Nutshells #82 Dec 08

D AR AW ard IP on H S Le R n BE Joh EM : M ner L in NA W IO G E R

/9 08 0 2

THE 82ND EDITION FOR ALL PLYMOUTH TEACHERS DECEMBER 2008

THE NUT: “We work up to a standard not down to a price”

Your pay cut this month is about £60 * UPS3

Independent of Government and not affiliated to any political party

CRUMBS...

Seasons Greetings to all our readers

Charitable Trusts still have to look at the bottom line.. Who said, “Sharp commercial practice by charitable trusts is not unknown?”

CUT OUT AND KEEP! “Teachers are expected to contribute, both orally and in w r it ing as a p pr opr i at e, to curriculum development by sharing their professional expertise with colleagues and advising on effective practice. This does not mean that they can take on the responsibility of, and accountability for, a subject area or to manage other teachers without appropriate additional payment. Responsibilities of this nature should be part of a post that is in the leadership group or linked to a post which attracts a TLR on the basis set out in para 22.” STP&CD 2008, Section 3: Guidance on School Teachers’ Pay & Conditions (General), P168, para 65

Has any Plymouth-based teacher been successful in applying for this? Let us know... Thanks to NORTHERN TEACHER and CLASSROOM TEACHER newsletters and Wilts & Wakefield NUT for much of the content

The greater part of this letter was recently sent to all Wiltshire HTs by the ATL, NASUWT & NUT to provide them with the professional association’s position on the expectations of teachers on the Upper Pay Scale (UPS). We have already had many enquiries from members about this. Plymouth NUT fully endorses the views expressed below: After 31 December 2008, all safeguarding for Management Allowances (MAs) comes to an end. The rules of MA safeguarding have required teachers to continue to undertake appropriate additional duties in return for their MA payment having been protected. This meant teachers not awarded a TLR payment, or awarded a TLR lower in value than their MA payment could be required to continue to carry out their additional responsibilities as long as safeguarding remained in place. The removal of safeguarding, however, means that those responsibilities should also end. (Some teachers have already lost their MA safeguarding as their salaries increased during the safeguarding period – when the MA was lost and subsumed into their substantive salary the additional duties came to an end). Schools should now consider whether and how those responsibilities should continue to be undertaken. If the work in question still needs to be carried out the school should either establish a new TLR payment in the staffing structure to give that teacher an appropriate payment for that work, or consider whether another teacher (or teachers) should take on all or part of the work in return for an appropriate payment reflecting the revised level of responsibility. Such changes should, of course, be subject to proper consultation within the school. In some schools, it has been argued that teachers can be required to undertake additional whole-school or managerial work above the professional duties of normal teachers without appropriate TLR payments, simply because they are on the Upper Pay Spine or are on UPS3. This is not the case. Any additional responsibility should attract an appropriate level of TLR payment. The UPS was introduced by the then Secretary of State, David Blunkett MP, to encourage and reward good teachers who wished to stay in the classroom and not as an alternative to the payment of TLR points. New guidance in the 2008 School Teachers Pay and Conditions Document advises that responsibility and accountability for subject areas or management of other teachers should be connected to TLR posts or leadership group posts. While teachers may be expected to contribute to curriculum development by sharing their professional expertise with colleagues and advising on effective practice, additional responsibilities should attract additional payments. Is this an issue for you? Turn to page 4 and contact the NUT

New report shows mixed results for Academies

PricewaterhouseCoopers has published its fifth and final annual report into the Academies programme. It found that there was insufficient evidence that academies were a model for school improvement. The report acknowledges that the proportion of pupils from socially deprived backgrounds in academies has actually declined, even though it was these communities that academies were designed to help most. Commenting on the report, Christine Blower, Acting General Secretary of the NUT, said: “All the features that PwC identify as positive in relation to academies have little to do with the co-called ‘academy effect’ and everything to do with headhunting, significantly increased resources compared with other schools, despite the avowed focus of academies targeting those pupils. In addition, exclusions are much higher than those in other schools.” How will staff benefit from being employed in a trust school? No, can’t think of one either...

COMING IN JAN 09—Plymouth NUT's dedicated website: links include the national NUT site, DCSF, and BBC education Plymouth Division: [email protected] 01503 240527 National Executive Member: [email protected] 01647 433988 Regional Office: [email protected],uk 01392 258028