| School Teachers' Review Body | |||||||||||||||||||
|
CHAPTER 4 Development of the pay and career structures 66. This chapter addresses a range of structural issues; pay levels are covered in Chapter 5. 67. Major changes were introduced with effect from September 2000 - most notably the threshold for classroom teachers and the new leadership group pay arrangements - which need time to become established. The Secretary of State accordingly asked us to look at other aspects of the new pay and career structures where there were matters outstanding. These related to the upper pay scale, recruitment and retention allowances, special educational needs allowances, the fifth management allowance, ASTs and the planned fast track programme. 68. Other issues were raised with us by consultees concerning the leadership group and classroom teachers. Representations received included a joint submission late in our review from the four teacher unions affiliated to the TUC - the ATL, NASUWT, NUT and UCAC - which they said raised matters partly of relevance to this report but mainly for our next review. We take this into account when addressing particular issues in this chapter. 69. The main, nine-point, pay scale for classroom teachers relates pay to qualifications and experience, with scope also to reward excellent performance. One point on the scale is awarded to teachers who are good honours graduates with a first or second class honours degree; they therefore start as new entrants on point 2 of the scale on a current salary in 2000-01 of £16,050 (plus a London allowance where applicable and any additional allowance which might be awarded to aid recruitment). This accounts for the vast majority of newly qualified teachers. However, there is discretion to award additional points for years of relevant experience other than in teaching in the maintained sector in England and Wales. Thereafter, all teachers are awarded a further point on the scale for each year of service unless this has been unsatisfactory. 70. Additionally, from September 2001 it will be possible for teachers who have demonstrated excellent service over the previous academic year, having regard to all aspects of their professional duties but in particular classroom teaching, to be awarded two points rather than one point for that year's service. Once awarded, points on the main pay scale, whether originally mandatory or discretionary, cannot be taken away, regardless of whether the teacher remains in the same school or obtains a post in another school. Having reached the top point of the main pay scale, normally after seven years' service giving a current salary of £23,958 before any other allowances, teachers are able to apply for assessment at the performance threshold which gives access to the new upper pay scale. 71. The National Employers have suggested that the main pay scale should be shortened to improve recruitment and retention, and the four teacher unions affiliated to the TUC also said in their submission that the number of points on the main pay scale should be reduced to achieve more competitive starting salary levels and progression. The National Employers suggested that a further simplification would be to remove the distinction for class of degree, which they now thought looked irrelevant and over-prescriptive. Both the National Employers and the four unions accepted that such changes were a matter for our next review, which would allow discussions to take place at national and local level on the implications for funding and give us time to consult other interested parties. Our views 72. We will consult in the coming year on the proposals received for shortening the main pay scale in the context of the wider issue of how a more positive approach to the development of teachers' early careers can be encouraged. We believe it is a matter of urgency that schools make use of the considerable flexibilities which now exist to reward the very able through faster progression up the main pay scale and that they also award recruitment and retention allowances where it is appropriate to do so. Any case for shortening the main pay scale must be looked at in that context. 73. Teachers at the top of the main pay scale can apply to be assessed against the threshold standards. If their application is successful, they move to the starting point of the new upper pay scale. The Secretary of State accepted the recommendation in our special report last October that the DfEE should commission a thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the threshold standards and procedures, to be available for consideration during our next review. Any changes could then be implemented in 2002. Accordingly, no further substantive comment is made on these matters in this report. 74. A key feature of the Government's original proposals and our recommendations last year was the creation of a new upper pay scale for classroom teachers offering scope, subject to performance, for teachers to reach a salary of some £30,000. This is before any other salary enhancements for management responsibilities or other purposes and now features prominently in the promotion of the career opportunities open to those joining the profession. The framework, including the basic performance criteria, is now in place, with initial progression on the new scale to be possible from September 2002. First, however, issues have been raised on the application of the performance criteria, and there are outstanding matters to be determined concerning the continuing entitlement of teachers to points awarded on the new scale. 75. The arrangements established so far are as follows. Having reached the top of the main scale, a classroom teacher who is assessed as meeting the threshold standards goes on to the starting point of the upper pay scale, at a current salary of £25,959 giving an immediate salary uplift of £2,001. The scale rises by four further points to a salary of £30,018. Based on recommendations in our report a year ago, it is made clear in the statutory School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document (the Document) and the related DfEE guidance that further progression on the upper pay scale will not be automatic, but will be at the discretion of the relevant body (normally the school governing body). There has first to be a review of the performance of the teacher whose achievements and contribution to the school must have been substantial and sustained. 76. Following the first award of further points with effect from September 2002, points should not generally be awarded annually other than in exceptional circumstances. Normally at least two years should elapse between a teacher moving to the starting point on the upper pay scale, on passing the threshold, and being awarded the next point. The guidance also makes it clear that relevant bodies will be expected to use the outcome of the new annual statutory performance reviews to inform their decisions on pay progression, but with no expectation that meeting specific performance objectives will lead to automatic movement up the scale - relevant bodies will be expected to consider the totality of a teacher's work when reaching their decisions, looking at all of the factors covered in the threshold standards. 77. It is already established that the starting point on the upper pay scale becomes a personal entitlement regardless of whether a teacher remains in the same school or obtains a post in another school. When making our recommendations last year we said that in principle we believed that this should also apply to the further points on the upper pay scale. However, we said that we would like to return to this in the context of a clearer indication of how this part of the new pay structure will be funded. We also said that we wished to return to the basis on which the points on the upper pay scale, including the threshold uplift, might be withdrawn in the event of a significant deterioration in a teacher's performance. 78. This brings us to the questions to be addressed in this review. The DfEE said that the Secretary of State continued to believe that the approach set out in the Document and guidance should form the basis for the award of pay points beyond the threshold. However, an expectation was restated that the appropriate level of performance would become progressively more challenging towards the top of the upper pay scale, and that the highest points on the scale should accordingly recognise performance significantly exceeding the threshold standards. It would, in the Department's view, be for relevant bodies to conduct a pay review for each teacher to consider whether the appropriate level of performance and contribution to the school had been demonstrated and whether, in the light of the funds available, to award a further point on the upper pay scale. The DfEE said that additional funds would be made available to support the implementation of pay reforms generally, including the award of further points on the upper pay scale. However, this was not envisaged as a ring-fenced and demand-led grant like that for the threshold uplift. 79. We found considerable support among consultees for the progression criteria already incorporated into the Document - substantial and sustained performance and contribution to the school as a teacher. There were some suggestions that there should be mandatory national criteria for the award of each point, while the SHA said it would have preferred a single and substantial further salary step for post-threshold teachers to recognise a clearly identifiable, highly effective teacher undertaking a distinct role in influencing other teachers. Others, such as the NASUWT and the PAT, wanted a much tighter link with the achievement of annual performance objectives. 80. The late submission from the TUC-affiliated unions said that, as for all elements of the salary structure, the upper pay scale should be transparent, fair and equitable and subject to clear national standards. However, they saw criteria being set in the context of a teacher's continuing professional development, with attainable and reasonable objectives being established in discussion with the head or appropriate line manager. Achievement of those individual objectives should, in the unions' view, be reflected automatically by the award of further points on the upper pay scale. 81. There was widespread scepticism that progressively more challenging standards would work in practice, and general agreement that unless substantial numbers of teachers were able to progress towards the top of the upper pay scale it would not have the desired effect of motivating existing teachers and, in terms of salary prospects, attracting new recruits. There was also general agreement that all the points on the scale, and not just the threshold uplift, would require separate funding to avoid repeating the experience of excellence points hardly ever being awarded under the previous pay structure. 82. Most consultees said that points, once awarded, should remain an entitlement if the teacher moved to another school, although it was recognised that this had implications for the way points were funded. On the other hand, the National Employers said that as an assessment of a teacher's performance will have to be made at school level, based on locally-determined rather than national criteria, it would not be appropriate for points awarded above the threshold to be automatically transferable if the teacher moves to another school. It would, in their view, be for the new school to decide on a competitive salary. 83. A case for withdrawing points above the threshold in the event of a teacher's performance deteriorating significantly was recognised by some consultees. The view was also expressed that such a facility was unlikely to be effective. It was pointed out that there were other procedures in extreme cases where a teacher's professional competence was called into question. Our views 84. We are strongly of the view that the arrangements for the upper pay scale must be kept as simple and straightforward as possible. Progress should be based on continued substantial and sustained performance and contribution to the school and should be seen in the general context of the threshold criteria. We do not support the inclusion of additional references in the Document or the DfEE guidance to "progressively more challenging standards", although teachers should be contributing to an ongoing general improvement in educational achievement and be committed to their own continuing professional development. Progress on the scale should reflect the total contribution of the teacher; the achievement of specific targets will be part, although an important part, of that process. We confirm that teachers should normally progress not more quickly than at two year intervals, with more frequent awards only for exceptional performance. We expect that a substantial proportion of those who cross the threshold will, albeit at different speeds, progress towards the top of the upper pay scale. 85. We strongly endorse the need for appropriate funding to support the new arrangements and welcome the indications given that money will be available for post-threshold progression on the upper pay scale and other pay discretions. This is essential. The overall sums involved must be substantial with an assurance that this funding will be sustained to avoid the understandable fear of heads and school governors that they could find themselves with salary commitments which they find it hard to continue to meet. 86. We agree that the threshold uplift, should, once awarded, be retained as a permanent entitlement. While we have accepted in principle that the same should apply to the further points on the upper pay scale, this raises complex issues for teachers who wish to move to another school. We will return to this matter in our next report in the light of further advice on the legal position from the DfEE. We would also like more information about the funding that will be available to support the upper pay scale. 87. Finally, on the question of whether there should be scope for points to be withdrawn in the event of a serious deterioration in performance we believe that such a provision is unlikely to be effective. Schools should rely on existing arrangements for handling questions of professional competence. 88. Our recommendations are therefore as follows.
Recruitment and retention allowances 89. The new pay system introduced last September allows schools to give a recruitment and retention allowance to a teacher who is employed "to teach subjects in which there is a shortage of teachers" or "in a post which is difficult to fill". It is for the relevant body to judge whether any teacher meets either of these criteria and, if so, which level of allowance to award, subject to the locality and circumstances of the school - as shown in Figure 4. Relevant bodies may decide whether to review the allowance biennially or treat it as a permanent award. As an alternative to paying an allowance as part of a teacher's monthly salary, there is discretion to pay an annual allowance wholly or in part as a lump sum subject to satisfactory completion of service in the previous year. Figure 4: Existing basis for the award of recruitment and retention allowances
90. In its evidence the DfEE asked us to consider whether further recruitment and retention allowances beyond the current maximum should be introduced to provide increased flexibility in offering salary incentives. It also asked whether the existing constraints on the use of recruitment and retention allowances should be amended for schools in a range of the most challenging circumstances, so that it is not just schools in special measures which can award the higher levels of allowance. The Secretary of State was particularly concerned to ensure that Fresh Start schools, replacing schools which were failing or causing concern, have the flexibility they need to reward staff at an appropriate level. An additional option put forward by the DfEE was that recruitment and retention allowances might be paid as a lump sum bonus to a teacher who remains in post for a specified period of time at a school in the most challenging circumstances. 91. The DfEE noted that the values of the new range of recruitment and retention allowances mirror closely what was available under the previous arrangements for newly qualified teachers. However, the effect of setting the rates of the allowances in line with the spine points at the lower end of the old single pay spine has affected the value of awards to experienced teachers who had progressed up the pay spine to a level where the value of additional points was greater. A particular issue arises over the combined effect of this and the assimilation arrangements for teachers transferring to the new pay structure last September which we discuss separately below. 92. The National Employers supported extending the existing discretion to award the third, or where appropriate the fourth, recruitment and retention allowance to cover all schools which come into the category of demanding and challenging. This, they said, should include schools in danger of failing and those in difficult areas which consequently face particular recruitment problems. However, they said that the question remained of the extent to which recruitment and retention allowances would in practice be awarded, although they will continue to urge LEAs to encourage schools to make appropriate use of them. Our views 93. Recruitment and retention points were not greatly used under the previous pay structure for reasons that have been well-documented, including budgetary constraints. A more flexible approach is required by schools that have recruitment and retention problems. With better funding for the new pay structure, the new allowances should be more widely used, especially by schools in a wide range of challenging circumstances and not just those in special measures. Rather than attempt to define such schools for the purpose of the availability of the higher levels of allowance, we believe that use of any of the allowances should be left to the discretion of individual schools. We agree that the range of allowances should be extended upwards and that schools should be encouraged to consider using allowances in the form of a bonus to a teacher who remains in post at a challenging school for a specified period of time. 94. Our recommendations are therefore as follows.
Assimilation from the previous system of recruitment and retention points 95. We have received particular representations about a problem which is arising for experienced teachers who previously held a recruitment and retention point. For, say, a teacher with all of the old points for qualifications and experience the value of the additional point for recruitment and retention as at 31 August 2000 was £1,485 compared with the equivalent first recruitment and retention allowance payable from 1 September 2000 of £909. The difference of £576 was, in line with our recommendations, safeguarded on a personal basis. Under the mark-time arrangements introduced by the DfEE, £500 of this will be offset against the general increase to be awarded from 1 April 2001 or any other increases in salary except the threshold uplift, with the balance to be offset against further increases in the future. 96. We consider that in the circumstances the size of the £500 offset required by the DfEE's mark-time rules is too large and should be reduced, although we understand the wish to move on from safeguarded entitlements within a reasonable period of time. We therefore propose that the maximum amount which should be offset on each occasion of a salary increase, other than the threshold uplift, should be £250 and recommend accordingly.
Provision for general recruitment incentives 97. The Secretary of State's remit invited us to examine and report on whether provision is needed in the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document for general recruitment incentives. He had decided to consult upon and make an order under section 5(3) of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991 to the effect that golden hellos, and equivalent incentives in Wales, should not be regarded as remuneration and that they are therefore outside the scope of the Document. He said he could make a similar order in respect of local recruitment incentives, including any LEA schemes such as relocation packages and access to subsidised transport or housing help for newly appointed teachers. Alternatively, it was suggested that we could, in the light of any views from consultees and any doubts about what might constitute remuneration, recommend the inclusion of a general provision in the Document to cover local recruitment incentives, any new Government scheme in relation to housing, and bursaries when teachers take up their first post under the proposed fast track programme. 98. We received views on this issue from the National Employers who said that LEAs would strongly support such a general provision being placed in the Document. We recommend accordingly.
Special educational needs allowances 99. From last September two levels of SEN allowance superseded the previous system of spine points available for this area of teaching. For the time being the new allowances have been awarded on the same basis as the points they replaced. The Secretary of State had not wanted us to recommend any change to the criteria pending the outcome of a TTA/DfEE review of the role of SEN teachers. We accepted this, despite our longstanding wish to find a more satisfactory basis for the extra pay of these teachers, but made it clear that we wanted to return to the issue as soon as possible. 100. Historically, teachers in special schools have had a pay lead over mainstream teachers. When the pay structure which was replaced last September was introduced in 1993, account was taken of the developing policy objective for the inclusion, where possible, of SEN pupils in mainstream rather than special school provision. As a result, mainstream teachers became eligible for SEN points on the overall salary spine. However, this related to work with pupils with a formal statement of special needs and not the far greater number of special needs pupils who are not statemented. 101. All teachers in special schools were entitled to the first SEN point on a mandatory basis. Our survey of teachers' pay in 1999 showed that 46 per cent of full-time teachers in special schools also had the discretionary second point. As in previous pay surveys, the position was very different in mainstream schools where only 1.6 per cent of teachers had the first point and 0.4 per cent the second point as well. Teachers appointed as special educational needs co-ordinators (SENCOs), with the role of overseeing special needs work in mainstream schools, were usually given responsibility points. However, the main factor in the limited use of SEN points in mainstream schools was the fact that statemented pupils were usually spread across the school in classes where the rest of the pupils were not statemented. Despite the fact that over 60 per cent of statemented pupils were now in mainstream schools, only the small minority of teachers appointed to special units in mainstream schools were normally able to satisfy the "wholly or mainly teaching statemented pupils" criterion for the award of the mandatory first SEN point and thereafter be potentially eligible for the award of the discretionary second point. This will inevitably have continued to be the case for the new SEN allowances from last September. The rules for the award of the allowances are summarised in Figure 5. Figure 5: Existing criteria for the award of special educational needs allowances
102. The DfEE said in evidence to us that in its view the existing criteria for the award of the two SEN allowances were too focused on special schools and did not sufficiently reflect the growing move towards inclusion of special needs pupils in mainstream provision. It saw the criteria as too prescriptive and inflexible. Accordingly, its preference would be to provide schools with a flexible system with entirely discretionary rather than partly mandatory criteria. Decisions would be made by the relevant body on the basis of effective contribution in the classroom. It said that more and more teachers would, at some point in the working week or year, teach pupils with a range of special educational needs, some with statements but many not. Rather than simply base the award of allowances on contact with SEN pupils, they should in the DfEE's view recognise a particular contribution to the work of the school where SEN is concerned. 103. The DfEE supported the concept of two levels of allowance. It said that SEN allowance 1 should recognise significant contact with SEN pupils, whether statemented or not, above and beyond what might normally be expected of a teacher. SEN allowance 2 should recognise a significant but still greater contribution within the school, in terms of the personal commitment needed to fulfil a defined role, knowledge of special educational needs and involvement with other staff. Such a contribution could be assessed in the light of the national standards published by the TTA but these should not be a deciding factor. The DfEE said that the standards were designed to inform what was expected of SEN teachers but not to form part of their contract of employment. Similarly, it said that acquiring a mandatory qualification for teaching pupils with visual impairment, hearing impairment or multi-sensory impairment would certainly be a factor which might point to SEN allowance 2 being paid to a teacher but not the only one. 104. The views of consultees continued to vary widely. For example, the NUT sought a basis on which both allowances 1 and 2 would be mandatory entitlements, whereas the PAT said that they should only apply to teachers in special schools and that recruitment and retention allowances or management allowances should, as appropriate, be used instead in mainstream schools. The National Employers in principle wanted the existing arrangement to continue, with SEN allowance 1 payable on a mandatory basis to teachers in special schools and those teaching special classes in mainstream schools, and SEN allowance 2 payable on a discretionary basis for additional relevant qualifications. The NGC also said that the existing approach should in principle be retained. Our views 105. This continues to be a difficult area for designing appropriate arrangements which meet the very wide range of circumstances which can arise. We believe, on recruitment grounds, that SEN allowance 1 should be retained as a mandatory entitlement for teachers in special schools and should be paid on the same basis to teachers appointed to SEN units in mainstream schools. The existing arrangements should also continue to apply to teachers of children who are hearing-impaired or visually-impaired. However, for teachers generally in mainstream schools we are attracted to a more flexible discretionary approach on the lines proposed by the DfEE, supported by effective use of the standards produced by the TTA. The award of SEN allowance 2 should remain on a discretionary basis in all settings. Our recommendations are therefore as follows.
106. We recommended last year that there should be four levels of management allowance in the new pay structure, aligned with the equivalent responsibility points under the previous arrangements, for classroom teachers who undertake significant specific management responsibilities beyond those common to the majority of their colleagues. Our working assumption - as the DfEE's had been - was that posts with the fifth responsibility point, that was also available under the old structure, would be appropriate for inclusion in a school's leadership group. They would therefore be covered by the separate pay arrangements which were to be introduced for such groups. During the Secretary of State's consultation following our report a number of consultees said that the absence of a management allowance equivalent to five responsibility points would cause difficulties. He therefore decided that a fifth management allowance of £9,573 should be introduced. He indicated that he would ask us to keep the allowance under review to determine whether it should be retained in the longer term once the leadership group concept was established. 107. We found that views continued to differ on the case for the fifth management allowance, with in particular the NAHT saying it should be retained and the SHA saying it should be abolished. We remain disposed to keeping the pay framework as simple as possible, and continue to have doubts about the need for a fifth management allowance and the apparent overlap with the leadership group arrangements. We propose to return to the issue in our next report in the light of pay survey evidence later this year on the use made of the fifth management allowance. Meanwhile, we do not consider it desirable for further awards of the allowance to be made and recommend accordingly that this be reflected in DfEE guidance.
108. The leadership group pay arrangements introduced last September - establishing a common basis for the pay of heads, deputies and other senior teachers with substantial strategic responsibilities for school leadership - were based on the Government's Green Paper proposals. These were similar to ideas which we had begun to develop previously through the reform of the basis on which heads' pay is determined. The new arrangements provide for heads, deputies and assistant heads to have individual pay ranges on a common leadership group pay spine. The 41 points on the current spine start at £28,446 and rise to £75,972. 109. The new arrangements aim to provide schools with the flexibility to create a leadership group appropriate to their needs. In small schools this would be unlikely to extend beyond the head and any deputy. In larger secondary schools the group might include further members of the senior management team alongside the head and any deputies. Classroom teachers newly appointed to the leadership group have not been required to be assessed against the threshold standards, but the future expectation is that new appointments will be made from those who have crossed the threshold earlier in their careers. 110. The head has an Individual School Range (ISR) of seven points which, other than in exceptional circumstances when higher salaries can be paid, is within a group range for the school size - one of eight school group ranges, which currently include ranges of from £33,813 to £44,322 for typical primaries to £55,254 to £75,972 for the largest secondaries. Under the arrangements for assimilation to the new leadership spine, the relevant body was invited to re-determine the head's existing ISR on the basis of the school's particular circumstances, including the need to allow for appropriate pay ranges to be set for other members of the school's leadership group. The relevant body then had to determine five-point salary ranges for deputies and assistant heads in the gap between the salary of the highest paid classroom teacher and the bottom of the head's ISR. The range for a deputy should start at least one point above the starting point of the range of any assistant head. 111. Performance objectives relating to school leadership and management and to pupil progress must be agreed or set for all leadership group members. Relevant bodies may move leadership group members up the leadership group spine within their ISR or range by a point in September 2001 if there has been a review of their performance, in the light of their objectives, which shows that there has been a sustained high quality of overall performance. 112. The new arrangements need to be properly funded. We welcomed the special grants in England towards the initial appointment and assimilation costs of assistant heads and deputies joining leadership groups and the special grants for salary progression from September 2000, under the previous arrangements, and from September 2001, under the new arrangements. 113. Our pay survey last autumn found that about half of the schools that responded had made some decisions about the pay of those in their leadership group, but the response rate was relatively low at that early stage. Many of the schools that responded were experiencing difficulties in moving to the new system. Just over 70 per cent of secondary schools had chosen to add senior teachers to their leadership group. Most leadership groups had two members in primary schools, two or three members in special schools and four or five members in secondary schools. 114. Generally consultees took the view that it was too early to review the new arrangements, but the SHA and the NAHT have registered a number of points with us which we will address in a future review. The National Employers have also queried the interpretation of "the highest paid classroom teacher" when determining the gap below the head's ISR within which pay ranges for any deputies and assistant heads must be placed. Their view is that movement beyond the threshold should not be taken into account in determining these differentials. They said that progression on the upper pay spine and the different ranges within the leadership group will be related to performance and as such should not be taken into account when assessing relative job levels. Our views 115. The basic concept of the leadership group is simple and there is a need to keep the guidance on it as clear and straightforward as possible, with the avoidance of unnecessary detailed rules. Many schools are still working on the development of their leadership group within the new structure. As that development continues, the flexibility to adjust ISRs and other leadership group salary ranges should be retained. The experience of those who have completed the process is encouraging but it is too early to reach firm conclusions. We will return to various issues raised with us in our next review in the light of fuller survey evidence of how the new arrangements are working.
116. The advanced skills teacher grade was introduced from September 1998. The key feature is that, in addition to achieving excellence in their own classroom teaching, ASTs are expected to undertake activities aimed at promoting good teaching practice within their own school and on an outreach basis at other schools. An objective of the AST grade was to provide a career path for the best classroom teachers who, at least for the time being, do not want to move into a senior management post at head, deputy or similar level. The pay framework for ASTs which we recommended in 1998 - which continues to apply - was aimed at providing considerable local flexibility to meet the individual circumstances of teachers appointed to the new posts and the content and setting of those posts. Some 600 ASTs are currently in post in England with the support of special funding. The DfEE aims to raise this number substantially in the longer term. We understand that there are at present no AST posts in Wales, although the procedure and standards for ASTs apply in Wales as they do in England. The DfEE is responsible for these as this is a pay issue and has not been devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. Funding for all aspects of teachers' pay in Wales, however, is provided by the Assembly to local education authorities via the revenue support grant. 117. ASTs can be appointed only after they have passed a national assessment procedure that operates for both England and Wales. However, the procedure and standards - reproduced with other relevant information at Appendix C - were not the subject of a previous reference to us. Following the High Court judgment on the threshold standards last July, which the DfEE decided had implications for the basis of the AST selection standards and procedures, AST assessment was suspended pending the outcome of a formal reference to us in this review. 118. The DfEE referred in its evidence to an evaluation of the early experience of schools employing ASTs which it had commissioned from Ofsted - which formed part of Ofsted's evidence to us. The DfEE concluded that good progress had been made but that more needed to be done to reassure teachers about the permanent place of ASTs in the teaching profession. It wanted ASTs to remain a separate category within the pay system, distinct from teachers on the new upper pay scale and members of the leadership group. However, it suggested that we might want to consider ways in which the pay structure for ASTs might be updated in the light of those new structures. Henceforth it wanted all applicants for the AST grade to have first crossed the threshold before they are assessed for the additional qualities required of ASTs, including crucially an "excellent ability to advise and support other teachers". It also wanted changes to the professional duties of ASTs to reinforce their outreach role, and also for them to be able to retain management responsibilities as long as they could carry out their commitments as ASTs. 119. In a further letter of 21 November the DfEE confirmed that we were being asked to endorse the existing standards and procedures for the assessment of potential ASTs to enable a speedy resumption of assessment. It also invited us to consider a minimum time for outreach work of half a day a week with a further half day a week to be used for "inreach" work with teachers in the AST's own school. It additionally proposed that a formal requirement that AST candidates should first have crossed the threshold should be deferred on practical grounds until 1 January 2002. 120. With the particular exception of the National Employers, most consultees opposed the AST concept when it was first proposed and continue to do so. Much of the continuing doubts about ASTs are based on the difficulties seen in singling out excellent practitioners, a resentment that they are not supposed to have management responsibilities, and practical problems of releasing ASTs for outreach work in other schools. There is a strong preference for old-style LEA advisory teachers. Many consultees want the AST concept to be abandoned, although the SHA said that if they continue to exist they should be regarded as "the pinnacle of the professional route" and be incorporated accordingly into the new pay structure. Our views 121. Although widespread doubts persist about the need for a separate category of teachers with advanced skills, there are signs that a leading and distinctive role is beginning to emerge for ASTs in supporting and advising other teachers. The Ofsted evaluation found examples of good practice although there continue to be practical problems to be overcome in the effective organisation and application of outreach work in other schools. We are content that the selection of new ASTs should be on the basis of the standards and procedures which were being used up to July last year and we agree that, with effect from January 2002, classroom teachers applying for AST assessment must first have crossed the performance threshold for classroom teachers. 122. We are of the view that, for the time being, the pay structure for ASTs should remain separate from the upper pay scale for classroom teachers and the arrangements for leadership group members. For the moment at least, the existing spine - uprated in the light of our general pay recommendations - appears to offer sufficient flexibility for appropriate pay differentials in a wide range of likely circumstances, but this is an aspect which we can keep under review. We accept the criteria for salary progression, as proposed by the DfEE, of continuing excellence in the AST's own teaching and contribution to standards of teaching at his or her own school and elsewhere. We also accept that there should be a duty to undertake outreach and "inreach" work, the details of which should be the subject of consultation by the DfEE with interested parties. However, we find it difficult to see how ASTs can properly fulfil their distinctive role, and cope with the workload involved, if they also have a management job. Our recommendations are as follows.
123. The DfEE has announced the introduction of a fast track programme which we were asked to consider in outline in our report a year ago - we understand that the National Assembly for Wales is considering consulting on a possible accelerated development scheme for teachers in Wales. The aim is to attract more of the ablest graduates into teaching and to enable them and outstanding existing teachers to move up quickly through the profession. Applications are to be invited from existing teachers from later this year, with those successful taking up their first fast track teaching posts from April 2002. The first intake of successful applicants from outside the profession are to begin their initial teacher training in September 2001 and take up appointments as fast track teachers from a year later. In our report a year ago we agreed to the DfEE proposal that fast track entrants should start one point higher on the main scale for classroom teachers than would otherwise be the case; it is likely that they would be strong candidates for subsequent accelerated progression up that scale. 124. We were given details of the selection process, criteria and standards - the proposed detailed competencies are reproduced at Appendix D - and invited to make recommendations concerning their suitability for appointing fast track teachers. 125. Most consultees continue to oppose the fast track programme. They question the possibility of identifying high-potential teachers before they have taught. They anticipate that fast track teachers might not be accepted readily by other teachers, and are concerned that some unsuccessful applicants may be lost from teaching altogether. However, they all supported the wider concept of fast tracking teachers who show high potential. Our views 126. We have similar concerns to those expressed by consultees about the fast track programme. We have discussed these concerns with officials and it will be essential for the DfEE to monitor these and other aspects during the initial phase. We believe, as do many consultees, in the general concept of fast tracking of teachers in service. In this context the salary progression envisaged under the fast track programme provides a valuable model. We hope that the programme will act in a pump-priming way for the positive management of teachers' early careers more generally. We make our recommendation with this in mind. 127. We are not making specific comments on the detailed criteria for the selection of fast track programme entrants but accept that the kind of qualities listed should prove helpful as a general guide for those involved in the selection process. Predicting future high-level performance is a complex judgment and not, in our view, easily reduced to detailed lists of qualities in this way. Excellent teachers are excellent in different ways and have to perform successfully in a very wide range of circumstances. Moreover, several of the qualities listed will often be difficult to identify in those who have yet to embark on a career. For all these reasons we doubt whether predictors of this kind can or should be set out in a statutory document. We are, however, encouraged by assurances that the selection procedure will be comprehensive, and more especially that the final selection decisions will involve practising head teachers. Our recommendation is therefore as follows.
Emerging framework of performance review and criteria 128. The new arrangements being put in place for post-threshold teachers, ASTs and fast track teachers are adding to a range of performance criteria across the profession. The DfEE referred to the new performance management arrangements for teachers being introduced under appraisal legislation and therefore outside our formal remit under the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991. Regulations came into effect in England on 1 September 2000, providing for an annual cycle of objective setting, monitoring and performance review; further regulations are to follow for teachers who are not based in schools. The National Assembly for Wales has responsibility for regulations governing teacher appraisal in Wales; subject to its decisions, we understood that similar arrangements to those in England will be introduced in Wales. Governing bodies will be responsible for the performance reviews of heads, while heads will be responsible for those of other teachers. 129. This is a different approach from that in the current pay and conditions Document under the 1991 Act which places a responsibility on governing bodies to agree performance objectives for all members of the leadership group and to agree performance criteria for ASTs. The DfEE said that once the new statutory requirements for performance review are fully in place it would seem unnecessary, and potentially confusing, for there to be a pay and conditions requirement on relevant bodies to agree performance objectives for teachers other than the head. The Document would however continue to require relevant bodies to review teachers' performance for pay purposes and therefore needs to stipulate relevant criteria for salary progression. The DfEE referred to the following emerging framework:
130. The emerging framework set out above appears to go a long way towards achieving a reasonably consistent approach. Further consideration of the relationship between the different criteria would probably best await the evaluation of the threshold process and standards which will be carried out by the DfEE in time for our next review. 131. The DfEE would expect the relevant body in carrying out reviews for pay purposes to take account of appropriate information from performance reviews carried out under the new appraisal regulations. The Secretary of State will need to consider the best timing for changes to the Document to reflect this once all the necessary regulations are made for teacher appraisal. This appears to be a matter which we could leave for determination by the Secretary of State in consultation with interested parties.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
