Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 11 Mar 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 11, 2003

Official Report 125KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Schools (Scotland) Code Amendment Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/75)

The committee must consider the Schools (Scotland) Code Amendment Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/75) under the negative procedure.

We have points to raise, if that is appropriate.

Okay.

I have concerns about nursery teachers. We support integrated working, with social work and education working more closely together. I accept that the regulations do not compel local authorities to remove teachers from pre-school settings, but there is a feeling that that might happen. One of the triggers might be efforts by some local authorities to reduce costs. I know that when the guidance first came out, the General Teaching Council for Scotland placed on record its concerns that any reduction in the role of teachers might damage the education system and the success of early-intervention, literacy and numeracy initiatives.

My queries and concerns are around those points. I suppose that I want to hear some reassurance from the Executive that the proposed flexibility will not result in lower pay and lower levels of qualification, especially given that nursery nurses are balloting on whether to take strike action on their pay and conditions. What guarantees or quality protectors will there be to ensure that, following repeal of the code, standards will remain high, if not increase?

I will just interrupt you for a moment to welcome Stewart Robertson from the teachers division of the education department and Val Cox, who is the head of the early education and child care division. Irene McGugan has already asked her question.

That explains my hesitation at the beginning, convener—you had not yet introduced the people whom I was going to address.

I had some papers and I was reading to see what was coming next.

It is very Victorian, but we feel that we have to have an introduction before we address people.

Absolutely.

Now that I have been introduced, I can hold forth. Irene McGugan has raised some important issues, but I think that I can offer reassurance on all the points that she mentioned.

On quality assurance, the new integrated inspection regime, which involves inspections by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education and the new care commission, will secure the quality that we all want in pre-school education. The advantage of the new regime over previous arrangements is twofold. It is far more extensive, as it covers all forms of pre-school provision, whereas the previous arrangements applied only to local authorities—the private and voluntary sectors were inspected only once for registration purposes. Under the new regime, all pre-school units will be inspected annually. In the first three-year period, every pre-school centre will be subjected to an integrated joint inspection on one occasion. We think that the new regime will secure the quality that the committee is understandably concerned about.

Pay issues are a matter for the employers, not for the Executive. However, we are keen to secure the highest level of qualifications for the early-years work force across the piece and we have invested significant resources in achieving that. We are currently providing £3.4 million of training money specifically for early-years workers. Next year, that figure will increase to £6 million. The money is primarily intended to help those workers who do not have any accredited qualifications or who might have a relatively low level of qualification to access additional accredited qualifications, thus increasing the quality of the work force.

Paragraph 6 of the Executive note says:

"The repeal allows more flexibility for local authorities to deploy staff according to their skills and experience not just the level of initial qualification. This is not to say that teachers are not a valuable resource."

That is almost damning with faint praise. What do you believe that teachers bring to pre-school education that nursery nurses and others do not? Why should their role be protected?

We all acknowledge that teachers bring with them an important range of experiences and expertise. Our guidance is clear on the involvement of teachers in pre-school education. Their particular skills are in curriculum planning and the assessment of pupils and young children. They can also help other staff to review pre-school pupils' learning. Increasingly, we are trying to provide opportunities for local authorities to use staff more flexibly in that way.

That implies that teacher input, oversight or contact with all providers would be a good thing.

That is absolutely what the policy is aiming for. The intention is to secure a level playing field throughout all forms of pre-school provision, whether statutory, private sector or voluntary sector. Evidence shows that some local authorities are taking on board the examples in our guidance. For example, some local authorities are deploying their teaching staff in a peripatetic way to provide the kind of inputs that we have just discussed to a wide range of providers that would not necessarily have been able to access those skills and expertise otherwise.

There is something seductive about saying, "We are going to sweep away some old regulations because they stifle initiative." However, my alarm was increased by the dread word "modernisation", which appears in the memorandum. Perhaps it was not sensible to use that word.

Although I share Irene McGugan's concerns, my particular worry relates to the removal of regulations 5(3), 15(e) and especially 6(2). As the Executive is aware, the removal of the promoted-post structure, which was foreshadowed in generality—although not in detail—by the McCrone agreement, is being interpreted differently in different parts of the country. In Dumfries and Galloway, for example, there seems to be a willingness to leave the present structure in place and to see what happens. In Argyll and Bute, however, the proposal is for a reduction of almost 50 per cent in the number of promoted posts in secondary schools. Once the school code is amended, will it contain anything to prevent such a difference in practice or to protect the educational structure where it was seen to be beneficial?

The code, which is discretionary on local authorities, sets out the type of promoted post that can be deployed. The agreement document "A Teaching Profession for the 21st Century" sets out the types of post; the matter is then up to authorities. At the moment, the code does not say that every school will have a deputy head teacher or an assistant head teacher; it says that those teachers may be deployed. That will still be the situation after repeal.

So why repeal those provisions?

Because the agreement does away with assistant head teachers. The new structure consists of head teacher, deputy head teacher, principal teacher and so on.

Why do we not amend the code just to do away with assistant head teachers? Why do away with the entire listing?

Because there is no need to legislate on such a detailed matter, which could be covered by the agreement.

You said that the code is not mandatory, but advisory. If the change in structure requires only the removal of the post of assistant head teacher, why are all the other provisions of the code being repealed?

It is difficult to keep the code up to date. At the moment, it does not cover all the promoted posts. There are senior teachers and deputy heads in primary schools—that was not covered by the code and yet the posts were provided for by direction in 1992. If the promoted-post structure keeps changing, the regulations also have to be changed. It is as easy to allow for such changes through the agreement, as they relate to a condition of service, after all.

So you are telling me that, even with the removal of regulation 6(2), the tripartite agreement that is still to be reached between the Executive, unions and local authorities would be the proper way of proceeding in respect of the number of posts and what they are.

The agreement that has been reached deals with the promoted-post structure. However, the number of promoted posts is probably a matter for local authorities as part of a job-sizing exercise. As I said, the types of post were agreed in the agreement.

Does not the same argument apply to the promoted-post structure in primary schools? Some authorities are considering radical proposals that would change the promoted-post structure in primary schools. That is causing concern.

The same argument applies. The agreement also suggests that there will be principal teachers in primary schools, for example. If the code were to be kept as it is, it would have to include that post. It can also be argued that the promoted-post structure in primary schools is part of the conditions-of-service agreement.

Okay. My next point is about the size of classes in nursery, secondary and special schools. Why is it necessary to repeal the code in that respect?

The class sizes for secondary schools and special schools are out of date in the code; they were overtaken by agreements in the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee for Teaching Staff in School Education. I suspect that most of those agreements were made in the 1970s, which means that, since then, we have relied on teachers' conditions of service to determine class sizes in secondary schools.

There are two points in relation to nursery provision. One is that, as members have heard, we intend to provide for more flexible use of teachers. The code defines a class as a group of children who are under the supervision of a teacher, which means that, if a group is not directly supervised by a teacher, it is not, technically, a class. A more substantive argument is that the new national care standards will set staff to child ratios of one staff member to 10 children, when the children attend for fewer than four hours. When the children attend for more than four hours, the ratio changes to one adult to eight children. Obviously, those ratios are more generous than the current one to 20 ratio.

I notice that paragraph 15, which is on the financial effects, states:

"The repeal will not impose any additional financial burden on local authorities."

Some people might think that the repeal will free local authorities to save money on education, which would be undesirable. If we take out the management and financial factors, what are the educational benefits of the repeal?

I will respond on the pre-school element. The educational benefits of the repeal are that it will enable the resources that schools and teachers provide to be used more widely throughout the pre-school estate, if we can call it that. The repeal will enable better use to be made of resources; it will provide greater opportunities for all children to benefit from the particular skills that teachers bring and it will also provide for affordable pre-school education.

The regulations are the first part of a two-stage repeal. The regulations are a tidying-up instrument that will get rid of some largely defunct provisions.

What are the educational benefits of that?

In itself, the repeal is just a tidying-up exercise—I suspect that there are no direct educational benefits.

I welcome the fact that pre-school establishments will be inspected, which will raise standards and ensure consistent quality across the board. Unlike some of my colleagues, I am not a dinosaur—I have no problem with the word "modernise", because something that might have been appropriate 20 years ago is not necessarily appropriate now. However, the implementation on the ground by local authorities troubles some people slightly. There is a genuine desire to ensure a modicum of protection.

I ask the witnesses to confirm that, in essence, the code is about the type of post deployed and therefore does nothing to determine the quantity of posts, which is a matter for local authorities. I also ask them to confirm that there are gaps in the existing code, such as posts that are not included and posts that are included but should not be. Another way into the issue is to consider whether such matters are decided by agreement or by direction from ministers.

Finally, I turn to the point that is of interest to us all. Given that local authorities interpret the McCrone agreement and the promoted-post structure differently, what mechanisms does the Executive have in place to monitor whether implementation by local authorities follows the spirit and intent of the agreement?

I confirm your point that some posts are included in the code and others are not—the regulations tidy up that matter. On your other point, the number of promoted posts is a matter for local authorities. The job-sizing exercise is still to be undertaken, so we do not know the result, but it aims to give every post a job weight.

The safeguard that you seek is that the Executive is a full member of the Scottish negotiating committee for teachers, whereas we were simply observers at the SJNC. The agreement is tripartite. I am sure that the SNCT will want to monitor the type and number of promoted posts.

Are you saying that, if there is unfortunate practice within a local authority in respect of its suggested promoted-post structure, there is a mechanism through which people can raise their concerns and the Executive would intervene?

I do not think that the Executive has powers to intervene or statutory powers to direct a local authority to employ X number of staff or have X number of promoted posts. However, I think that the matter would be raised in the SNCT. The teachers' unions, which are the other party to the agreement, would obviously be greatly concerned about the matter.

You mentioned the job-sizing exercise and changes in the promotion structure. There are people in promoted posts in the profession who will lose those posts, although there will be some kind of salary conservation through a spinal salary scale. Do you recognise that, however antiquated the system in the code is, it has afforded some protection? There used to be a red book that gave the number of promoted posts according to the size of the school and guaranteed that authorities would have to fill those posts—they could not be left lying around. Do you understand that teachers are worried that, unless the job-sizing exercise is done properly and a way of improving the collegiate working that is involved in McCrone is found, the safety net will be under threat? I am not saying that it will be totally lost, but there is uncertainty in the profession about how people will be dealt with.

I remember the red book—I still have a copy. I am sorry to say that I think that it came out in the mid-1970s.

I am sorry about that, too.

The point that I was making was that the code currently stipulates only the type of post. It does not say that a school will employ X number of deputy heads, X number of principal teachers, X number of senior teachers or X number of assistant teachers.

But taking them together, the red book—

I do not think that the red book has been in effect since the mid-1980s. The problem with such staffing standards is that they become ossified. In the 1980s, the red book approach was not used—the approach was the red book plus 6 per cent. On top of that, a specific grant scheme provided additional teachers. It is difficult to set a standard that keeps up to date and reflects the needs of individual schools. One difficulty with a standard is that it will become the maximum standard.

In a sense, the red book was used for funding purposes. It was a way of calculating the number of teachers that the Scottish Office was funding and it almost capped that number. Even when schools had difficulties, the local authorities would find it hard to act differently.

As there are no further questions, are members happy for the regulations to proceed?

Only with reluctance. I do not think that Irene McGugan and I are convinced that the proposals are necessary at this stage. If there is a two-stage process, both stages should come together. I am not entirely convinced by the arguments that have been made. However, as the procedure for annulling the regulations would negate items that are universally supported, we will accede with great reluctance, although we believe that there is something more behind the proposals than we can see.

I am sure that your comments will appear in the Official Report.