Labels

Labels should help you find information. For example if you want to know when the next meeting is, click on "meetings".

For information about the pay campaign click on "pay"

Local Voice October 2007

Click here for a Word document version of Local Voice (which can be read using Open Office free software)

Click here for an HTML version.

Performance Management RIG proposals

We have received this commentary from the campaigning group: School Teachers Opposed to Performance Pay STOPP.

For further information, contact Martin Powell-Davies, Chair, STOPP
martinpd_uk@yahoo.co.uk 07946 445488

Commentary on the Rewards and Incentives Group’s:
Guidance on Teachers’ and Head teachers’ Performance Management (released October 10th 2006)

Making us jump through more hoops is apparently to help reduce workload !
1.7 RIG has sought to develop non-bureaucratic, streamlined and multi-purpose arrangements for teachers’ performance management which build on the existing system and reflect partners’ overarching commitment to raising standards and tackling workload.

Yes, line managers will have to do the dirty work for Heads.
4.11 RIG believes that wherever possible the role of reviewer should be delegated to the teacher’s line manager, i.e. the person who directs, manages and has a post of responsibility for the area in which the reviewee mainly works.

Come prepared, after all there’ll be no union rep at a meeting to set targets & pay.
5.4 The planning and review meeting should be a professional dialogue between the reviewer and the reviewee. Reviewees should play an active part in the meeting making sure they put forward their views about their performance and future development. They may find it helpful to … ensure they have copies of any relevant documentation and evidence, and written feedback on classroom observations. In preparing for the next cycle … consider, as a backdrop to the discussions, the standards which apply to their current career stage and those to which they might progress, and, where the reviewee is eligible for pay progression, the relevant criteria for pay progression set out in the STPCD.
Reviewers need to be ready too – forget teamwork, make it rigorous !
5.5 Reviewers will want to be well prepared for the planning and review meeting, and may find it helpful to … check that all documents to which they will refer at the meeting have been shared with the reviewee, to assist their preparation for it. In preparing for the next cycle … ensure they have consulted with relevant third parties with direct professional knowledge of the reviewee, about possible objectives for the next review cycle, performance criteria, evidence, arrangements for collecting it and support to be provided to the teacher.

There is no limit to the number of “challenging” objectives you could be set.
5.8 Reviewers are responsible for ensuring rigour when objectives are set. Objectives should focus on priorities. They should be time bound, challenging but achievable, and reflect the need for a satisfactory work/life balance. A reviewee’s objectives should reflect any relevant team, year or whole school objectives.

There will be three hours of classroom observation for performance management.
5.10 All classroom observation should be undertaken in accordance with the regulations and the school’s protocol for the conduct of classroom observation and the school’s performance management policy ... There should always be a clear rationale and focus for any classroom observation. There should be no observations in addition to those agreed in the planning and review statement except for those described in paragraphs 5.17 and 5.18 below.
5.11 The regulations specify a limit of three hours in any review cycle for classroom observation, but there is no requirement for the whole three hours to be used.
How can observation be “supportive and developmental” when it is linked to pay?
5.14 Classroom observation should be supportive and developmental … The observation record should be sufficient to meet the needs of individuals and the school (i.e. summarising the focus, what was learnt from the observation, the feedback given and any subsequent … follow-up)

It might be more than 3 hours – Heads and Senior Managers can still “drop-in”!
5.16 - 5.18 If concerns arise during the review cycle or the reviewee’s circumstances change … additional classroom observation, where necessary including observation that exceeds three hours within the review cycle, may be agreed ... Classroom observations by Ofsted or by a local authority using its statutory powers of intervention are also not part of performance management ... Heads have a right to drop in to inform their monitoring of the quality of learning. In large schools they may delegate drop in to appropriate members of the leadership group.

Targets and performance will be judged on data. This is “payment-by-results”.
5.19 The other evidence which will be taken into account will normally be in the form of data or written feedback from specific individuals.

The Headteacher can still step in to overrule line managers’ decisions.
5.27 It is anticipated that head teachers will set up procedures for monitoring and moderating the plans for the forthcoming cycle agreed in planning and review statements. As part of this the head teacher may review planning and review statements …and where necessary instruct the reviewer to prepare a new statement prior to it being finalised and retained.

If you don’t agree with your reviewers’ recommendation, tough!
5.41 The reviewer and reviewee should seek to agree an assessment of the overall performance of the reviewee against the performance criteria agreed at the beginning of the cycle. This should include, where the reviewee is eligible, making a recommendation on pay progression, taking into account the pay progression criteria. If the reviewer and reviewee cannot agree, the reviewer’s view will be recorded.

Holding off on the main scale for now but rationing upper pay scale progression?
5.42 There is no change to the arrangements for pay progression. Annual increments continue to apply as set out in the STPCD for classroom teachers on the main scale. Therefore reviewers do not need to make a recommendation in support of an annual increment. The only exception to this is where the reviewer, in accordance with the school’s pay policy, is considering a discretionary additional point (double jumping) where provided for in the STPCD.
5.43 Reviewers will need to make a recommendation where the reviewee is on the pay scale for post threshold teachers, the pay spine for members of the Leadership Group [or that for ASTs].

Postponed for a year – a year to build a campaign to defeat these regulations!
7.1 The revised regulations will come into force on 1 September 2007. Local authorities, governing bodies and head teachers have until autumn 2007 to put arrangements in place for performance management that reflect the requirements of the revised regulations.
7.2 The first plans made under the revised regulations should be agreed by 31 October 2007 for teachers and by 31 December 2007 for head teachers. 7.3 The first full planning and review statements which record the outcomes of an assessment of performance and, where a teacher is eligible, include a pay recommendation, must be completed by 31 October 2008 for teachers.

Headteachers told to prepare for new Performance Pay regime in schools

STOPP PRESS

This is a press release from STOPP - School Teachers Opposed to Performance Pay - 21 September 2006

Headteachers told to prepare for new Performance Pay regime in schools

On Friday, September 22nd, Education Secretary, Alan Johnson, is expected to make an announcement confirming the Government’s proposals for a new ‘performance management’ system, now likely to be introduced in 2007.
The advice already being given to Headteachers makes clear what the Government intends. Schools will be expected to introduce a rigorous system of individualised performance pay. In future, teachers who fail to reach their performance management targets can expect to be refused further progress up the pay spine.
The DfES’ consultation paper on performance management, released in June, had already spelt out the Government’s intentions that, in future, “financial rewards will go to those who are making the biggest contributions to improving pupil attainment” 2 Ministers have always seen performance pay as a vital part in their drive to “raise standards”. But STOPP has always explained that it will have the opposite effect.
Performance pay will dangerously undermine the teamwork and morale that is vital to a good school. Staff will opt for schools where results are easier to obtain. As the history books show, “payment by results” deadens education instead of enhancing it.
Teacher concerns at the Government’s original introduction of performance pay, which led to the building of STOPP, forced Ministers to tread carefully at first. Instead of severely rationing pay as many teachers feared, most successfully crossed the performance “threshold” 3 when it was first introduced. But, already, increasing numbers have found their progression to the top levels of the Upper Pay Spine being blocked. The new proposals introduce this threat to teachers at every spine point.
Briefings being conducted by “Head Support Limited” earlier this week have brutally confirmed STOPP’s analysis. Advice to Headteachers in training sessions in at least two South London Local Authorities included:
 That Heads needed to make more ‘robust’ pay decisions – and that, if they didn’t, OFSTED teams will want to know why.
 That the criteria of “substantial and sustained” achievement now used to judge Upper Pay Spine progression was too weak, harsher judgements were now required.
 That inexperienced teachers should not be allowed to progress up the main spine every year to make sure they do not have an expectation of crossing the ‘threshold’.
These threats are already provoking an angry response in staffrooms. For example, a meeting of the Lewisham 4 Association of the National Union of Teachers on Monday 18th , agreed to call on their Union to consider national strike action to oppose the imposition of performance pay. STOPP expects this demand to be widely supported.
1. STOPP was launched by teachers in 1999 in response to the introduction of performance management and the “threshold”. It organised a number of protest events, including a march and rally in London in February 2000.
2. Paragraph 7, ‘Performance management for Teachers and Headteachers’, DfES June 2006.
3. A “threshold” assessment has to be passed to go from the top of the main pay spine to the upper pay spine.
4. Lewisham was one of the Local Authorities where Heads have been briefed by “Head Support Limited”.

Workload and Performance Management

The next general meeting of the West Sussex Teachers' Association will be on Wednesday 27th September 2006 at Durrington High School, The Boulevard
in Worthing. The focus of the meeting will be Workload and Performance Management.

These are major issues for all teachers so come and hear from our National Executive member how the NUT is representing you. We would also welcome your views and experiences on this.

Discussion on this issue will be ended by 5.30 at the latest. After this you might like to stay for the remaining part of the General Meeting.

A map of how to get to the meeting is here

Workload and Performance Management

13 July 2006




Workload Campaign and Performance Management
The General Secretary referred to the letter from the School Workforce Group, which followed the NUT’s application for a judicial review over the consultation on new performance management regulations. This letter announced the decision of the Minister to extend the consultation period for an additional six weeks and furthermore to give schools until 31 January to agree plans for their staff that reflected the revised regulations. These decisions represented a victory for the NUT.
The Executive decided to prepare guidelines on workload, consistent with the resolution passed by Conference 2006 and including reference to the proposed new performance management regulations. The Executive agreed that preparations should be made for a national ballot of members to provide backing for the guidelines and to ascertain the readiness of members to take action in support of these guidelines. The Executive agreed to the holding of a briefing for division secretaries early in the autumn term and for a special Executive meeting to consider an action strategy to take forward the Union’s campaign on workload and performance management.

Education & Inspections Bill
The General Secretary reported on the highly successful rally and lobby of Parliament held on 27 June. The theme for the NUT had been the marketisation of education. The NUT had made a significant contribution to the day with the second highest number of representatives attending the rally, behind the PCS.
A message had been given to the lobbyists by Brendan Barber, General Secretary of the TUC that, “the whole of the trade union movement is committed to defending our vital public services and celebrating the commitment and dedication of those who deliver them”. Brendan said that the rally was “yet another demonstration of the determination of trade unionists everywhere to oppose privatisation and commit to genuine reform based on upholding the public services ethos.” Brendan Barber had made clear that the TUC would initiate a campaign in support of public services that would match the undertaking given by the unions involved in the Public Services Not Private Profit rally and lobby of Parliament.

Meetings with Government
The General Secretary reported that on the morning of the rally and lobby of Parliament, he had attended a meeting with the Prime Minister as part of a TUC delegation. The topics for the meeting were pensions, energy policy and public services. The belated publication by government, through the Prime Minister’s Unit, of the document “The Government’s Approach to Public Service Reforms” had been considered unhelpful, including as it did a range of questionable assertions about the public service ethos not being destroyed by privatisation. A further separate meeting was being arranged on public services.
A first meeting had also been held with the Secretary of State for Education at which the NUT had been able to explain the history of the Union, its values and concerns, and what had been its motivation across three centuries.
A number of very important issues were touched upon and could be the subject of further meetings. These included the broad issue of the relationship with Government and other unions and the NUT’s publication, “The Costs of Inclusion”.
The General Secretary reported on a meeting with the Chancellor. He had reminded Gordon Brown about the commitment made in the Budget Statement to increase funding per pupil in the state sector to the 2006 levels in the independent sector, in order to match their pupil:teacher ratios. The General Secretary’s comment had been made in the light of remarks made by David Bell, Permanent Secretary at the DfES, that the Chancellor’s promise was merely aspirational. Gordon Brown said he wanted a national consensus on education expenditure.

International matters
The General Secretary reported that he had raised with EI the situation regarding government attacks on teachers in Oaxaca, Mexico. The Mexican teachers’ affiliate to EI had supported EI making a regional case appeal on the issue. The approach from EI had resulted from the NUT’s instigation.
The General Secretary would be taking up with the Foreign Office the effects of the deteriorating situation in the Middle East; on teachers and children in the area; on essential services; and on the economy of Gaza. The General Union of Palestinian Teachers had reported to the NUT that, like most public servants, teachers in Gaza had not been paid for months. The General Secretary reported that he was due to head an EI delegation to the area in a week’s time. Discussions had been held with the TUC to explore initiatives the TUC could take forward in relation to the situation facing teachers and education in Palestine.

TUC Matters
The Executive agreed to submit motions to TUC Congress on the Education & Inspections Bill and on Workplace Bullying. The Executive further agreed that an amendment concerning the Trade Union Freedom Bill should be considered as one of the two amendments to be submitted, if appropriate, once the preliminary agenda was known.
The General Secretary reported that the NUT had done well in the annual TUC Press and PR Awards. It had received a “Highly Commended” award for “The Really Useful Pack” in the recruitment material category and was “Commended” for its website.
The Executive re-elected the General Secretary and Lesley Auger to serve on the TUC General Council for 2006-2007.

Pay Claim
The Executive approved the NUT’s submission to the STRB on teachers’ pay and responsibilities. In its pay claim the NUT opposed the imposition of a two year pay award and called for a return to annual awards. It called on the Government to request the STRB to reconsider teachers’ pay – levels and structure – from 1 September 2006. The claim stated that teachers’ pay must rise significantly in real terms to levels that would enable the profession to compete effectively in the graduate market. The claim set out the changes requested by the NUT to the pay structure. It called for an increase of £2,500 or 10 per cent, whichever was the greater, for all salaries. It called further for the merging of the main and upper pay scales into a single scale; and significant increases in the two London and the Fringe allowances.

Consultation responses
The Executive urgently approved a record number of responses to consultation documents to be submitted before the summer. These included the Early Years Foundation Stage; Changes to Key Stage 1 English; Initial Teacher Training Requirements; and the Education (Performance Management) (England) Regulations 2006.
In this latter response, the NUT criticised the use of RIG as the appropriate forum for the development of the performance management proposals prior to statutory consultation, excluding as it did the largest teachers’ organisation in England and Wales, and being inconsistent with the intentions of legislation. The proposed timetable for introduction was too hasty and should not be before September 2007. The new requirements would have a profound impact on staff relationships within schools and teachers’ ownership of their professional development.

Black Caribbean Boys
The Executive agreed to convene a round table group including teachers, pupils, parents, and experts to look into educational underachievement among black boys from families of Caribbean origin.

Farewell to Andrew Wills, Accountant
The Executive gave Andrew, who had worked for the NUT for 30 years, the last 18 years as NUT Accountant, a very warm send-off and thanked him for his dedicated commitment to the Union over the years. Andrew was retiring from employment and moving to France.

New RIG Proposals

From August, automatic pay progression will be scrapped. You haven't been consulted about this, parliament hasn't voted for it, the NUT has not been invited to discuss it. This is another present from the people who brought us TLRs, abolished your recruitment and retention allowance and scrapped the top two points from the Upper Pay Scale.

Full documentation of proposals and deadlines are at:

http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/conDetails.cfm?consultationId=1386

Click on the link and tell them what you think!

Ealing NUT have sent out a suggested resolution which schools might wish to use:

Model motion for schools/union branch meetings


New RIG Proposals*


“This meeting rejects the latest proposals on Performance Management from the government via its Rewards and Incentive Group (RIG) of social partners. We particularly regret that leaders of TUC-affiliated teacher unions (NASUWT and ATL) have met with government to agree these proposals whilst knowingly excluding the biggest classroom and head teachers’ unions.



We particularly reject:

The new mandatory three hours per year of teacher observations, on top of OFSTED or Local Authority surveillance.
The new requirement for middle-managers to determine the pay level and incremental progression of their colleagues.
The DfES’ rushed deadline for consultation of 12 July


We call on the NUT to:

a. immediately conduct a full-membership action ballot to implement NUT policy on performance management

b. seek support from the headteachers’ union, the NAHT, to implement such action if these changes are introduced in a revised School Teachers Pay and Conditions Document by September.

c. To produce press and campaign materials highlighting the detrimental effect on workload and industrial relations these proposals will bring.”



Send To:



NUT General Secretary

Hamilton House

Mabledon Place

LONDON

WciH 9BD



E-mail: s.sinnott@nut.org.uk



* Full documentation of proposals and deadlines are at: