| School Teachers' Review Body | |||||||||
|
CHAPTER 6 Other issues 145. In this chapter we consider several issues raised with us in the Secretary of State's remit letter, or subsequently on his behalf, and not covered elsewhere in our report.
146. The Government's original Green Paper proposals included an intention to review the existing opportunities for teachers to take sabbatical leave. It said that experienced and excellent teachers should have opportunities, like those for other professions, to undertake development or research work and enhance their performance. This attracted overwhelming support when views were sought in February last year by the DfEE through a consultative document, Professional development - support for teaching and learning. 147. The DfEE said that it was considering whether to introduce a pilot scheme for sabbaticals which would include the possibility of a teacher's pay for four years being spread over five years. This would provide the opportunity for the fifth year to be taken as a sabbatical and was based on a scheme operating in Ontario, Canada. The rules for that scheme make no mention of what teachers may do with their leave of absence and some have taken other jobs. The DfEE envisaged that its scheme would be for teachers who wanted to build on their experience through further development activities, study or research of value to their schools or future schools, thereby contributing to the improvement in standards through the dissemination of good practice. Teachers would notify in advance the type of activity they would undertake and be expected to provide a report on their return. 148. While it was generally considered that the "four over five" proposal would be unattractive, we found universal support among consultees for the principle of sabbaticals. This was for both the opportunity to improve knowledge and skills and the benefit of a change from the daily pressures of teaching. Individuals could return enhanced and refreshed to resume their teaching work, to the advantage of themselves and their schools. It was suggested, however, that a year's duration for a sabbatical could be too long and that many teachers, and their schools needing to arrange cover for their absence, would prefer shorter periods of, say, a term. Our views 149. We see great merit in the provision of sabbatical leave for approved professional study and personal development. We share the doubts put to us about the DfEE's particular proposal and suggest that it should explore other possible approaches in consultation with interested parties. We recommend accordingly.
150. The DfEE's consultative document of February 2000 on professional development asked more generally whether an entitlement to high-quality learning opportunities should be established alongside a contractual obligation to improve subject knowledge and professional skills. This attracted substantial support from respondents to the consultative document. 151. In its evidence to us the DfEE referred to the range of opportunities being developed, such as through:
It also said that the new performance management arrangements required heads and other line managers to ensure that teachers have agreed objectives including those for their own development, and that they are reviewed. This in effect provides an entitlement for all teachers to have their development discussed. 152. The DfEE said that there was no statutory duty as such on teachers to take forward their development objectives. We were accordingly asked to consider and make recommendations on whether the existing professional duty on heads, in respect of identifying and undergoing appropriate training, and on other teachers, to participate in further training and professional development, should be updated to reflect the new context of performance management reviews and opportunities for development. 153. In Wales, professional development is supported through the National Assembly's Grants for Education and Support of Teachers, and it also has a comprehensive programme for school leaders. However, interests in Wales have not yet been consulted specifically on professional development opportunities and changes in duties in respect of professional development. As noted earlier, the National Assembly for Wales has responsibility for regulations governing teacher appraisal in Wales; subject to its decisions, we understand that similar arrangements to those in England will be introduced in Wales but on a different timescale. Our views 154. Improved opportunities for professional development clearly have wide support, which is as it should be. We noted, for example, that the National Employers said they would support a suitable addition to the list of professional duties set out in the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document. They acknowledged that professional development will clearly be an essential element of the new performance management arrangements. We recommend accordingly that new duties should be added to the Document, with the detailed wording to be finalised by the DfEE in consultation with interested parties. It will, of course, be vital that opportunities for professional development are expanded and kept up to date, and that the resources are available to allow heads and other teachers to make full use of them.
155. Under long-standing provisions of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document there are circumstances in which teachers are entitled to retain their previous salary following a change of post, and others where they may do so at the discretion of the LEA. Where teachers lose their post as a result of the statutory closure or reorganisation of a school and are immediately employed in a post where their salary is paid by the same LEA, they must be regarded for all salary purposes as if they had remained in the post previously held - retaining, for example, an entitlement to management allowances. In other circumstances, such as redeployment because a school is contracting in size, the LEA can decide whether safeguarding should apply but should not unreasonably refuse to exercise its discretion in favour of the teacher. Safeguarded salaries are uprated in line with national pay awards arising from our recommendations, and classroom teachers below the threshold move up the main pay scale and can apply to cross the threshold in the normal way. 156. The DfEE said that there was a case for time-limiting general safeguarding, on the grounds that after a period of time teachers should have had sufficient opportunity to find a new post at least matching their previous position. It said that teachers should not continue indefinitely being paid at a higher rate than their new post merits - it considered that a period of around three years would be appropriate. 157. It is evident, however, that there is strong opposition to any dilution of the existing safeguarding provisions among the teacher unions. For example, the PAT said that it was stressful enough for teachers to be redeployed without having to worry about uprooting themselves again within three years, or losing pay. The National Employers said that both mandatory and discretionary safeguarding caused problems because schools decide whom they appoint and could not be compelled by the LEA to receive teachers on safeguarded salaries. Nonetheless, they said that the current arrangements for mandatory safeguarding should not be amended, since it was a helpful tool when implementing LEA-wide changes such as reorganising separate infant and junior provision into combined primary schools. However, they repeated the proposal they made last year that discretionary safeguarding should be limited to a cash protection basis for a period of, say, three years. Our views 158. The question of general safeguarding was raised with us last year when we said that we would want to receive far more evidence about the detailed implications of making any changes before coming to a view. We added that in the first instance we believed that this was a matter which should be discussed directly between the parties
We accordingly repeat our recommendation of last year to that effect. 159. In a letter dated 27 November, reproduced at Appendix F, the DfEE referred a further issue to us arising from the announcement that there will be a special bank holiday on Monday 3 June 2002 to commemorate Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee. The Department has asked LEAs to move the summer half-term week to the week in which the bank holiday falls, so schools will be closed on the bank holiday. However, ministers do not want to deprive teachers, or their pupils, of the day off which would otherwise have occurred during term time. Schools will therefore close for a day off in lieu of the bank holiday, probably at the end of the summer term. Accordingly, it is proposed by the DfEE that the number of days annually on which classroom teachers are normally required to be available for work, and within that the number of days on which they may be required to teach pupils, should be reduced by one day for that school year, with a corresponding reduction in the related 1,265 hours of specified duties. These changes would be incorporated into the forthcoming School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document which will cover the school year in question. 160. Some concerns have been expressed to us about the possible adverse effect of the change to the timing of the summer half-term holiday in 2002 on exam timetables, and there was particular concern in Wales about other long-standing arrangements. However, we have received no objections in principle to the proposed adjustment of the working time requirements for classroom teachers for that school year. Our views 161. We have no objections to what is proposed which we recommend should be adopted. Statutory maternity and parental leave
162. The School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document provides that statutory maternity leave shall count towards the qualifying service necessary to gain points for experience on the main pay scale. New statutory rights confer entitlements to additional maternity leave and to parental leave and the Secretary of State invited us to recommend that they should in future count for the purpose of experience points. We agree that they should so count, and recommend accordingly.
| |||||||||
