Official Report 265KB pdf
I reconvene the committee. We now turn to the second item on our agenda, which is consideration of the report of the teacher employment working group.
I want to ask about information gathering and how it can be used at local authority level. The working group's first recommendation is that there should be
No, I think that I got most of it.
How far along that line have COSLA and the Government managed to go? Is projecting how the process might develop over the next six years a possibility?
The period will be six years, which covers two spending reviews. That is another factor that plays into local authorities' ability to determine how many teachers they might need. The six-year time lag of the BEd crosses two spending reviews and all the discussions that require to take place for them. If nothing else but the report and that work are done, the local authority view about the absolute need for the best statistical evidence that we can obtain and for closer working with the Government on the planning that is required on teacher numbers will be refreshed.
Good morning. Earlier this year, the committee took evidence on probationer teachers, because we were concerned about the proportions of probationers who were in employment and who were in permanent posts. The issue has many facets. In that evidence, a national staffing formula was suggested, which the teacher employment working group discussed and rejected. I understand that one reason for that rejection was that your group felt that the suggestion ran counter to the concordat and to the new relationship between the Government and local authorities.
One of my other jobs is to be the employers secretary on the Scottish negotiating committee for teachers, so I am one of the guardians of the McCrone agreement, although I was not involved in the negotiations. You are right to say that parts of "A Teaching Profession for the 21st Century" are done at the centre. However, as you know, the McCrone agreement devolved quite a lot of responsibility to local negotiating committees in authorities, on which teacher unions meet their authorities and deal with several important teacher deployment issues locally. It would be difficult to try to introduce a single national formula, given the different sizes, geography, demography and economic circumstances of the 32 unitary authorities in Scotland.
Representatives of the teaching unions and other people have made general comments to us about how a national staffing formula might provide a greater degree of certainty, not just to unions and the workforce but in relation to workforce planning. Staffing is a major component of the education budget and it has been suggested that, without the safeguards that a national formula might provide, local authorities throughout the country, which are under financial pressure, might make short-term decisions. You might not be able to nail down workforce planning if it is at the mercy of short-term financial decision making.
I will give you an example. Dumfries and Galloway Council recently advertised a permanent primary teaching post and received one application. If the council was working to the same national staffing standard as East Renfrewshire Council and Glasgow City Council, it would be looking for a lot more than one primary post and it would not fill the posts. The approach would not work.
What account have you been able to take of the effect of Government policies? There is a new relationship between local government and central Government. In your report you refer to the stages of the modelling process. You found the modelling to be robust and state:
No, that decision was subject to the planning process between the General Teaching Council for Scotland and central Government. If the Government takes a policy decision, it must fund its impact. The Government did that for the extra 300 in teacher training.
Having looked at the modelling process and the workforce planning, are you confident that it was a good decision to have an extra 300 in teacher training, that there was a need for them and that there will be vacancies for them?
That is one of the problems, Mr Macintosh. It is not our job to determine what should happen to those teachers. Central Government took a policy decision, implemented it and provided the funding, which meant that the 300 teachers came into the system. The modelling process did not deal with them separately. They came into the process in the same way as any other student who comes through the teacher education institutions, then goes out into the local authorities. They will have the same ability as any other postgraduate student who has gone through teacher education to state preferences for local authorities, which will need to be matched or met as best as possible in the teacher induction scheme. Frankly, that is how it happens. They will not and cannot be treated differently. If they were treated differently, it could be regarded as discrimination.
Do you or COSLA monitor how many teacher posts exist in local authorities at any one time?
Yes. That information is modelled by local authorities and by central Government. It is currently based on the 2006-07 figure of 54,900, which included 53,000 teachers—the figure that everybody refers to—1,600 centrally funded visiting specialists and the extra 300 to which you referred. Knowing those figures, we and local authorities then monitor the number of teachers leaving the profession, for whatever reason. The starting point in properly identifying teacher numbers is monitoring how many leave the profession. We should know the number of students coming through and know from the probation scheme the number of probationary teachers.
As part of its work, did the teacher employment working group look at the match between the number of teachers coming through and the number of current vacancies?
We tried to examine that aspect carefully. You will understand that the rate of teachers leaving local authorities varies hugely, and that the situation has changed over the past three to four years. There was an assumption, using statistics that were perhaps five or 10 years old, that there would be a bulge in the number of teachers leaving the profession because of baby boomers leaving last year, this year and next year. However, given the recent change in economic circumstances, those assumptions might not be accurate now. Some of the early information that we have seems to show that teachers are not retiring at 60 but staying on until they are 62 or 63, or stating their intention to stay on until then.
I do not disagree with any of that, and I am sure that your recommendations were agreed unanimously. However, perhaps there is still a gap between the number of teachers coming through the system and the number who get jobs.
The GTCS survey obviously has credibility—it is based on returns from teachers, and the GTCS carries it out. As with all surveys, we must consider the rate of return and judge whether it is high enough to offer a proper statistical model on which assumptions can be based, but we must always have regard to the survey. It is carried out twice a year, and there is a peak in post-probation unemployment, which drops back over the course of the year. As with all surveys, we must be careful about when the snapshot was taken. I am in no way suggesting, however, that the survey is not a real, important signpost that authorities must consider very carefully.
I agree on the point about snapshots, but there have been three snapshots—from today, there will be four—and, if we join them up, they reveal a very worrying trend.
The group did consider the effect of post-probationary teachers finding difficulty getting employment—which you are right about—and what that might mean for their ability to continue to develop as teachers. Our comments on the matter were not greeted with universal approval. We raised the question of authorities trying to give preference to post-probationary teachers, as opposed to retired teachers, in supply work. We were advised by our legal people that supply work—and even permanent supply pools, which some authorities have introduced—is not age discriminatory when it is provided to develop the skills and abilities of immediate post-probationary teachers. It is not about age; it is about developing the skills of the teachers so that they continue to be fit for purpose.
The recommendations to improve the current system will be welcomed. However, the biggest worry is that our fundamental concern is not being addressed: is there a clash between supply and demand? I refer to the supply of teachers rather than to supply teachers. You said in your report:
It absolutely is a worry for anyone who is involved in the supply and provision of education services. We recognise that we need to get a better match between the number of teachers coming into the profession and the number of vacancies, because if those people do not have jobs it is a waste of talent, time and effort.
I am trying to get back to the fundamental point: local authorities might control demand, as it were, but the Government controls supply and has a clear responsibility for recruiting teachers.
Yes, and there has been clear agreement that teacher numbers will remain at the 53,000 level, which to my knowledge remains the agreed level at which teacher numbers will be held in Scotland. Anything that alters that level requires to be dealt with.
But do you not feel that we should find further mechanisms to address what is clearly a problem at the moment between the Government's responsibility for supply and your responsibility for demand?
There was a debate about whether the working group should finish its work and say, "That's it." In answer to your question, it is unrealistic to say that its work is a closed chapter. One of the things that will happen is that more local authority people will be on the on-going teacher planning group, which is an established body. We have to work together more closely, and we are committed to doing that.
You have touched on retirals several times this morning in response to questions. I want to pursue that subject with you. You said that approximately 6,000 teachers retire each year, but it appears that there has been a failure to understand the number of teachers who were likely to retire at this moment in time. Why did the modelling get that so badly wrong and how confident can you be that modelling on future retirals will be any more accurate?
I do not think that the estimates were so badly wrong. One reason why there were clear differences is that the economic situation is such that teachers are staying for longer. If even just 10 per cent indicate that they want to stay for another two or three years, that skews the model markedly.
You rightly touched on the fact that the McCrone agreement offered a winding-up scheme—[Interruption.] Sorry, a winding-down scheme.
You might have been right the first time. [Laughter.]
Advantage has not been taken of the scheme as widely as was perhaps expected. You have indicated that there might be numerous reasons for that on top of the issues that the Treasury needs to consider. Are there also funding issues for local authorities in making the scheme not only a right that people can take up but something that authorities can deliver financially and that they want teachers to take advantage of towards the end of their career?
The short answer is yes. Of itself, it is a valuable scheme and more authorities would like to be able to take advantage of it, but we have to examine it to ensure that if there are barriers to authorities either letting teachers use it or getting them to use it, we know about them.
When I have discussed the issue with my local authority, it has indicated that the scheme presents a resourcing issue. I have written to the minister about it because education officials in North Lanarkshire have suggested that if some flexibility and the necessary resources existed, some teachers would be willing to take retirement at the summer holidays—not midway through a term—as long as they were financially recompensed.
The more general issue of resource allocation was not part of our remit, so we did not consider it.
You did not consider that issue, but is it worthy of further exploration?
I am not entirely sure who would explain things or what would be explained.
It is not about explaining; it is about whether COSLA and the Government should discuss the matter and whether further discussions would be worth while.
There will certainly be further discussions about retirement patterns, the winding-down scheme and the possibility of early retirement, but I suppose that the matter that you raise falls within the wider context of funding for education.
Finally, your report suggests that further research needs to be done on the factors that influence teachers to retire, and particularly on the effect that the economic downturn might have on retirement decisions. It would be helpful if you told us why that is important and whether concentrating on one factor would allow COSLA and the Government to get a sufficient grasp of the various reasons why teachers choose to retire at any given time. Should research be more wide ranging than concentrating only on the economic downturn?
In considering such important matters as ensuring that we have the correct number of teachers in the system at any one time, we need to base the assumptions that we make on the best information that is available to us. We took the view that it was entirely appropriate to get the best possible information on the number of teachers who are coming into the profession if there is any question about the number who will be leaving it—that is a big factor. That can be done in a number of ways, but the group took the view—which was widely held—that in the first instance there should be proper engagement between the local authorities and the Government so that we get the best information that we can.
Good afternoon. You touched on supply teachers. The working group's report says that the number of teachers being trained to meet demand for supply cover has doubled since 2004. I think that you mentioned a figure of 8 per cent. The report also states that some local authorities use retired teachers to fill supply posts. Why were more teachers trained to allow for supply cover if there was evidence that retired teachers were being used as supply teachers?
The evidence about that practice is anecdotal rather than statistical, although there is no point in saying that it does not happen, because it does, and for a variety of reasons. For example, experienced teachers can slot in easily, which helps the smooth running of schools, so there are attractions in using retired teachers, and clearly that has happened.
You were clear about that in your recommendations, but questions have been raised about human rights and age discrimination. Does any legislation have a bearing on your recommendation that there should be a preference for post-probation teachers?
Like the Government, we took detailed advice on the matter. Our view is that such a preference does not constitute age discrimination; there is nothing to suggest that a post-probation teacher should be of a particular age or sex. It is about ensuring that the post-probation teacher who has achieved the standard for full registration can teach in schools. There is no reason for not allowing them to do so and every reason for allowing them to give the children in Scotland the benefit of their expertise.
A table in one of our papers indicates clearly that there are more post-probation teachers in supply posts in primary schools than there are in supply posts in secondary schools. Did you find any reasons for the considerable difference in those numbers?
There are more permanent vacancies in the secondary sector, so it does not have as many supply posts as the primary sector. In fact, one difficulty that we identified is that because teachers must be subject-specific in the secondary sector, it does not require the same number of supply teachers.
Were there geographic and subject differences, or do the numbers just reflect the general trend?
We had to consider people's ability or desire to work in different geographic locations in Scotland and the requirement to fill subject-specific slots in secondary schools in different authorities. Some authorities have not been able to fill particular subjects and require people. I agree that there is a marked difference between supply requirements in the secondary and primary sectors. That is another reason why the preference waiver scheme has been increased for the secondary sector but not for the primary sector. The increase recognises the difference in attracting people to go into specific subjects in specific areas in the secondary sector.
I have a question that is not directly related to the supply issue. You noted that increased media coverage was having an adverse effect on the number of people applying for places. Was that demonstrated by people coming forward to you?
Again, that does not have a statistical basis, but there was a lot of media interest in and reaction to the view that a lot of post-probation teachers were not getting jobs, and people on the working group expressed concern about that. In particular, as you would expect, colleagues from the higher education institutes said, "Why would people want to become teachers if they see in the media that they will not get a job when they finish their training?" There is concern about whether the teaching profession remains attractive to graduates and whether people will want to become teachers.
So it is important to find the right balance between not flagging up concerns and flagging them up so much that it puts people off and creates a vicious spiral.
Exactly.
I turn to the primary sector. Earlier this year, we took evidence from Frances Jack, who was a newly qualified primary school teacher at Currie primary school in Edinburgh. She gave us a detailed account of the difficulties that new teachers face in finding work after their probationary year. She flagged up the fact that some local authorities are flexible about the jobs for which they allow the pool of people to apply but others are restrictive. Did your working group examine local authorities' different approaches to employment?
We did not specifically consider different employment practices in different authorities. In our work, we focused on the Scottish model.
Perhaps the matter should be considered. It bears out what you said in your answer to Ken Macintosh, because part of the difficulty is geographical immobility. People are more willing to work in the central belt and the cities, and it is more difficult to get people to go further afield, particularly in the primary sector. If it is true that some local authorities are a bit restrictive—I say that guardedly—in how they operate the pool of labour supply, that might be a considerable barrier to allowing greater flexibility within demand and supply.
I would like to believe that there are no unnecessary restrictions in local authorities, but if that issue has been raised, I would want to ask colleagues who have direct responsibility for education provision, particularly the directors in ADES, whether that is the case.
Frances Jack told us that some local authorities got a greater choice of candidates because people were allowed to cross local authority borders, which put people further up the list. She had had to wait for specific opportunities in regions. It seems to me that that rule creates rigidity in the labour supply.
In the induction scheme, the individual can choose five authorities and put them in order from one to five. That shows where they want to go, or which geographical areas they favour. If that affects how an authority views a candidate, I do not think that I—or any of us—can do much about that. The individual can choose five authorities, so they have a broad choice.
I turn to the class size policy. When we took evidence from ADES, it was obvious that the policy is being implemented at different rates. In some cases, progress is relatively positive, but in others, frankly, it is not. Some local authorities do not regard the policy as a priority. How has that affected the statistical projections of how many teachers will be required over the next few years?
My group did not look specifically at the impact of that and I have not seen any statistical modelling that takes it into account.
Would it be an appropriate thing to include in the model, given that it will have implications for the numbers employed to cover primary 1 to primary 3 in the future?
With all due respect, that is a matter for wider discussion rather than for discussion just in my group.
Will you suggest which group should discuss the matter?
It should be the subject of discussion between the Government and COSLA at political level.
But do you accept, as you rightly pointed out, that it is extremely important that we get that right and that there is a greater match between supply and demand, because we are dealing with people's lives and careers? If the Government has made a specific commitment to a policy to reduce class sizes to no more than 18 in P1 to P3, that will have a huge effect on employment prospects. Would it not be sensible and relevant for your group to look at that?
It is an important factor that will affect the modelling of the number of people coming in and out of the profession, and you are absolutely right that it will require to be taken into account by the teacher workforce planning group, which is a standing body—unlike my group, which has finished now.
Have you recommended that it should take it into account?
The teacher workforce planning group will pick up the issue; it picks up any such issue or policy change.
But I am right that you have made specific recommendations for things to be considered.
Yes, we have.
Have you made the suggestion that—
We did not make that recommendation.
Good afternoon. I turn to secondary teachers now that we have spoken about primary teachers. You mentioned earlier that a particular challenge seems to exist in achieving the appropriate distribution of placements across certain subjects and geographical areas and in filling certain posts permanently. It seems that in some local authorities places are left unfilled and in some places are oversubscribed—it is another question of balance. In your report, you recommended an increase in the preference waiver scheme figure from £6,000 to £8,000. You spoke about that earlier. As it stands, about 8 per cent of graduates take up the £6,000 waiver. What proportion of graduates do you expect to take up the increased waiver of £8,000?
That is a difficult assumption to make. How much more attractive is £8,000 than £6,000? All that I can say is that it is to be hoped that the £8,000 will help teachers who are prepared to move to where it is difficult to fill posts, which is the case particularly in the secondary sector—which explains the differential in the waiver scheme for that sector—to move. However, people's individual circumstances are such that I do not know how we would model the uptake.
You mentioned the impact of the current economic situation on retirement. Will the increase in money go some way towards filling some of the unfilled places?
The increase in what?
The increase in the waiver payment, which, in effect, means extra cash.
The honest answer is that at the moment we simply do not know. I hope that the measure will address the problem because, after all, part of its aim is to achieve better distribution.
How much of a relationship is there between probationer placements and probationers securing a permanent post? For example, someone attracted to teaching in a remote area might have the option of staying there permanently.
Clear evidence from a number of councils that could hardly be described as being in the central belt shows that many post-probationer teachers who are attracted to more remote communities tend to stay in the area because they like the style of life, their work, the size of their school and so on. Of course, the approach is not all altruistic; if the people we attract to fill gaps in the more remote rural authority areas stay there, so much the better. Perhaps we should be saying to post-probationer teachers that such areas are not in the back of beyond and that they might actually find them very pleasant to work in.
There are more options as well.
Well, there can be.
Is there any evidence that retention is better in places that have been filled under the current waiver scheme?
I do not think that there is a lot of statistical evidence on that but anecdotal evidence suggests that people who are attracted to the waiver scheme tend to stay in the area.
How does the number of post-probationers in the waiver scheme compare with the number of post-probationers looking for permanent posts?
It is not a very large percentage. I do not have the exact figure to hand, but I can get it for you.
That is fine. Thank you.
Did you find the increase in the preference waiver payment to be the biggest single factor in attracting post-probationers to more rural and outlying areas?
It is not the biggest single factor, but it is certainly one of the attractions that some of these authorities and places highlight to people. As I said, post-probationers might be attracted by the size of the school, the kind of work that they can do and so on. I do not think that the £8,000 would itself be the primary factor—although perhaps I should call it the main factor, given that we are talking about secondary schools. However, by signing up to the scheme, they are indicating that they are prepared to go anywhere, and the £8,000 might be a way of saying, "That'll help you move."
I think that that concludes our questions—
I have one brief question, convener. I thought that we were supposed to come back to supply and distribution at the end.
I do not want you to think that we do not think that the situation is serious. If there is any kind of mismatch—if teachers are being trained, but are not getting jobs—that is a serious issue that must be addressed. My group has begun to examine the issue and has made certain recommendations but, as I said earlier, that is not the end of the matter. The situation must continue to be monitored not only by local authorities, who are, after all, teachers' employers, but by central Government, which determines policy. The issue is—and continues to be—serious, and we are trying as best we can to make progress in dealing with it.
Have you finished your questions, Mr Macintosh?
Yes, I have. I will keep the rest for the minister.
That concludes our questions and today's meeting. I thank Mr Di Paola for his attendance.
Meeting closed at 12:40.