ELM July 2016

EDUCATION LEADER AND MANAGER

Representing leaders and managers in education P O L I CY

PROFILE

M A ST E R C L A S S

THE COSTLY, CHAOTIC NATURE OF AREA REVIEWS page 6

MEET AMiE’S REP OF THE YEAR page 15

MAKING MARKING MEANINGFUL page 18

JULY 2016 @ATL_AMiE

WHITE PAPER:

STILL DRIVING SCHOOLS TOWARDS ACADEMISATION

page 10

Open the door to new opportunities with Pearson

This is a great way 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.

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

Illustration by Ben Wiseman

Become a BTEC Standards verifier

ELM / JULY 2016

INSIDE 4

Education news, including academisation plans

6

Costly, premature and chaotic: area reviews

8

The view from Northern Ireland and Wales

10 15 17 18 20

Word on the white paper

Meet AMiE’s rep of the year

The latest from AMiE

On the matter of marking

Q&A: Dealing with T&Cs in a new contract

22

‘Focus on teaching, not pointless bureaucracy’

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 Sally Gillen 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 Designer Alix Thomazi 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: Robin Chevalier

PETER PENDLE AMiE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Welcome The Department for Education’s (DfE’s) partial climbdown on forced academisation was welcome. But it would be too charitable to describe it as the action of a Government newly convinced of the virtues of consultation.

The rising tide of objections from parents, teachers, governors, local authorities and unions to the policy may have made the Conservative Government think twice, but it was the prospect of a rebellion in its own party that proved decisive.

Nevertheless, despite the Government’s retreat from the immediate academisation of all maintained schools, “failing” local authority schools will still face forced academisation, and the policy itself remains a pivotal part of the Government’s plans for English education.

This means that, while the campaigning work of AMiE and its members, many of whom have lobbied their MPs and councillors on the matter, has been a success, there is much work still to be done to prevent the worst effects of a policy that has little merit, and no discernible basis in evidence.

Chair of the Education Select Committee Neil Carmichael has remarked on the DfE’s “acting first, thinking later” approach to policy, and its tendency to make structural change “without setting out the big picture”. The same charge might be levelled at the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills over its programme of post-16 area reviews. The late communication of important changes, such as the announcement that sixth-form colleges will be able to convert to become academies, and the department’s generally fragmented and piecemeal approach to FE reform, have left the process way behind schedule. And, despite the huge financial and workload costs involved, early indications suggest the outcomes may be far less dramatic than expected (see the feature on page 6).

GET IN TOUCH

www.facebook.com/atlunion @atl_amie

JULY 2016 | ELM 3

NEED TO KNOW

NEWS IN BRIEF KEEP UP TO DATE WITH THE LATEST EDUCATION SECTOR NEWS

FIRST WAVE OF AREA REVIEWS DELAYED The first wave of area reviews of FE provision across England is now “seriously behind” schedule, causing considerable insecurity for staff and learners, AMiE has warned.

Only two of seven of the reviews, which began in September and were due to report in January, have been completed.

The four-month delay – at the time of ELM going to press – confirms AMiE fears that the deadline was too tight.

The nationwide programme of area reviews was announced by the Government in July 2015 to create “fewer, more resilient” colleges.

The Birmingham and Solihull review, which covered seven colleges, has reported. The report recommends that Bournville College and South & City College merge.

Financially troubled Bournville College would have potentially merged anyway, even without the review.

The three sixth-form colleges will apply for academy status.

Also, the Tees Valley area review has reported.

ATL policy adviser Janet Clark said it is “unsurprising” the deadline was missed, given the number of colleges involved. The Greater Manchester review, which also began in September, has 21 colleges. “I think we will be waiting some time before we hear the outcome of this one.”

See the feature on page 6.

4 ELM | JULY 2016

DON’T RUSH INTO ACADEMISATION, ADVISES AMiE AMiE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR Mark Wright has urged school leaders to hold back from rushing to become an academy and joining a multi-academy trust.

An education bill - outlined in the Queen’s Speech and due to be published in the autumn - will set out plans to convert schools in the worst-performing local authorities into academies.

The announcement of the Education for All Bill followed the publication of the education white paper in March that said all schools would become academies by 2022.

Widespread opposition to the plan, including from Tory backbenchers, forced education secretary Nicky Morgan to water down the proposal, weeks ahead of the announcement of the education bill.

In a statement to the House of Commons in May, Morgan said that, although the Government still wants “every school to become an academy by 2022”, the “blanket powers” included in the white paper would be abandoned.

“We understand the concerns that have been raised by a hard deadline and legislating for blanket powers to issue academy orders,” she said. “That is why we have decided it is not necessary to take blanket powers to

convert good schools in strong local authorities to academies at this time.”

Mark Wright said: “There is time to reflect on what is really best for the school in light of Nicky Morgan’s statement, which will impact on some schools more than others.”

In April, delegates at ATL’s Annual Conference voted unanimously to pass a motion against forced academisation.

In her Commons statement, Morgan went on to say that the Education and Adoption Act 2016 already enables the Government to rapidly convert failing schools and schools that are coasting.

Instead of a blanket policy, the Government will now push for powers to convert schools in two circumstances: where they are in the lowest-performing local authorities, which may involve converting schools that are good and outstanding.

Morgan added that the thresholds for underperformance and unviability will be consulted on.

ATL/AMiE believes Government plans to fundamentally reform the education system in England will lead to lower standards. To find out more, see the feature on page 10.

ATL ASKS WHAT FUTURE OF STRB WILL BE ATL GENERAL SECRETARY Mary Bousted has written to education secretary Nicky Morgan asking her to clarify the future role of the School Teachers’ Review Body.

The letter was sent in April, after the white paper was published. The white paper says: “The management, training, retention, development and pay

of existing teachers are now rightly the responsibility of headteachers, free from unnecessary bureaucratic interference and central prescription.”

Dr Bousted’s letter says: “It is important for my members to be clear about the Government’s intentions regarding their union’s ability to retain national negotiating

rights for teachers’ pay and conditions of service.”

Dr Bousted was due to meet with Morgan as ELM went to press.

ATL senior policy adviser Simon Stokes said: “A national pay structure means school leaders do not have to reinvent the wheel, or protect themselves from claims of discrimination and inequality.”

NEED TO KNOW

CENTRE FOR EDUCATION LEADERS LAUNCHED A CENTRE FOR cutting-edge research in educational leadership and management has launched.

Speakers at the launch of the Centre for Research in Educational Leadership and Management included Dame Alison Peacock, executive headteacher at The Wroxham School.

Dame Alison delivered a keynote that included the practical implications of teaching without labelling children with numbers and grades, and exploring an alternative approach to primary assessment.

RESIST ADOPTING A BUSINESS APPROACH TO EDUCATION, URGES AMiE Education leaders must guard against adopting an overly business-focused culture in running their organisations.

That was the message from AMiE assistant director Mark Wright at a fringe session at ATL’s Annual Conference.

Wright likened the approach to management taken by some education leaders to that of dehumanised and outdated factoryproduction practices.

Instead, they must maintain a focus on the “moral purpose” of education, he said.

Members later voted overwhelmingly for ATL to produce an action plan to raise awareness of the threat of an increasingly corporatised education system.

AMiE assistant director Mark Wright attended the event. He said: “Members are wrestling with how to assimilate the waves of reform, so anything that may help is often appreciated. AMiE is constantly on the alert for good practice and will cascade useful research from the new leadership and management research centre via the AMiE website.”

3 MORE INFO www.nottingham.ac.uk/ research/groups/crelm/index.aspx.

NEW UNION DELEGATES AT ATL’S Annual Conference agreed to move ahead with talks with the NUT around creating a new union to protect and support members and the children, young people and adults they educate.

In a closed session at Conference, delegates representing members from across ATL and AMiE spoke at length about the opportunities and challenges around creating a new union for education professionals across every role and sector. The NUT has, of course, a significant number of members in leadership and management roles in both schools and post-16 education, and closer working would create the potential for an even more effective leadership voice.

Against this background of the Government’s white paper to academise schools, to undermine qualified teacher status, and to further erode pay and working conditions, delegates overwhelmingly supported the continuation of talks to create a 500,000-strong union, which would be able to mount a very powerful defence of education.

Although delegates have agreed ATL should carry on discussions with the NUT, there will be many opportunities for members to have a say on the union’s future. The new union would not go ahead until: the Executive Committee gives its backing; a special conference is held to agree the new union’s structure and rules; and the wider membership gives its support in a ballot, likely to be held next year. We will keep you up to date with progress at every stage.

3 MORE INFO www.atl.org.uk/newunion.

ELECTION RESULTS

The deputy director of Torquay Girls’ Grammar School sixth form, Julia Neal, has been elected president of AMiE. Freelance educational consultant Josie Whiteley is vice president. Whiteley said: “I am thrilled to have been elected and I’m looking forward to playing my part in ensuring education managers’ voices are heard.

“There is no doubt we are facing turbulent times across all education sectors, and school and college leaders and managers need to lead effectively and efficiently,” she added. “The key to success is for each individual manager to take an ethical, caring and collaborative approach to ensure their teams are properly supported and have the resources they need to deliver an excellent education to learners of all ages.

“If we can’t do this as managers, how can we expect our teaching staff to do their jobs well?

AMiE can play a role here through high-quality publications that offer useful information, realistic advice and campaigns, such as It’s about time…, which can make a real difference.”

AMiE COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM SEPTEMBER 2016 PRESIDENT

Julia Neal deputy director of sixth form, Torquay Girls’ Grammar School

VICE PRESIDENT

Josie Whiteley freelance educational consultant/ interim manager

SCHOOL LEADERS

Ralph Surman deputy head, Cantrell Primary Jane Dennis deputy head, Cheshire Jewish Primary Elizabeth Green acting headteacher, Wool CE VA Primary Jenny Jackson headteacher, Elstow School Chris Dutton assistant head, St Laurence School, Bradford on Avon David Healey deputy head, Ysgol Friars

SCHOOL LEADER WALES

Bethan Jones deputy head, Ysgol Hiraddug

LEADERS/MANAGERS FE/HE

Caroline Allen principal CEO, Orchard Hill College Anthony Bravo principal, Basingstoke College of Technology Lesley Tipping assistant principal, Grŵp Llandrillo Menai Colin Sawers team leader learning resources vision, West Nottinghamshire College Amber Bardell initial teacher/education leader, Southend Adult Community College Richard Davies assistant principal, Salisbury Sixth Form College

JULY 2016 | ELM 5

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

The results of the first completed post-16 area review suggest that the outcomes of the process may not, overall, be quite as seismic as anticipated WORDS PAUL STANISTREET

AREA REVIEWS: PREMATURE, COSTLY AND

T

he modest recommendations of the first post-16 area review were published, to little fanfare, in March. The six-month Birmingham and Solihull area review, which involved four general FE colleges and three sixth-form colleges, looks set to result in only one merger, between Bournville College and South & City College, while the area’s largest college, Birmingham Metropolitan, will remain a stand-alone institution, despite the still unresolved issue of its £15million deficit. All three sixth-form colleges have indicated that they are to apply for academy status.

The proposed merger had been expected and may well have taken place irrespective of the area-review process.

Bournville College has been struggling

6 ELM | JULY 2016

financially and has made more than 100 staff members redundant over the past two years. Given the ambitions of the area-review process, its huge cost and impact on workload, and its emphasis on ensuring financial sustainability and resilience, it is perhaps unsurprising that the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) was disinclined to publicise its first set of concrete recommendations.

The Government’s programme of post-16 area reviews in England was announced in July 2015. Guidance from BIS and the Department for Education said the reviews were “likely to result in rationalised curriculum; fewer, larger and more financially resilient organisations; and, where practicable, shared back-office functions and

curriculum delivery systems”. The aim of each area review, the guidance says, is to establish a set of institutions that are “financially resilient” and “able to offer high-quality education and training based on the needs of learners and employers within the local areas”.

Large-scale structural change, such as mergers and federation arrangements, were expected to result.

Piecemeal approach The picture was further complicated when the 2015 spending review announced that sixth-form colleges would be able to convert to become 16–19 academies after taking part in the review process, with the first conversions expected to take place in August 2016 – a move with huge

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

“THE AREA REVIEWS ARE COSTING A HUGE AMOUNT OF TAXPAYERS’ MONEY, AND CAUSING CONSIDERABLE WORKLOAD AND STRESS TO STAFF, BUT FOR LITTLE BENEFIT.” implications for the review process and for the future structure of the college sector. The late announcement of this change, and the Government’s disjointed and piecemeal approach to FE reform, help explain why the process is behind schedule. The first wave of the area-review process, involving 50 FE colleges and 33 sixth-form colleges, covering Birmingham, Greater Manchester, Sheffield, Tees Valley, Sussex, the Solent and West Yorkshire, began in autumn 2015. The first, Birmingham and Solihull (at the time of writing, the area review to have had its recommendations formally approved by its steering committee), should have concluded in January, according to the timetable (BIS originally advised that area reviews should take three or four months, later revising this to between four and six). Greater Manchester, which began at the same time, is still to report – unsurprising, perhaps, given that it

covers 21 colleges. At least three of the seven areas in the first wave are behind schedule. The second wave began in January 2016, involving around 140 colleges. All five waves of the areareviews are meant to be completed by summer 2017.

The area-review programme, and the messages from Government that have accompanied it, has prompted many colleges to seriously consider merging with other institutions in their area.

Despite this, the Association of Colleges (AoC), while expecting 2016 to be a record year for college-merger proposals, estimates that fewer than 30 mergers are likely to result from area reviews.

More institutions look set to hold out as autonomous organisations. “The signal sent by the outcome in Birmingham and Solihull to the governing bodies of colleges involved in ongoing and future area reviews is that they don’t have to accept recommendations of mergers

from steering groups,” says ATL policy adviser Janet Clark. “Despite BIS protests to the contrary, the status quo is very much an option. We are concerned that the area reviews are costing a huge amount of taxpayers’ money, and causing considerably increased workload and stress to college leaders and staff, but for little benefit.

This process is also a distraction from teaching, and therefore inevitably impacts on learners.”

Negative impact The delays in the process, Clark continues, mean yet more insecurity for staff and learners, further disrupting the core business of teaching and learning.

Where mergers do occur, they will draw attention further away from the students, engaging senior leaders in a lengthy and often stressful process of restructuring, which is likely to have a significant negative impact on teaching and learning outcomes at the institutions concerned, at least in the short term. The AoC says that college mergers can take up to 12 months, with some mergers in Scotland still to be finally resolved after 18 months. AMiE members report that the area reviews have already soaked up an enormous amount of staff and management time, and that this has diminished their focus on teaching and learning.

One college principal, a few days from the start of his area’s review process, noted that a huge amount of work had already been undertaken, just to prepare for the process, though “it is not clear what notice will be taken”.

It was evident, he said, that sixth-form colleges in his area had already had private conversations about academisation with the Education Funding Agency in advance of the process. “We were on the verge of conversations with local sixth forms, and academisation has been a ‘get-outof-jail-free card’, which has completely stopped all discussion,” he said. “It appears the impact will only be on general FE colleges now.”

The Government’s “drip, drip” approach to issuing critical guidance

on area reviews is “evidence that the process was launched prematurely”, says Mark Wright, AMiE’s assistant director for leadership and management, thus adding an “unnecessary extra workload burden” to the FE sector.

“The Government, keen to see change happen quickly, launched the areareview process knowing full well that there would be later announcements on sixth-form colleges and restructure funding, given that these were dependent on the November budget, and must have known that such important information would need to be assimilated and previous conversations unpicked in light of it,” he says. The availability of funding to support the implementation of review recommendations was a key consideration in assessing the feasibility of a merger to which colleges were not privy at the start of the process, Wright adds.

Lack of transparency is another important concern, as Clark explains.

“We are concerned that the steering groups are providing little, if any, information about how decisions are made,” she says. “In each area, ATL staff and reps attend joint union meetings, led by BIS, and they have repeatedly asked for minutes of steering group meetings. Only the minutes of one meeting, from one of the seven areareview steering groups, have been made available so far. This lack of transparency means that we are unable to understand the extent to which students and staff have been consulted, and how the regional school commissioners, who are supposed to represent school sixth-form provision, local enterprise partnerships, which are meant to represent employers, and local authorities, have been involved.”

The reported absence of regional school commissioners from the reviews is a particular worry, given that BIS, from the outset, has insisted that each review consider the implications for school sixth forms as part of the process.

ATL/AMiE is also concerned to ensure that equalities impact assessments and cost/benefit analyses are being carried out, and has submitted freedom of information requests to obtain the minutes and associated papers of the steering group meetings. Given the amount of public money being spent on the process, and its disruptive impact on teaching and learning, accountability and inclusivity are the least we should expect.

JULY 2016 | ELM 7

COMMENT: WALES

All change in Cardiff Bay IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE ELECTION, IT LOOKS AS THOUGH LABOUR WILL BE SHAPING WELSH EDUCATION’S FUTURE FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS

F

irstly, thanks to all of you who took the time to join in with the Put Education First campaign. Although the election is over, the pressure on the Welsh Government to put education first will not stop.

In the aftermath of the election, there has been much political wrangling. As we go to press, Kirsty Williams – the sole Liberal Democrat assembly member (AM) – has been appointed education secretary. She will be assisted by Alun Davies AM in lifelong learning and the Welsh language.

Julie James AM moves to skills and science.

This Assembly will very much depend on how well the different parties get along, as the Labour-led Welsh Government will need to gain support in order to get a majority in the Senedd and to pass new laws.

Labour has 29 of the 60 seats, having lost former education minister Leighton Andrew’s Rhondda seat to Plaid Cymru’s leader, Leanne Wood. Plaid, overall, is now the official opposition, with 12 seats, while the Conservatives went down to 11. The Lib Dems were the losers of the night, just keeping former leader Kirsty Williams, while UKIP entered the Assembly for the first time with seven new AMs. Labour’s manifesto is the most likely to be enacted. But, with Williams as education secretary, it is likely some aspects of what the Lib Dems were fighting for, such as reducing infant class sizes to 25, will come into play, too.

And, with Plaid publishing details of an agreement with Labour to include the Additional Learning Needs Bill, there is a lot going on.

Big topics are likely to dominate education policy in the next five years, not least the new curriculum in Wales. Here are some more.

Further education We already know the Diamond Review, set up to look into HE funding, has been extended to include FE. Meanwhile, the Welsh Labour manifesto says it will “create a new funding body for higher and further education in Wales”. There is little detail about this pledge, so it will be one to keep a close eye on.

8 ELM | JULY 2016

COLUMNIST MARY VAN DEN HEUVEL POLICY OFFICER, ATL CYMRU Education Workforce Council The parties largely agree that the Education Workforce Council (EWC) is likely to have an increased role, and those registered are likely to have more responsibility for keeping their CPD up to date. The Welsh Labour Manifesto pledges that the party will work towards establishing teaching as an all-Masters profession.

It is likely that the EWC will have a hand in delivering this pledge.

Additional learning needs Labour has pledged to legislate on additional learning needs (ALN), although the deal with Plaid Cymru means there will be no legislation for the first 100 days. The draft Code, published in 2015, saw an increased role for governing bodies, with a huge job description for the ALN coordinator. The new law could also see increased education support for young people with ALN up to age 25. We will be working with others to take a close look at the legislation.

Devolution of school teachers’ pay and conditions document Given the potential threat to the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document, due to the academies programme in England, this Assembly may see responsibility devolved to the Welsh Government. Details will be in the Wales Bill, which was reintroduced in the Queen’s Speech.

We know Welsh Labour is keen; if there is the political will in the Assembly and Westminster to make this happen, it could mean a big change.

COMMENT: NORTHERN IRELAND

The 2011–2016 political mandate: how did they do?

AS WE FIND OUT WHAT THE MANDATE MEANS FOR EDUCATION, WE GIVE MINISTERS OUR MARKS FOR EFFORT AND INGENUITY

COLUMNIST MARK LANGHAMMER DIRECTOR OF ATL NORTHERN IRELAND

I

n FE, employment and learning minister Stephen Farry’s landmark success was the new apprenticeship framework, based on European (notably Swiss) best practice. In HE, Farry kept student fees below £4,000.

In schools education, John O’Dowd was a strong, engaged education minister. He took concerns about teacher employment seriously. The Delivering Social Change Signature Programmes gave recently qualified teachers two years’ work, aimed at improving literacy and numeracy. The £33million Investing in the Teaching Workforce scheme will fall to the next minister in the new mandate. If agreed, 500 jobs will be created for recently qualified teachers, with 500 existing teachers aged 55 and over enabled to leave the profession without pension detriment.

O’Dowd passionately steered finance towards disadvantaged learners, but failed to understand that even sustained investment in schools where there are high levels of poverty is always less effective than achieving socially balanced pupil intakes.

He secured additional capital finance from the Stormont House Agreement, albeit from borrowing against savings secured from publicsector redundancies. He will point to a £1.2billion investment in school buildings; additional nursery places; more early-years nurture units; protecting breakfast and homework clubs; broadened entitlement to free school meals and school uniform grants; and mitigation of Educational Maintenance Allowance cuts.

We supported O’Dowd in resisting the English model of examinations. We remain at loggerheads

on key stage assessment - seen by teachers as of no educational value. Regarding the campaign for school starting-age flexibility – led by ATL with Parents Outloud – the failure to legislate or provide helpful guidance was a disappointment.

By conventional measures, Northern Ireland’s education system is improving, but remains just okay. It outperforms England in GCEs and GCSEs, but with a long tail of underachievement.

Including the Republic of Ireland, it is fourth out of five British Isles regions in PISA tests. We do better in international literacy and numeracy surveys in the primary years, with the P6 pupils assessed for the first time against international counterparts in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). The TIMSS and PIRLS results show that pupils in our primary schools, where socially balanced intakes are more prevalent, perform well above the international average in both literacy (ranked fifth out of 45 countries) and numeracy (ranked sixth out of 50).

Performance is not sustained into the postprimary years, where social segregation is more acute, perhaps because of the residual effects of ‘selection’, or because some pupils become disinterested by the narrow focus on measured learning. Nonetheless, GCSE results improved against the standard target of five A*-C GCSEs, including maths and English.

The 11-plus saw continued, unregulated testing for grammar-school selection. O’Dowd will argue that some Catholic grammars have moved away from academic selection. However, more schools have embraced selection to a ‘grammar stream’ through testing, often to ensure a reasonable social balance.

Farry and O’Dowd get an A* for effort, resilience, doggedness and ingenuity in the face of severe cuts. FE and HE may see a different focus within the new Department for the Economy. In schools education, the system remains too target-stressed and too data-driven, with an overwrought, low-trust accountability framework. As the Confederation of British Industry points out, we lack an overarching vision for the system.

A steady C-minus is the best we could award.

The Programme for Government for 2016-2021 needs more political consensus in education, and more nuanced, broad targets.

JULY 2016 | ELM 9

F E AT U R E

The rocky road to reform The Government’s education white paper is not without merit, but, overall, its proposals are incoherent, damaging and do not address the fundamental challenges faced by education leaders WORDS PAUL STANISTREET ILLUSTRATION ROBIN CHEVALIER

he Government’s education white paper, Educational Excellence Everywhere, outlines plans for fundamental change in the way England’s schools are governed. In some respects, it represents the most radical reform of the English education system in more than a century.

Yet it is contradictory, ill-thought out and woefully short on supporting evidence.

Despite this, the prime minister and the secretary of state have, more than once, indicated their determination to push through the main proposals as quickly as possible, in the face of opposition from parents, teachers and headteachers, unions, local authorities and even members of their own party. Everyone agrees that schools need to improve and nobody would argue against a more stable, consistent and coherent approach to educational planning.

Unfortunately, the secretary of state’s plans are built not on the solid foundation of evidence and consultation, but on the shifting sands of ideology. The Government’s partial climbdown on forced academisation is a tacit admission of its failure to produce supporting evidence for its proposals.

10 ELM | JULY 2016

Discussion of the white paper, announced, rather unusually, by chancellor George Osborne in his Budget in March, has, understandably, focused largely on the Government’s academisation plans. The white paper says that all maintained schools will have to have become academies by 2020, or else be in the process of converting.

It also proposes the creation of new Government powers to direct schools to become academies in local authority areas that are underperforming or where schools have not begun the process of becoming an academy by 2020. By 2022, the white paper says, all schools will have to be academies, directly funded by Government and franchised to charitable operators.

However, with Tory MPs and local authorities adding to wider sector calls

“The Government’s partial climbdown on forced academisation is a tacit admission of its failure to produce supporting evidence for its proposals.”

F E AT U R E

JULY 2016 | ELM 11

F E AT U R E

for the policy to be scrapped or modified, the Government abandoned its plans to force all maintained schools to become academies. Schools judged by Ofsted to be good or outstanding will not be required “immediately” to become academies, while rural schools will not be obliged to join a multi-academy trust (MAT). Nevertheless, schools “most at risk of failing young people” will still be subject to forced academisation. There is also the potential for ministers to force all schools in a “failing” local authority to convert to academy status. Education secretary Nicky Morgan reaffirmed her “determination to see all schools become academies”, but added that having “listened to the feedback … we will now change the path to reaching that goal”.

Debatable evidence She announced the rethink just weeks before an education bill Education for All was announced in the Queen’s Speech.

The bill, which is due to be published in the autumn, sets a goal to make every school an academy. While the immediate threat of forced academisation for all schools has receded, universal academisation remains a goal of Government policy. Awkwardly for the secretary of state, however, evidence is scant that academies deliver better outcomes for pupils, let alone that they are, in some unstated way, capable of delivering “excellence everywhere”.

Demands for the evidence on which the white paper rests have been met either with blank assertion (“Autonomy raises standards”, “Academies are narrowing the performance gap”, “We’re putting

“The Government’s conviction that academies can be a silver bullet represents magical thinking.” power in the hands of headteachers”) or highly selective anecdotage (“I talked to people …”). The prime minister is fond of quoting the statistic that 88% of convertor academies are good or outstanding, but, given that convertor academies must be either good or outstanding at the outset of the conversion process, it is debatable whether this figure represents much of a success story. Former secretary of state for education Estelle Morris wrote in The Guardian that the Government’s use of statistics on academy performance “borders on deceit”. At the very least, the Government’s conviction that academies can be something close to a silver bullet in terms of school performance represents a kind of magical thinking.

At odds Despite these issues, there are nevertheless some useful measures within the white paper that deserve to be taken seriously. For example, the new 30-month “improvement period”, during which schools will not be subject to Ofsted inspection, should allow leaders the “breathing space” they need to turn around struggling schools. Also welcome is the paper’s renewed focus on improving diversity, aimed, in particular,

One change can make a difference ATL’s work-life campaign is already having a positive impact in improving workload in schools and colleges. n Share

using #make1change the one thing you would change to improve your work-life balance

n Use

our work-life tracker to track your working hours and analyse what drives your workload

n Check

Time to tackle workload 12 ELM | JULY 2016

out our help and advice on managing your workload better

www.atl.org.uk/abouttime #make1change

at groups currently under-represented in leadership positions, such as women, lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender candidates, and those from a black or minority ethnic background. The pledge to continue the pupil premium is also good news. Regrettably, however, these positives are overshadowed by the glaring contradictions that bedevil this white paper and go to the heart of what is wrong with the Government’s thinking about education.

Again and again, the rhetoric of the white paper is palpably at odds with the reality on the ground and the intended outcomes of the paper. For example, the white paper stresses the importance of autonomy to achieving educational excellence, promising to put “the best leaders at the heart of the school system” and give them “freedom and power”, as well as support. In a speech to the House of Commons, the secretary of state said that “test scores are higher when schools manage their budgets and recruit their own teachers”. This implies that maintained schools do not currently do this and academy schools do. In fact, pretty much the opposite is true. The only schools that do not currently manage their own budgets and recruit their own teachers are schools in academy chains.

While the commercially focused chief executives of MATs enjoy “freedom and power”, heads of schools joining the trusts frequently find themselves with limited professional autonomy, acting effectively as middle managers in an essentially commercial organisation.

The same can be said of governors in these schools, as local governing bodies

it’s about time...

make 1 change ATL’S WORK-LIFE CAMPAIGN

F E AT U R E

“The Government’s blinkered commitment to academisation may well result in lower educational standards in England’s schools.”

ultimately become sub-committees of the main board, with reduced autonomy.

Blinkered approach While the Government promises a “school-led system” and talks up institutional autonomy, in reality, power will continue to shift to the corporate leadership of MATs, away from individual schools. This will mean more centralised power for trust CEOs and less for individual headteachers and parents.

The loss of parent voice from governing bodies follows this year’s Education and Adoption Act, which removed parental choice as to whether schools become academies and which sponsors take over schools. The sponsor of a given academy will be determined by unelected, locally unaccountable regional schools commissioners (RSCs), with no requirement to consult with parents.

The changes will also mean less community control of schools, with community assets transferred from local authorities to largely unaccountable trusts franchised by the secretary of state.

The white paper proposes a reduced role for post-academisation local authorities in ensuring a school place for every child, overseeing admissions complaints and securing the provision of services for children with special needs. It is far from clear, however, how local authorities will fulfil these roles or where funds to deliver these important services will come from.

Far from introducing greater school

autonomy and localism, the white paper is an exercise in good old-fashioned centralism, transferring power from local communities to the secretary of state.

The Government claims that this fundamental transfer of power to the corporate leadership of MATs will lead to higher standards and better outcomes for pupils, but, again, supporting evidence is scarce and the available evidence seems to suggest the opposite. In fact, while just 15% of the largest MATs perform above the national average in terms of pupil progress, 44% of councils do. The worst MATs perform as badly as the worst local authorities. The figures for schools in need of improvement make even grimmer reading for the Government.

Among schools that became sponsored academies after being rated “inadequate”

by Ofsted, 12% remained inadequate at their next inspection compared to two per cent of those that continued to be maintained by their local authority.

Far from delivering improved pupil outcomes, the Government’s blinkered commitment to academisation may well result in lower educational standards in England’s schools.

Confused and incoherent RSCs, who currently monitor academies and free schools, are also handed significant power under the new arrangements, with their middle-tier role growing rapidly as the role of local authorities diminishes. It remains to be

seen how the eight RSCs will effectively discharge their responsibility for more than 1,000 academy chains and trusts.

A recent Education Select Committee report raised serious concerns about RSCs’ scrutiny of existing academy schools, calling it “confused, fragmented and lacking in transparency”, and warned of a “lack of transparency in the way the RSCs operate”. There are particular issues about parental redress when things go wrong. The unplannedfor expansion of the role of RSCs is a further example of what Neil Carmichael, chair of the Education Select Committee, described as the Department for Education’s (DfE) “acting first, thinking later” approach to policy and its tendency to make structural change “without setting out the big picture”.

Inconsistency and self-contradiction are at the heart of the white paper. Dr Robin Bevan, headteacher at Southend High School for Boys, which features in the paper as an example of good practice, compared reading it to listening to a Shostakovich symphony: “Simultaneously compelling, relentless and uncomfortable”. He explains: “I was mentally engaged as I read it, but in a state of disconnected shock by the end.

It never really resolved its own internal incoherence. It takes a while to analyse and understand the source of the disconnection and incoherence, but further reading illuminates why I am not the only headteacher to feel completely detached from the agenda being set out.

The starting point, I suppose, is that I expected the white paper to seek to address the main challenges within the education landscape. A good challenge for any school or college leader would be to list the five top priorities for action in the educational system. Then, try to find the response proposed by the DfE in JULY 2016 | ELM 13

F E AT U R E

no grasp that the same might reasonably be said about MATs, the National Teaching Service, the growing bureaucratic reach of RSCs, and so on.

Finally, and this is the sadness of it – as an experienced headteacher who loves his job and is energised by leading and shaping a standalone secondary academy – there is no fundamental thread in the white paper that excites me for the future of our young people. There’s the real disconnect.”

Failing children the white paper. Key issues are barely mentioned. Side issues are centre stage.

It’s quite frankly odd. Next, I found myself experiencing significant anxiety. The DfE has proved itself to be wholly inept in the field of change management. Indeed, I suspect Michael Gove would have argued that the ‘management of change’ isn’t a proper subject! The repeated shambles this year – in curriculum reform, in assessment, in funding and recruitment – all suggest that the DfE ought to be looking to set an agenda it can competently deliver. There are nearly 40 separate major initiatives and less than half even have a delivery date, let alone a properly TAKE ACTION mapped timeline.”

AMiE is asking members to lobby their MPs and local councillors about the white paper.

Members should note that the proposals are far from a “done deal” and there will be further opportunities for consultation, including on academisation, which could produce an outcome more in line with the status quo. Members who “jump now” may regret doing so if the proposals fail to come to fruition. Some useful resources, including background briefings and a note on how to lobby your MP or councillor, can be downloaded from: www.atl.org.uk/whitepaper.

Disconnection

“Chapter two includes strong and welcome recommendations regarding access to a robust evidence base for the teaching profession. Systemwide steps in this direction are clearly overdue. However, and here is my third disconnect, the bulk of the proposals are presented without a jot of evidence and as if no other country in the world had an education system worth learning from.

The white paper explicitly dismisses ‘Fads like Brain Gym’ as ‘silly … pseudoscientific … accepted as orthodoxy despite lacking rigorous evidence of success’, but there is

14 ELM | JULY 2016

As Dr Bevan suggests, perhaps the most damning aspect of the white paper is its failure to offer anything like a clear pathway to improved outcomes for children. This is the very least we might expect from a set of proposals that promise huge and costly structural upheaval and major shifts in power and accountability, away from teachers, headteachers, parents and communities and towards MAT corporate leaders and RSCs. The white paper promises coherence but, as Morris argues, the coherence the Government is trying to recapture is one it has itself “wantonly destroyed”. Furthermore, it will be introduced at the expense of robust local accountability, parent voice and school autonomy. We do well to remember that the 1992 incorporisation of FE colleges promised autonomy but resulted, among other things, in poorer pay and conditions, deprofessionalism and the loss of great swathes of provision that lacked a direct business or employment focus. Opposition continues to grow to the Government’s plans. If the Government persists, and the signs are that it will, we will shortly see in place a system in which local democratic control is a thing of the past and schools are run by competitive businesses driven by corporate interests, rather than any notion of public service. How long before we are talking about the wholesale privatisation of the schools system?

“There is no fundamental thread in the white paper that excites me for the future of our young people.

There’s the real disconnect.”

SARAH TURTON

PROFILE

“Union support can be key” AM�E REP OF THE YEAR CELIA GEEN HAS PLAYED A VITAL ROLE IN NEGOTIATING NEW TERMS FOR SICKNESS PAY FOR STAFF WORDS SALLY GILLEN

I

n April, Celia Geen was named AMiE rep of the year 2016, and was presented with the accolade at ATL’s Annual Conference in Liverpool.

Her nominator, AMiE regional officer Darren Smith, praised Celia’s “tremendous ability and knowledge”, adding: “She’s able, empathetic and committed to helping AMiE members.”

A rep since 2009 at the College of West Anglia, where she is the learning, assessment and teaching manager – a role that includes training staff on the college’s learning strategy – Celia took on the role after a number of branch reps and members left as a result of a restructure.

To ensure the survival of AMiE at the college, Celia and a colleague became reps.

“I really enjoy the role, and one of the positives of having done it for seven years is the knowledge you gain about policies and procedures,” she says. “But it is also important to encourage new people to become involved in the union who can add vitality and new ideas. I see that as part of my role.”

The award was given partly to recognise Celia’s role in negotiating a new policy on sick pay, which was introduced in January 2015.

“The college management felt that our sick-pay policy and payments were unsustainable,” she explains. “We needed to think about how we could have a policy that was fair to staff and supported them when they were sick, but was less of a financial drain on the college.”

Proposals to reduce sick pay for short-term absences – identified as a cost pressure by the college’s management – left staff concerned. The proposal was that staff would not be paid for the first three days of sickness absence.

“There was a very strong

“IF YOU ARE A UNION MEMBER AND SOMETHING OCCURS, YOU HAVE GOT SUPPORT FROM REPS AND THE REGIONAL OFFICER.”

feeling from staff that it was not acceptable,” she says. “They were concerned because potentially all of us could have absences, and this was conveyed to the management by the unions and individuals.”

Taking a pragmatic approach to the negotiations, Celia says there had to be an acceptance that money had to be saved, and that flat-out opposition to changes was not an option. Instead, the focus of the negotiations was switched to longterm sick pay, which would affect fewer staff members.

Working with Unison and the University and College Union, Celia negotiated with the management team to make changes to the long-term sickpay entitlement, which, for a member of staff with more than five years’ service, has reduced from six months’ full pay followed by six months’ half pay, to six months’ full pay followed by three months’ half pay within a two-year period. Although this is a substantial change, it appeared to offer the best option for all college staff.

Without this negotiation, the policy introduced would potentially have disadvantaged more members of staff, illustrating the importance of unions in pushing for the best terms and conditions for members.

As well as the collective negotiation, Celia says membership of AMiE offers individual benefits: “If you are a union member and something occurs, you have got a substantial level of support from reps and the regional officer. That gives people a lot of comfort; that’s what a lot of people value.”

She adds: “As a manager, what a member of staff does may impact you, because your management can be looked at. If a member of staff is involved in a disciplinary process, that can involve you as a manager. Having the support of your union can be really key.”

Being a rep offers opportunities to work with management, learn about negotiation, representing the views of a range of people.

“It gives you a better understanding of how your workplace works,” says Celia. “It can also be good for personal development, too.”

3 MORE INFO To find out more www.amie.atl.org.uk/join-in/reps/ becoming-rep.asp.

JULY 2016 | ELM 15

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

LEADERSHIP SEMINAR AND CONFERENCE OPPORTUNITIES AMiE leadership seminars on staff retention: treating staff with care Boosting morale, maintaining effective working relationships and retaining staff are the themes of this autumn’s leadership seminars.

They will be held in London and Manchester, led by renowned educator Peter Rushton, offering an opportunity to network with peers.

AMiE assistant director Mark Wright will also lead a session on how to cultivate a culture of well-being among staff.

The seminars, which will be held in London on 29 October and Manchester on 11 November, are free. The 50 places for each seminar are offered on a first-come, first-served basis. AMiE will reimburse reasonable travel expenses for delegates.

The programme is: 10.00am Registration and refreshments 10.30am Welcome 10.45am Discussion group: ‘Value- driven leadership’ focusing on the importance of vision, values and this in leadership today. Led by Jackie Christie and Peter Rushton, educational consultants 12.15pm Lunch 1.00pm Keynote speech by Peter Rushton: ‘Ethical leadership and success – a great mix’

1.30pm Discussion group: ‘Leading a well workplace’ led by Mark Wright, assistant director, AMiE (leadership and management) 3.00pm Q&A session 3.30pm Close For more information, email Kat Griffin at kgriffin@atl.org.uk, call 020 7782 1524 or go to amie.atl.org.uk/ seminars2016.

New term, new head?

Are you a new head looking for ideas from leading educational experts, including outstanding headteachers? AMiE is keen to support new heads and is offering one free place (delegate fee £225) at the National Early Headship Conference 2016 on 7 October in Warwickshire.

Speakers will include Sir Tim Brighouse, former headteacher; writer and researcher Sir John Dunford; and former head Dr Jill Berry.

Workshops include managing tricky HR issues, and effective financial management. Visit www. forumeducation.org/events/forumeducations-national-early-headshipconference-2016 for information.

If you are interested in attending, please contact Mark Wright at mwright@amie.atl.org.uk.

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.

LEADING OTHERS London 15 July

ETHICAL AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP – DOING THE RIGHT THING Manchester 23 November London 2 December

LEADING OUTSTANDING TEACHING AND LEARNING – ENSURING THE BEST FOR ALL STUDENTS London 18 November

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

ABOUT AMiE 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.

JULY 2016 | ELM 18

MASTERCLASS

Marking matters

MARKING CAN ADD EXCESSIVELY TO TEACHERS’ WORKLOAD IF DONE BADLY, BUT SCHOOL LEADERS CAN HELP THEIR STAFF MARK EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY WORDS SALLY GILLEN

B

lame for excessive workload can be targeted squarely at two culprits: Ofsted and the Government.

Right? Not according to one deputy head. Lee Card at Cherry Orchard Primary School in Worcester believes that, while the Department for Education (DfE) and the inspectorate are partly to blame, school leaders should also look a little closer to home.

“Most of the excessive workload we suffer is caused by school leaders trying to dance to the tune of an inadequate, inconsistent and, dare I say it, disingenuous Government,” he says.

“We can blame Ofsted, the media and the DfE. All have a case to answer. But, ultimately, we must blame ourselves if we are doing things, or forcing our teachers to do things, that might not actually help our children, and that are causing us to work 70-plus hours a week.”

Although he acknowledges that Ofsted provokes fear in many school leaders, Card believes the inspectorate has undergone something of a transformation. “Thanks to Sean Harford and former Ofsted director of inspection reform Michael Cladingbowl before him, there have been changes in its philosophy, and we no longer feel we are going to get beaten over the head by a data-driven inspectorate.”

The DfE is another matter, however.

Card thinks the chaos in the department – from the confusion over KS1 assessment 18 ELM | JULY 2016

to the hasty U-turn on forced academisation – opens up the way for the profession to reassert itself.

“There’s a growing change in the perception of who teachers are,” he argues. “There’s an irresistible professional force growing from within – largely thanks to social media. We are starting to feel this cultural shift, and it is great to be a part of it. That is what school leaders now need to tap into. We are not going to be done to any more. If we believe something is not right, like testing six-year-olds on the use of exclamatory sentences, then we need to stand up and do something about it.

“Nicky Morgan has said she wants schools to ‘step up’, and that’s fine by me,” Card smiles. “We are ready to step up for our profession.”

One of the ways in which school leaders can do this is by helping reduce staff workload by focusing their time on tasks that help children’s learning.

“IF WE BELIEVE SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT, LIKE TESTING SIX-YEAR-OLDS ON THE USE OF EXCLAMATORY SENTENCES, THEN WE NEED TO STAND UP AND DO SOMETHING.”

“We need to act as filters, and make sure we don’t pass unnecessary stuff down to staff that adds to the workload of a five-day-a-week classroom teacher,” says Card.

Among the changes introduced at Card’s school to lessen unnecessary workload are a 6pm email curfew, a policy to reduce the number of all-staff emails, and, to help staff prioritise messages, subject-line clarifications, whereby emails are marked as ‘for information’, ‘for action’, ‘urgent’ or ‘not urgent’. In September, a new marking policy was developed over two terms with input from staff and pupils, who were surveyed by the student council.

It is a work in progress, says Card.

Revising the marking policy so it acts as effective feedback for students and helps teachers use their time efficiently echoes the three principles on marking set out in the Government’s report on the subject in March. The report – one of three produced as part of the Government’s response to the Workload Challenge – says marking should be meaningful, motivating and manageable.

Making marking manageable will resonate with most teachers, who increasingly report feeling swamped by the volume of marking. A survey of members carried out by ATL and AMiE as

MASTERCLASS

part of our workload campaign, ‘It’s about time…’, showed that 42% feel marking is a key driver of workload.

At Cherry Orchard, the starting point for developing the five-page marking policy was to zero-in on what teachers and pupils need from the process. “There are five key stakeholders when it comes to marking books: pupils, teachers, parents, senior leaders and inspectors,” says Card. “For too long, marking books has been about thinking about the last three: parents, senior leaders and inspectors. That’s where that fear came from, that idea of ‘I’ve got to mark everything because the parents will expect it. What if the senior leadership team do a book trawl and see that I haven’t marked everything up to date? What if Ofsted come in and they are looking for a certain type of marking?’ We know, of course, that they are not – which is part of the myth-busting that Ofsted has worked hard to get out into schools.”

At Cherry Orchard, instead of looking at the usual three stakeholders, teachers and pupils were prioritised, explains Card. To help keep marking manageable, the new policy states: “There isn’t an expectation that we mark every single piece of work in every single book.”

Lee Card, deputy head at Cherry Orchard Primary School in Worcester

“That wasn’t in our previous policy,” Card says. “So, while some teachers were confident enough to say ‘I don’t need to mark that’, others, who might have just had a different personality, were taking home 60 to 90 books a night and marking everything – even if that marking was only a tick and a well done. By stating that there is not an expectation to mark everything in every book, it immediately starts to put that onus back on the teachers, to tell them ‘We trust you to know which work you think you need to mark.’

“It’s those clarifications that put a teacher’s mind at rest and support their workload; ambiguity can do the opposite,” he adds.

The so-called ‘cult of marking’ that has grown in recent years has no place at Cherry Orchard: “When teachers boast about all the marking they do on social media, it suggests their school policy expects it,” argues Card. “If anyone did that in this school, they would be questioned as to their motives. They would be told that it isn’t the policy, it isn’t the expectation and it surely can’t be beneficial. How are you possibly going to function day after day if that is the norm?”

Helping staff to think about their approach to marking is important. Card says he has been working with a hugely talented teacher, who has more than 40 years’ experience, to use the policy to reduce time spent on marking. “I have been working with him over the past couple of years to find ways to reduce the amount of marking he did, because he kept telling me he couldn’t see it making a difference to some of the pupils.

“He was used to writing large quantities in response to pupils’ work, and he was comfortable with that as his workload. A workload issue for him has been training him to write less, to try different ways. He’s started to use ‘live feedback’ as one strategy to improve the impact of his feedback to pupils.”

Time-saving ideas, such as live marking, are part of the policy, included as appendices to provide staff with practical examples of how to mark efficiently. Another example is using a set of symbols to mark, meaning the teacher does not have to repeatedly write the same corrections and comments on pupils’ work.

Card explains: “Most teachers will probably know there are five or six things they will focus on in written responses to a piece of class work. If we take persuasive writing as an example, teachers could assign symbols to elements such as linking paragraphs, using a range of persuasive devices or more generic writing components, such as internal punctuation. Children can reference any symbols on their work with the expected response that the teacher identifies as pupils look at their marked work. It saves writing out the same responses over and over again in 30 books, and has been trialled here by a few teachers this year.”

Despite the bad press given to coloured pens, they are liked by students and teachers at Cherry Orchard. The ‘purple polishing pens’ used by students, for example, help teachers to see where children have edited their work in response to marking. It reduces the time it takes teachers to look through and see how the pupils have reacted.

“It angers me when I see people on Twitter posting things like ‘Get rid of coloured pens as you’re making workload for your teachers’. These feedback stamps are just an accountability tool. Success or failure is in the implementation. If your teachers and pupils tell you that the process works for them and is effective in bringing the pupils on, then stick with it. We have green, pink and purple pens within a policy written by the staff and the pupils. And, this year, we have had four teachers join us from different schools who have said they can’t believe how much better the workload is, particularly in terms of marking. So, here’s a policy that’s got coloured pens and is creating a better workload,” laughs Card.

“To paraphrase Professor Dylan Wiliam,” Card continues, “in education, ‘What works?’ is not the right question.

Everything works somewhere and nothing works everywhere. Instead, we should ask ‘Under what conditions does this work?’ There’s too much thinking around marking at the minute, leading to sweeping generalisations and not enough talking to the people who are actually doing it and receiving it.”

3 MORE INFORMATION To look at how you can evaluate your marking policy, visit www.atl.org.uk/marking.

JULY 2016 | ELM 19

ADVICE

Teachers’ pay and conditions

Dealing with changes to terms and conditions in a new contract I am an assistant headteacher in one of the new academy-style schools. I knew when I took the job last year that the terms and conditions were different from the usual teachers’ pay and conditions in other schools. But the differences were minor; and it was fine for the first six months or so. Now I’ve been given a new contract that has more teaching hours, and effectively less holiday.

I have just two weeks to sign and return it. Is this allowed?

In some cases, new schools offer the same T&Cs. However, they are not obliged to follow the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document. So, yes, change is possible, particularly where (as in your case) the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations do not apply. However, an employer should not just hand you a new contract.

Your contract is a legal agreement between you, as the employee, and your employer. It can be changed, or replaced lawfully, through the following.

• By mutual consent: there should be consultation with you; and subsequent agreement on the new contract or amended terms.

• By change to an incorporated collective agreement: this would arise where, for example, the union

20 ELM | JULY 2016

negotiated a change with the employer on behalf of its members, and that change was then applied to the relevant term in your contract.

• By the contract itself containing a term that provides for change: some contracts might contain wording that says certain terms can be changed without consent.

It is unlikely that your current employment contract allows for terms to be changed without consent, but please read it carefully and, if you have any doubts, let AMiE know immediately.

If there has been an agreement with the union to change contracts, then there should have been consultation. The union should be able to explain what has been agreed and why. Where possible, union reps will have reported back to members before reaching agreement.

In your case, I suspect there has been no union involvement and no consultation with you. Therefore, you have three options: • Say you do not agree to the new contract, and that you will not sign it, putting the ball back in the employer’s court.

• Try to negotiate improvements to what has been offered.

• Accept and sign the new contract.

“AM�E MIGHT BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE TO MAKE THE PROPOSED CHANGES ACCEPTABLE.”

I recommend you seek advice from AMiE before you respond. We might be able to negotiate to make the proposed changes acceptable, or to mitigate their effect.

Of course, your employers may choose to force the issue by: • imposing the contract.

• dismissing you and immediately re-engaging you on the new contract.

If the contract is imposed without your agreement, this will amount to a breach of contract. You should immediately register your disagreement. Then it will be up to you to make a legal claim for any losses brought about by the breach.

You can then decide to work to the new contract, but under protest while pursuing your claim.

Alternatively, you could resign and then pursue your claim. In either case, the success of your claim will depend upon its merits, so please do not act without first seeking advice from AMiE. Please also be aware that resignation in such cases rarely amounts to constructive unfair dismissal, so the value of your claim may be limited just to losses due to the breach of contract, should you go on to win. Also, to claim constructive dismissal, you must have at least two years’ continuous service with your employer, which you do not have.

If you do work on, albeit under protest, do not delay lodging your claim, because by continuing to work, you might be seen to have accepted the new contract. If this happens, your claim will fail.

The AMiE helpline number is 01858 464171.

U N I O N M AT T E R S

MAKE ONE CHANGE TODAY Following the Government’s Workload Challenge, ATL/AMiE has introduced a campaign to free up workloads to allow teachers to focus on the bigger picture WORDS NANSI ELLIS, ATL ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY, POLICY

W

hen more than 44,000 teachers responded to the Government’s Workload Challenge last year, the Government’s response was, in part, to set up three working groups to consider the key problems of marking, planning and data. Those groups reported during the Easter holidays – and you should be proud if you were taking some time off and haven’t yet got round to reading the reports!

ATL/AMiE was represented on the group looking at planning; and all unions had regular updates and opportunities for discussion through the Unions’ Roundtable with the Department for Education. We tried to get across the message that much workload comes from monitoring practice by using proxies – checking that books are marked; looking at lesson plans; keeping an eye on the numbers; and, importantly, we worked hard to ensure that Government and its agencies took some responsibility for the massive workload problem that teachers and headteachers are facing. The recommendations for the profession are pretty long though, especially for leaders.

Remembering that the working groups were made up of teachers and leaders from across the sectors, it’s important to take these recommendations in the spirit in which they are intended – these are not directives from on high, but suggestions for consideration from others in the profession. Some will work in your situation, others might work if you can work with other schools, and yet others may prove impossible in the circumstances, but are worth reflecting on.

They are messages endorsed by Government, though, and that makes some of them very helpful, particularly if you feel you have to justify some of the

changes you’re trying to make.

For example: • If marking doesn’t have the desired impact on pupil outcomes, then stop.

• If you’re collecting data ‘just in case’ – in case Ofsted comes, in case your governors ask for it – stop. It’s unnecessary and damaging.

• If you’re producing lesson plans ‘for Ofsted’, stop. The School Inspection Handbook is very clear that Ofsted does not require schools to provide individual lesson plans.

written plans, but the actual process)?

And do you know how to support your staff to improve that? Across all subjects and phases? Do you know how to monitor the effect of feedback on students’ learning? Do you know what data tell you the most about student learning?

That is where the reports fall down.

To make these changes, you need time: to reflect, to learn, to explore with your staff, to explain to parents. Where do you find that time? That’s why ATL/

“WHAT SINGLE CHANGE COULD YOU MAKE THAT WOULD FREE UP TIME? COULD YOU STOP ALL MARKING FOR A MONTH OR CANCEL ONE STAFF MEETING?” Overall, the reports are clear that planning, data management and marking should all look different at different stages and for different subjects; school leaders shouldn’t expect everyone’s to look the same. They also point out that you should be clear about the purposes of what you’re asking from staff: do your teachers know what you will do with the data you collect? Can you point to evidence that the marking required by your school’s policy improves student learning?

There are some challenging questions that could be the starting point for any changes you need to make. Do you know how long your staff spend marking? Are they spending more time writing out lesson plans, or searching for the perfect resources, than engaging with the subject and its concepts, and thinking about what they want the students to learn over a sequence of lessons? What is the balance for staff between entering data, analysing data and using it to improve pupil outcomes?

You may find that you need to build in some professional development – for you and for your staff. Do you know what effective planning looks like (not

AMiE has introduced #make1change as part of our wider workload campaign, It’s about time... What single change could you make that would free up time to consider just one of these big issues?

Could you stop all marking for a month – and ask teachers to do something different with that time? Perhaps you could cancel one staff meeting a fortnight, or change its focus to one of these issues.

The problem of workload, including that for school leaders, is enormous.

The solutions invite us to go back to the purposes of education: we teach students so that they will be learners, citizens and workers; they will be creative and innovative. However, our paperwork, more often than not, is about proving that we’re improving their test scores. These reports, and the fact that the education secretary has approved all the recommendations, give a tiny indication that we could reclaim those purposes, and our time, one step at a time. What one change will you make today?

3 MORE INFO Go to www.atl.org.uk/abouttime.

FEBRUARY 2015 | ELM 21 JULY 2016

FINAL WORD

B ack in March, I attended the sixth International Summit on the Teaching Profession in Berlin. This is an unusual event that brings together education ministers and teacher union leaders from the top 25 education performers in the OECD. Speaking to the conference was Andreas Schleicher, the division head and coordinator of the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment, which, to you and I, is, of course, PISA. In a background paper written for the summit, Schleicher put forward the essential elements of successful education policy-making, building on his extensive knowledge of policy lessons learned from countries that are successful in PISA. He argued that policy-makers need to build consensus about the aims of education reform. So, the politicians, who, let’s be clear, are England’s education policy-makers, need to “engage stakeholders, especially teachers, in formulating and implementing policy responses”.

He also argued that reforms need to be backed by sustainable financing and that teachers need to be given “reassurance that they will be given the tools to change and the recognition of their professional expertise to improve their students’ outcomes”.

How many of these essential elements of successful policy reform are present in the English education system? If we, as a profession, were

22 ELM | JULY 2016

to mark our politicians out of 10 on these criteria, what mark would we give them?

I would struggle to move above two out of 10 (and I am being generous here). Why does the Government get two marks? Well, I believe that the guidance it has issued on marking, planning and resources, and data management, has the potential, if used properly, to cut out a lot of the nonsense that currently counts as ‘good practice’ in too many schools.

So, when the Government issues guidance that says things like, ‘The quantity of teacher feedback should not be confused with the quality’, and that ‘marking should be meaningful, manageable and motivating’, we should say, ‘Good’.

This is a positive development.

And, when the Government issues guidance on data that says it should be streamlined and ruthless – only collecting what is needed to support outcomes for children and that schools should be aware of workload issues - considering not just how long the data collection will

QUALITY OVER QUANTITY 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

“MORE THAN ANYTHING, IT IS EXCESSIVE WORKLOAD THAT IS DRIVING TEACHERS FROM THE PROFESSION. THE NUMBERS ARE ALARMING ... 50,000 TEACHERS LEFT BEFORE RETIREMENT LAST YEAR.”

take, but whether that time could be better spent on other tasks – then we should say, ‘Yes. Thanks’. Now we must work to make that guidance a reality in all our schools. It is overdue. It gives power to our elbow and it accepts that things have been going in the wrong direction for far too long, and now is a chance to put something right.

It is important for school leaders and managers to consider these documents carefully, and to implement the recommendations in their schools. More than anything, it is excessive workload that is driving teachers from the profession.

The numbers are alarming: 50,000 teachers – 11% of the profession – left teaching before retirement last year.

I spent a day in a secondary school recently. The headteacher told me that adverts, which had cost over £3,000 for two English teachers, had resulted in no applicants. He had to resort to interviewing agency staff, and to paying the exorbitant fees charged by recruitment agencies, if he was to be able to cover the teaching of a core subject.

Teachers are a precious resource.

They should be required to work hard at improving their teaching, not on pointless bureaucracy.

The full guidance of the three working groups can be accessed at www.atl.org.uk/workloadgroups.

www.ultimaker.com

WE’RE ALL MAKERS AT HEART

History

Geography

Mathematics

Biology

Physics

D e s i g n Te c h

The CREATE Education Project brings 3D printing technology from Ultimaker to your classroom from nursery stage through to university and beyond.

Revolutionise your classroom with our open-source resources and support. Engage your students in every subject area using design thinking and creativity by having the tools to print custom objects tailored to your curriculum.

Give us a call for more information or visit www.createeducation.co.uk and get involved!

ASK ABOUT OUR FREE LOAN SCHEME EXCLUSIVE TO EDUCATION T: UK 0800 772 0257 IRE 00 44 (0)1257 276116 E: enquiries@createeducation.co.uk

www.createeducation.co.uk Learn more about us and our community at

@ultimakergb

@ultimakerCREATE

Ultimakergb

CreateEducationProject

Apply early to mark 2017 GCSEs and A-levels Early applicants will increase their chances of appointment.

There are lots of benefits to marking in 2017, from building your expertise and knowledge of the new specifications, through to inspiring your teaching. It is a great role for teachers and we hope you decide to join us.

• • • •

Enhance your teaching skills and knowledge of assessment.

Build your knowledge of new specifications.

Earn extra income ahead of the holiday period.

Home based, flexible working.

aqa.org.uk/apply

Apply now to mark 2017 GCSEs and A-levels