can’t divide us by our ages. We’re working with the National Pensioners’ Convention on how to jointly campaign on issues like the national retirement age, which affects all of us.”

One person in government who does not appear to be listening is Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, to whom Toni has sent several letters but is yet to receive a reply. “I don’t think Michael Gove is very interested in vocational education,” she says.

NUS president, Toni Pearce, speaking at ATL’s manifesto launch.

“It’s a bit farcical that you can work in a FE college and teach people to do highly-skilled jobs but not be qualified to teach,” she says.

“The idea of dual professionalism that exists in FE, where you’re a professional in your field and a professional teacher, is really important and something we should hold on to.

“FE falls into this political gap,” she continues.

“A lot of people will not have heard of Matthew Hancock (Minister of State for Skills and Enterprise since October 2013), and it’s not a priority for Vince Cable or David Willetts”.

Gender equality is another of Toni’s passions; she points out she is only the eighth female president of the NUS in 92 years, and this is reflected in other areas too, such as FE, where, although the proportion of women principals has risen from 36% to 42%, the overall proportion of women working in the sector is 64%.

She highlights the gender pay gap of 20% in vocational apprenticeships, compared to a general pay gap, which she puts down to the gendering of subjects such as construction, plumbing and engineering for men, versus hairdressing, health and beauty, and social care for women, something she feels is not a natural split.

It’s a huge shame that FE is overlooked by policymakers and the media.

Sometimes somebody needs to make a fuss about FE

Toni believes young people do not feel their lives are understood at a government level.

“Young people might try to express what they feel but they don’t feel listened to. There’s a really stark comparison between those aged 60 and over who vote and those aged 24 and under. The impact is seen in public policy and who it’s aimed at. There is a generational divide here and I don’t want to see that continue. In 20 years’ time we could have middle-aged people who haven’t voted.” Increasing voter registration among young people is one of NUS’s priorities ahead of the general election.

See ATL’s manifesto at www.atl.org.uk/manifesto

One particular policy of Mr Gove’s Toni objects to is the removal of re-sits, without which she believes she would still be a waitress in Cornwall after spending the whole of her first year of A-levels in and out of hospital. She applied for extenuating circumstances and got 25 minutes extra in the exam. “What I really needed was to be able to re-sit them. In the end I got a set of A-levels I was really pleased with. That I failed them in the first year wasn’t indicative of the fact I couldn’t do them, it was just that I couldn’t do them on that day.

“You can retake your driving test as much as you like, and doing that you have people’s lives in your hands. Exams should be about showing what you’re capable of doing. There’s a broader question about how fit for purpose exams are, do we test people too much, or in particular ways too much? But people should have the opportunity to go back and try again; that should be one of the values of our education system. Particularly in FE.” Toni describes herself as a “not very active member of the Labour party” and struggles to pin down their policies on education or FE, although she does welcome the announcement that they would reintroduce a system along the lines of the education maintenance allowance (EMA).

“That was one of the worst policy decisions the coalition made – all of the evidence pointed to EMA being a really good value-for-money initiative and having a positive impact, supporting people to stay in education,” she says.

“It costs money to live and if you’re in full-time education you can’t be working full time as well. And you don’t have access to the benefits system. Somewhere in that mix you have to provide enough money for people to live.”

Despite clearly having strong views about political issues, don’t expect to see Toni making any bids to forge a career in Parliament. “I don’t think politics is what I want to do,” she explains. “I want to work in the public sector; in education or health, because they make the biggest difference to people’s lives.”

13

We’re prioritising your CPD One of the six key demands of the unions’ education manifesto launched in Parliament on 14 May was a call for a motivated, valued workforce supported by ongoing CPD. We will be keeping a tight focus on this area given members’ concerns about access to quality CPD. 14

Meanwhile, we have been consulting over the type of CPD you require with a view to strengthening our own offer for leaders and managers in light of some of the gaps in provision you have identified.

For example, September 2014 will see the launch of our new AMiE/ATL middle leadership CPD programme. This series of courses will focus on the challenges middle leaders face with one foot in the classroom and one often less sure foot in management. The courses will identify ways in which distributed, collaborative leadership and improvement capacity can be developed across your workplace. This series of courses will include leading others, getting the next five per cent performance, effective professional learning for middle leaders and improving performance through critical conversations.

These courses will be available to AMiE and ATL members at highly competitive rates delivered by a leading education practitioner and trainer. To find out more about these courses visit AMiE’s website at www.amie.atl.org.uk from August 2014.

Training

Leadership

Expertise

AMiE Council election results The AMiE Council elections have now concluded with the following results:

1 returning to Council for a new three-year term of office and representing school leaders, will be Iain Freeland, director of resources, Templer Academy Schools Trust, and Robin Bevan, headteacher, Southend High School for Boys

1 Fiona Rawlings, formerly deputy director, Coleg Gwent will take up office from 1 September as vice president of AMiE. Thank you to all our Council members, existing and new, for giving your time to work with us, ensuring that our policies and services reflect the needs and views of our members.

Development

Knowledge

New skills

Learn and develop with AMiE “An inspiring course with an inspiring tutor; the most useful course I have attended. This course has given me back my confidence. I feel that I have had the inspiring learning that I strive to achieve in my own teaching,”

Katherine Doudican As an AMiE member did you know that you can access ATL/AMiE CPD courses at a greatly reduced cost?

Our high quality range of courses will be available from September 2014 at £50 per course for AMiE members. Courses are either online or face-to-face and cover a wide variety of topics including:

1 behaviour management 1 creativity questioning and engagement 1 safeguarding for colleges 1 improving performance through critical conversations.

It’s easy to register for courses using our online booking system and all courses are held in either hotels or specialist training venues. Lunch is also included.

Check out AMiE’s website at www.amie.atl.org.uk from August for registration information and course details.

Union news

Your questions answered David Green, director of employment services, AMiE

My college is looking to cut posts and, as I am due to retire at the end of next year, I applied for voluntary redundancy (VR).

However, my request was turned down and no explanation was given. I am very unhappy about this so what are my rights in this situation?

I have been issued with a formal notice of redundancy following a restructure of the academy’s senior management team. Before I agree to sign a settlement agreement, how would I know if my selection for redundancy was fair or not?

A redundancy dismissal still has to be fair under the general provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

So, for example, you may have a potential claim of unfair dismissal if:

1 the selection criteria were not objective and fairly applied

1 you were not warned beforehand and then consulted about your redundancy selection

1 suitable alternative work was available.

Accepting or rejecting a request for VR is entirely at the discretion of your employer. VR schemes are designed to attract volunteers in order to avoid compulsory job losses, but who is selected and why is purely a matter for the employer.

This means, unfortunately, you have no specific rights to VR. That said we believe it is good practice to be told why you were not selected.

As such, you should ask to be given the reasons and take up the matter with your employer if you remain dissatisfied. If the process is still ongoing there may be an opportunity for the employer to reconsider your application.

Note: in a recent tribunal case, refusing a VR application, but subsequently making another member of staff compulsory redundant, resulted in the unfair dismissal of the latter. Such outcomes are rare, but the significant point here was that by scoring against a range of selection criteria, there was only one point difference between the volunteer (who resigned anyway) and the dismissed employee.

In deciding whether or not a dismissal is fair, a tribunal will consider whether the employer’s actions fell within a range of possible actions that were reasonable for it to take.

A tribunal will not consider the business case for the redundancy. Whether or not there is a financial or operational reason for your redundancy simply does not matter. The tribunal will only be concerned with the process. Nor will it subject the selection criteria or the application of those criteria to minute scrutiny. If the criteria are objective and can be verified by reference to data such as records of attendance or performance, then the tribunal just needs to satisfy itself that the method of selection was not unfair and that it was applied in a reasonable fashion. So, for example, a redundancy selection made just on the opinion of one individual without some supporting documentary evidence is likely to be unfair. On the other hand, a scoring system using measurable criteria backed by data from the HR department is likely to be fair.

In most management restructures, selective interview for new or a limited number of existing jobs is commonly used.

We cover two common questions in this issue, both relating to redundancy

The process should still be conducted fairly, but unfortunately, case law suggests that under this method 15 employers have more flexibility than they would if selecting those to be dismissed directly from a pool of ‘at risk’ staff. The argument used by the Employment Appeals Tribunal is that applications for posts must be considered fairly and in good faith, but the process is not the same as for direct redundancy selection. This means, for example, that using the scores of an interview panel, made on the basis of the answers given by candidates will be sufficiently fair, and is unlikely to require verification from documentary evidence.

An important part of any redundancy process is consultation. You should have been given an opportunity to engage in a meaningful dialogue about your redundancy selection, enabling you, for example, to ask questions about the process, find out why you have been selected (including any interview feedback and scoring), ask about alternative job and retraining opportunities, and discuss your redundancy package. If consultation with you as an individual has not taken place then this may make your subsequent dismissal unfair.

Every case is different, and even if you think you have been unfairly dismissed, a settlement agreement is usually still the better option. If you are unsure about the process, or if you are being asked to sign a settlement agreement, you are advised to call the AMiE helpline on 01858 464171.

Further information can be found in our employment relations leaflet ER7 Restructuring and Redundancy, and ER27 Settlement Agreements, both of which members can download from AMiE’s website.

Union news Mark Baker (centre left) and Andy Ground (centre right) receiving their awards at ATL’s Annual Conference; with Frances O’Grady (left), TUC general secretary, and Alison Sherratt (right)​

16

Success for AMiE reps At ATL’s Annual Conference back in April, six remarkable reps were recognised with an outstanding rep award for their hard work and dedication.

One of the reps was AMiE’s very own Mark Baker.

Mark Baker is branch secretary of AMiE’s South Leicestershire College branch, and was joint AMiE rep of the year winner with colleague and branch president, Andy Ground.

Mark said: “I’ve been in various unions since becoming a student, and I joined the Association of College Managers (AMiE’s name before its merger with ATL) because my previous union didn’t seem that interested in managers.

Most of us come into education wanting to help people, be that students or colleagues, and being a rep is just part of that

“We’ve never seen ourselves as conflictseeking; we try to find ways of benefitting staff and the college equally. However, I will say what needs to be said but I will say it in as pleasant a manner as possible.

The college has undergone a restructure, particularly at management level, but we’re managing to retain a service to the local community and keep people in jobs.

“I’ve had 13 ‘at risk’ letters, five in the last six years, and been made redundant twice but then redeployed to alternative jobs. It’s not been a pleasant time. One year we dealt with redundancy issues during the summer holidays while I was in Spain and Andy was in France.

Regional officer, Liz Salisbury, and director of employment services, David Green, were on holiday too and we were going to meet up in Bordeaux at one point!

“I’ve been supporting a lot of people, but one thing about this college is that people all look after each other particularly well. Three years ago, when it looked like I was going to be made redundant, AMiE, ATL and other union and non-union members started a petition for me, which was really sweet of them.

“ATL and AMiE members work well together. The reps don’t always agree but we both know the other has the wider interests of the college at heart and we deal with issues without antagonism or animosity because we’re doing it from a position of honesty and integrity.

“I’m really chuffed to have been nominated for an award. It was an acknowledgement that at least I’d tried. I can walk down the corridor with my head held high and I feel appreciated by the vast majority of staff.

“I’d say to anybody that they should be members of a union. It’s not a magic wand, but it’s really useful to have someone with you who is on your side. There is always the possibility if you’re on your own that you’ll be picked on and undermined. If people don’t all work together then things don’t move forward.

“A lot of people can be wary of being a rep because it feels like a lot of work for no extra money and if it goes wrong you get the blame, but I can’t say I’ve ever felt like that. Most of us come into education wanting to help people, be that students or colleagues, and being a rep is just part of that. It’s just a case of how willing you are to stand up and be counted”.

Employment matters

Investigating grievances At some point, a leader or manager will be required to investigate a complaint made against a member of staff. Worse, you may be that member of staff against whom the complaint is made.

So what should be expected of an investigation and what should be done to ensure it is both fair and effective?

An investigation is the most important step in any grievance or complaints procedure.

But it need not be particularly difficult if some basic common sense and rules of fairness are applied. The first place to start is the written procedure. This will usually provide for someone to be appointed as the investigation officer, and be someone unconnected to the issue.

The investigation should start as soon as reasonably possible and undertaken quickly but carefully. Ideally, the subject of the investigation should first be notified confidentially in person, and then by written confirmation.

In most cases the investigating officer will need the cooperation of any witnesses (and usually their line managers’ agreement) in order to establish the facts. Support from an HR department can be helpful here in facilitating meetings and in advising on procedure.

A fair process will always allow the subject of the complaint to answer any allegations that have been made. An investigatory meeting allowing him or her to put their version of events is therefore vital. Many procedures will allow the individual to be accompanied by a union representative, and we certainly would recommend this is facilitated. It is also helpful to have a note taker to record what is said. If parties are in agreement this may also involve making an audio record of proceedings.

Whether you are the investigator or the person being questioned, you should always prepare properly. Make a list of questions you wish to ask and/or a chronology of what you understand to have happened.

Take along any supporting documents that can help clarify matters, and agree the names of any possible witnesses.

The investigator should ask open questions such as, “Please describe what happened?” or “What did you say/do?” The individual should answer questions clearly and honestly.

If a question appears unreasonable or unclear, then the individual or their rep should ask for it to be rephrased. Breaks should be requested if anyone needs time to collect their thoughts or review documents, in addition to natural breaks for refreshments.

Everyone should remember that the purpose of the investigation meeting is to find out what happened. There should be no arguing or cross-examination. More will be achieved if it is kept friendly yet professional.

The investigator will need to speak also to witnesses and check relevant documents before preparing their report. This itself should summarise the findings, and make a recommendation for the next step which may be one of the following: 1 that there is no case to answer 1 that there are some issues that may best be resolved by other means (eg training, a simple apology, a change to procedure, mediation etc) 1 that the matter is sufficiently serious to be referred to a disciplinary hearing.

An investigation should not be used as a fishing trip to uncover something to pin on the individual that was not deemed important in the past. Nor should it be used to threaten someone into resigning.

Clearly an investigation should not ignore facts in order to manipulate the outcome.

In this short article it is not possible to cover some of the more common problems that can be encountered in an investigation. However, we do have two useful documents, available to download from the resource bank on AMiE’s website at www.amie.atl.org.uk, entitled Investigating a Complaint and Responding to a Complaint Against You.

17

The last word

18

Blunkett’s review puts studen and parents first Local oversight and spreading of good practice Mary Bousted, general secretary, ATL

Successful schools have a moral responsibility beyond their school gate to improve education for all pupils in their area

As the chaotic consequences of the coalition government’s market driven education policy become ever clearer, with repeated scandals emanating from academy chains and free schools, the time is right for the Labour party to put its best foot forward and state what it would do to regulate schools, improve accountability (both financial and school standards) and create a middle tier.

Two key themes encompass the recommendations made by David Blunkett1 the former Secretary of State for Education in Tony Blair’s first administration – in his report entitled, Review of Education Structures, Functions and the Raising of Standards for All.

Labour’s alternative to the competition and resultant isolation of schools is the creation of the post of director of school standards (DSS) who would work with LAs or local education partnerships (which would be regionally based) to get schools across their patch to collaborate and cooperate with one another, very much in the model of London Challenge. School-to-school collaboration would not be an optional extra - it would be a formal duty on all providers (be they a community school, an LA, an academy or an academy chain, or free school), to cooperate with the DSS to work with other schools to share good practice and to support improvement. This policy enshrines one important principle - successful schools have a moral responsibility beyond their school gate to improve education for all pupils in their area.

LAs would regain their responsibility for school place planning and would work with the DSS to lead on the commissioning of new school places - with an open competition to sponsor new schools. And, significantly, LAs would be able to open new community schools.

Schools would also be given more freedom to change sponsors if they so wished. The funding agreements would be shortened, thus providing greater pressure on sponsors to provide good value for money in the services they provide to their schools.

In a marked reversal of coalition policy, all teachers would either have to have QTS or to be working towards it. All schools would have to offer independent careers advice. There would be greater support for school governors and an urgent review of unregulated alternative provision. Academy chains would be subject to Ofsted inspection (something the coalition has, inexplicably, resisted in the light of the continuing financial scandals and the recurrent press exposes of academy trust directors providing ‘services’ to their chain of schools from companies in which they have a direct financial interest).

nts Being a politician, David Blunkett could not resist a political gimmick - the creation of education incubation zones (remember their former incarnation - just replace ‘incubation’ with ‘action’ and you’ve got it) which would provide space for innovation. Don’t expect these to figure too highly if Labour is elected – they will go the way of their former selves (can anyone remember anything concrete that came out of an Education Action Zone?).

High standards and fairness LAs would be given a public duty to represent the interests of pupils and parents - quite what that statement would mean in practice is not clear, but it is an important statement. The Office for the Schools Adjudicator’s remit would be widened to cover all schools and would be supported by the strengthening of the school admission code and fair access protocols.

All schools - including academies and free schools, would be required to cover a ‘light touch’ national curriculum. (Politicians always promise and fail to keep their promises on this - England has never had a ‘light touch’ national curriculum but Blunkett promises an independent commission to create the curriculum). The freedom to determine the school day and week would be extended to all schools.

One further, highly significant recommendation is that a future Labour government would reconsider the coalition government’s decision to merge the National College for School Leadership with the Training and Development Agency. ATL strongly supports this recommendation. It is clear that the merger of the two former agencies into the NCTL has not resulted in a successful agency delivering upon its remit. School leaders need much better support and clearer policy direction which the NCTL has, signally, failed to provide.

19

Our view is that the Blunkett proposals go a significant way to address our policy demands.

Most importantly, the review recognises that the market-driven approach ruthlessly pursued by Michael Gove will not create the conditions for a nationally improving education system where all children and young people go to good schools.

The greatest disappointment in the review’s proposals (which were, after all, meant to be about accountability) is that nothing is said about Ofsted; the reform of which is essential if we are to have an empowered and confident cadre of school leaders and teachers. David Blunkett cannot be unaware of the growing criticism of Ofsted, in particular of the uneven quality of the agency’s inspection reports and the inadequate base on which it forms its inspection judgements. School and college leaders, whose career security is as good as their institution’s last Ofsted judgement are, too often, pressurised into acting in ways which they think will please the inspectors, rather than doing what their professional judgement tells them is best for their pupils and students. This perversion of their practice is more likely to happen, moreover, in those schools and colleges, serving disadvantaged communities, where professional judgement based on a detailed knowledge of the community and the pupils, is needed, and where innovative approaches are most likely to have good results.

So, the Blunkett report, in my judgement, gets seven out of 10. A good effort – a sound analysis of the current intractable problems caused by Michael Gove attempting to run England’s education system from Whitehall – but the report is limited by the absence of any policy on Ofsted.

1 http://www. yourbritain.org.uk/ uploads/editor/ files/130514_ Report_FINAL.pdf

Contacting AMiE AMiE office

Members are warmly invited to contribute to this newsletter. We welcome pieces for inclusion in ELM – especially articles about good or innovative teaching and learning or on key policy issues, plus letters or photographs of student activities.

AMiE 35 The Point Market Harborough Leicestershire LE16 7QU Tel 01858 461 110 Fax 01858 461 366 www.amie.atl.org.uk

Follow AMiE on Twitter: @atl_amie

National helpline Tel 01858 464 171 helpline@amie.atl.org.uk

And for employment issues tweet us at @DavidG_amie

Clare Atkinson Office administrator Tel 01858 411 541 catkinson@amie.atl.org.uk

20

David Green Assistant director of AMiE (employment services) Tel 01858 411 540 Mobile 07711 929 043 dgreen@amie.atl.org.uk

AMiE regional officers

Julia Pearson Administration manager Tel 01858 411 542 jpearson@amie.atl.org.uk Peter Pendle Chief executive Tel 020 7782 1507 ppendle@atl.org.uk Mark Wright Assistant director of AMiE (leadership and management) Tel 020 7782 1530 Mobile 07436 805 330 mwright@amie.atl.org.uk For membership queries, please contact the membership department on 020 7782 1602 or email membership@atl.org.uk

Ellie Manns Development officer Tel 01858 411 545 emanns@amie.atl.org.uk

Eastern Liz Salisbury Tel 01572 720 467 Mobile 07595 099 617 lsalisbury@amie.atl.org.uk

Central Louise Scarff Tel 01604 810 980 Mobile 07918 741 030 lscarff@amie.atl.org.uk

WALES Hilary Mason Tel 01591 620 700 Mobile 07435 970 063 hmason@amie.atl.org.uk

South East Steve Cooper Tel 01983 856 362 Mobile 07436 549 565 scooper@amie.atl.org.uk

EAST ANGLIA Darren Smith Tel 01502 217 584 Mobile 07570 670 411 dsmith@amie.atl.org.uk

NORTHERN IRELAND Mark Langhammer Tel 02890 782 020 Mobile 07918 195 070 mlanghammer@atl.org.uk

London Kalbinder Herr Tel 01865 765 454 Mobile 07711 929 038 kherr@amie.atl.org.uk

Northern Pauline Rodmell Tel 01204 660 440 Mobile 07711 929 037 prodmell@amie.atl.org.uk

Scotland, Channel Islands, Isle of Man Contact the national helpline: Tel 01858 464 171 helpline@amie.atl.org.uk

South West Rachel Jennings Tel 01752 839 643 Mobile 07738 641 689 rjennings@amie.atl.org.uk

Designed by thingswedo (thingswedo.com). Illustrations by Keith Sparrow. Printed by Blackmore Ltd, Shaftesbury. Š AMiE 2014. All rights reserved.

Contacting ELM