Subordinate Legislation
Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 (Principal Teachers) Order 2003<br />(SSI 2003/607)
Item 2 is consideration of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 (Principal Teachers) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/607). I am pleased to welcome David Eaglesham, the general secretary of the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association, and Drew Morrice, the assistant secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland.
The paper that we have before us is relatively straightforward—it is just two paragraphs long; it explains that the statutory instrument proposes to extend the period of suspension of the requirement that is imposed on education authorities, under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, to advertise principal teacher posts Scotland-wide. The committee was keen to ascertain whether any issues of concern to stakeholders, and to the unions in particular, arise from the proposal.
Drew Morrice (Educational Institute of Scotland):
The Educational Institute of Scotland supports the objective of the statutory instrument, but does not accept the rationale that was offered in the consultative document. The EIS sees no relationship between the statutory instrument and the job-sizing exercise.
The need to suspend the requirement to advertise posts arose initially from simplification of the management structure in Scottish schools and, in particular, from the need to provide for the future of people who hold posts at assistant principal teacher level and senior teacher level and to give them the opportunity to become principal teachers. That has nothing to do with the job-sizing exercise. Indeed, job sizing would provide a degree of flexibility that would allow people to transfer to the promoted posts structure.
The management structures in Scottish schools are not a matter for the Scottish negotiating committee for teachers, which can only set out the levels of promoted posts in schools. It is for local authorities to determine the distribution of such promoted posts. The EIS believes that the paper that was provided in the consultation process created confusion about the relationship between the reduction in the number of promoted posts, which formed part of the national agreement, and the facility of local authorities to make radical changes. The EIS would go further and say that part of what has happened across Scottish local authorities has been to the detriment of Scottish education.
I will give one example. Many assistant principal teachers in Scottish schools had the responsibility to organise departments but were not recognised as PTs. The job-sizing exercise would allow the flexibility to pay people based on the duties they undertake, rather than according to the school roll, which was the single model that obtained previously. The drafting of the consultation paper has caused confusion about the relationship between the requirements in the national agreement to simplify the career structure for teachers, and the organisation of management structures in schools. The latter is a matter solely for Scottish local authorities and has never been a matter for national discussion. Indeed, the SNCT has no locus in relation to organisation of management structures in schools. Furthermore, the national agreement contained no requirement or rationale to do what many Scottish local authorities are doing, ostensibly in the name of the national agreement.
The key to EIS support for the order is the rationalisation of provision in Scottish local authorities. However, we make the point that falling school rolls will dictate school rationalisations, closures and amalgamations, so those are not necessarily a consequence of public-private partnership schemes, as the paper suggests.
David Eaglesham (Scottish Secondary Teachers’ Association):
I agree with everything that Drew Morrice has said. It is important to say that the paper that we received with the statutory instrument was quite misleading. The relationship between job sizing and any changes that local authorities are making to their promoted-post structures has no bearing on the matter that we are dealing with.
There is a genuine need to deal with a situation in which, for whatever reason, more suitable candidates for a post are available than would otherwise be reasonable. For example, in a situation in which two schools close and are amalgamated into one school, there will be two principal teachers of English, but only one job will be available in the new school. To complicate the situation further, the Self-Governing Schools etc (Scotland) Act 1989 amended the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to insert new section 87A, which requires that principal teacher posts must be advertised nationally. If the two candidates are very good, there is every probability that, for reasons of continuity, quality and fairness, one of those candidates will be appointed, but candidates from all over Scotland—and indeed, furth of Scotland—are likely to apply for that job, although they have no realistic prospects of getting it because they are unlikely to be suitable candidates. That is not a helpful situation. A genuinely open vacancy, in a case in which a post becomes vacant, would be advertised.
I direct members of the committee to section 87B of the 1980 act—as opposed to section 87A—which specifies that it is not proper for a local authority to exclude a person from consideration because they do not work for that local authority. In addition to that, existing employment legislation provides that any candidate who is of sufficient quality and who wants a job in a Scottish school can get one. However, when a local authority recognises that a particular situation will arise during an amalgamation—or, indeed, in the context of the McCrone agreement and the need to redeploy APTs and PTs within a changing structure—it is perfectly reasonable to suspend the requirement that is imposed by section 87A.
Our original position was that the suspension should not be temporary, but that the provision should be repealed altogether, so that there would no longer be a requirement to advertise nationally. Members should bear in mind the fact that the provision has no other effect. It is not reasonable to give people in Shetland or Dumfries the impression that they can reasonably aspire to a post in Dumbarton, when the post has arisen simply because of realignment between two schools or a readjustment in consequence of the McCrone agreement.
The bottom line is that the repeal is of the requirement to advertise nationally, not of the power to do so. Is it your basic assertion that the change ought to be more permanent?
We reserve our position on that. The original consultative document talked about extending the change until August 2006, which would be in keeping with the period of implementation of the McCrone arrangements. Obviously, people who are holding posts that will disappear will have to be accommodated as part of the process. The wider point about school rationalisation raises the question of a permanent arrangement, but given that the order has a defined period, the appropriate point to consult on the underlying principle has still to be reached.
For the avoidance of doubt, despite the background issues that you raise, do you support the order and the extension of the provision?
Yes.
I apologise because I will have to leave soon—one of my constituents is giving evidence to the Public Petitions Committee.
I have raised concerns about the order, not necessarily because of what it is trying to do—I appreciate the witnesses' comments on that—but because of the confusion that the measure is causing. The practical impact is that local authorities are setting up faculty arrangements to deal with management issues, but those arrangements vary from local authority to local authority. In come cases, the arrangements seem to be rational, but in other areas it seems that different departments that have no connection to one another are being put together, which results in stresses and strains. Is that a concern and should we take an interest in it? Should we be concerned about those background issues and their impact on teachers' morale? As a kind of by-product of the order, the committee could try to address that issue with the Government, if we chose to do so.
Management structures have always been a matter for Scottish local authorities. The difficulty arises because some local authorities have introduced radical changes in management structures as though they were an inevitable and necessary consequence of the national agreement, which they are not. As a consequence, many people say that they did not vote for such changes, which is correct because the matter was not part of the voting for the national agreement in which all the unions took part. You are correct that the consequence in some authorities has been demoralisation of people who hold promoted posts.
It is for the Education Committee and Parliament to judge whether to pursue the matter. The matter is not national, in that the SNCT has no locus in it; it has always been in the domain of Scottish local authorities.
There is a significant issue. The Executive note on the order states:
"Good progress is being made to revise management structures in schools as a result of, or flowing from, the Agreement ‘A teaching Profession for the 21st century'."
The original structure that Gavin McCrone's committee came up with was not identical to that which was agreed to in subsequent negotiations, but it was close to it. Principal teachers were seen as an inherent component of the management of secondary schools and would have a similar role in primary schools. Gavin McCrone referred to the fact that there might not be quite as many in the principal teacher group as there were, but he said clearly that principal teachers were to be the middle managers in secondary schools and an inherent part of the process.
At present, many local authorities seem to be trying to remove the concept of the principal teacher by amalgamating subjects such as mathematics and home economics, technical studies and music, art and physical education or other combinations of subjects that have no curricular connection. Local authorities are trying to bring together those subjects to create what is, in effect, a replacement for the old assistant head teacher post, which was subsumed into the deputy head teacher range. Frankly, if schools and authorities need senior managers, deputy head teachers should be appointed for that purpose. If schools require middle management—I am sure that many of our head teacher colleagues would agree that they do—they should have principal teachers with reasonable areas of responsibility.
I will not trot through our unions' policies on that matter—we have clear policies—but there is an issue about the way that it is going, and it is important that the committee understand that there is no obligation under the McCrone agreement to proceed with restructuring. There were certain obligations, such as to undertake job sizing and to get APTs and senior teachers sorted out and amalgamated back into the system, but restructuring was not one of them and the myth that it was has been growing in the community at large. That matter is very much the responsibility of the committee and the Parliament, because it is an education issue in the widest sense. This is not simply about the SNCT and its powers; it is about the quality of our young people's education and the status and morale of the teaching profession, which are vital to the whole system.
It seems to me that, in practice, many local authorities are using the provision as a means not to replace principal teachers, but to create a new system of management. What are the educational consequences of that? The feedback that I have received from some teachers is that younger teachers in particular are finding that the tier of management above them might be somebody in a completely different department so, if they are looking for professional advice on their subjects or concerning management of day-to-day issues, that manager is not necessarily an appropriate person from whom to take advice. That is having an impact on the education that they provide, which has an impact on the pupils. Have your members raised that with you?
It is very much a problem. Experienced colleagues in school can give general advice about, for example, discipline or the approach to teaching, which would be common to many departments in a secondary school. However, younger colleagues who are looking for advice on the subject that they teach—how to impart a particular bit of mathematics, music or whatever—will be looking for very particular advice from a senior colleague, normally the principal teacher, who might have 10 years' experience and who can therefore advise and guide them.
Absence of such advice is one problem. The second problem, which is probably worse, is that situations arise in which the unpromoted teacher is left with responsibility for all the practical subject-related work, but there is nobody to give any form of advice about the subject beyond that teacher. They are therefore, in effect, being asked to become surrogate principal teachers without that responsibility being paid for or acknowledged. That brings us back full circle to all the equal pay cases and the point that people are not paid equally for work of equal value. We want to avoid that like the plague—part of the underlying rationale of the McCrone agreement was to avoid that issue.
A management structure must be able to give teachers advice, support and, indeed, correction on their work in a subject department or departments. For that, we need someone who has expertise in the subject or subjects. In other fields, such expertise would be available in the middle-management cohort of any reasonable organisation. Senior management would have the greater overview of strategic issues, but operational issues would be the responsibility of the principal teachers—or the equivalent cohort in another organisation—in a school. It is important that we state that and that we do not leave young teachers to flounder and, in some cases, to consider giving up teaching because they do not have the appropriate support and advice.
Job sizing would allow the retention of a large number of principal teachers with their jobs sized according to the number of people whom they manage and their curricular responsibilities. As advisers disappear throughout Scotland and quality improvement officers are directed to challenge schools and deal with school development planning, the type of pastoral curricular support that previously existed has largely disappeared from Scottish education. The support, as David Eaglesham said, is not available in the school, and even outwith the school there is a lack of direct curricular support for teachers.
We have identified an interesting issue and we need to consider what more we will do with it. However, our evidence taking is primarily to do with the order that is on our agenda and there is a limit to how far we can go today.
Is there inconsistency in practice among local authorities on structuring, job titles and career structures? If so, how should that be dealt with? Have the views of all teachers, from new teachers on probation right up to head teachers, been sought and properly taken into account in the process? Have the minister and the Administration been made aware of your views?
I am not clear whether your question on consultation is about consultation on the new management structures, which is a matter for local authorities. Local authorities consult, but they are not required to reach agreement with unions at local level.
Your first question was about job sizing and whether it is being applied in the same way in all Scottish local authorities. The job-sizing questionnaire is completed on the same basis in all Scottish local authorities. The mechanism for handling the issue locally will require identified job-sizing co-ordinators to be appointed by the local authority and the trade unions. Composition will vary slightly among authorities, but the basic answer to the question is yes. There is one job-sizing toolkit that is applied nationally.
The committee will be well aware of the recent position of the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association on job sizing. We made that abundantly clear to everyone who would listen—and even to those who would not. We do not believe that the process has worked as was originally intended. We are beginning to see evidence of local authorities trying to adapt matters in their own way, as time goes on. It remains to be determined, but there is a hint of its happening at the moment.
There has been consultation where management structures have been put in place, but it was the old form of consultation that involves people saying, "These are the proposals. What do you think of them? If you don't like them, we still intend to go ahead with them." We have not had the new form of consultation, as set out in the McCrone agreement, which involves tripartite agreement. I am not aware of any place where there has been wholesale agreement about local management structuring, but there have been many representations that suggest that the reverse is true.
Given that, in many ways, the job-sizing exercise for principal teachers in learning support and pupil support was confusing, do you see any local authorities and schools cutting back on principal teachers who run such departments? With the passage of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill, do you envisage that there may be a problem at that level in implementing the bill and in running departments if they have been joined up in other ways, or are schools moving forward in the broader way that the document "Better Behaviour, Better Learning" proposes, so that guidance is being built into pupil support departments? Is that a problem, given the reduction in the number of principal teachers?
It is not a consequence of job sizing, which would allow schools to retain a number of principal teachers, to size the job and to have people paid at different levels. The member reflects the desire that exists to cut the number of principal teachers in secondary schools. That would bring people under a single heading and create support for learning departments, which may try to deliver both learning support as traditionally understood and behaviour support. That may create confusion in delivery. The issue is management structures rather than job sizing.
The member has identified one of the most problematic issues in this process. I cited the examples of mathematics and home economics. In the areas of guidance and pastoral, learning and behaviour support, there has been even more confusion about who is doing what, what posts will be available and what is expected of individuals. There is a strong trend towards devolving that to the individual unpromoted classroom teacher and adding it to the existing list of things that they do, in the time-honoured fashion that is beloved of many authorities. We need to avoid that.
I return to the question that Fiona Hyslop asked earlier. If people do not have the necessary expertise, they should not be expected to do a job until they have gained that expertise and have the responsibility and accountability to deliver vital services.
There is concern about reductions in the size of the advisory service and about the lack of clearly identified people in schools who would play a major role in the implementation of the new Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill. Has that concern been raised by teachers with whom you are in contact or by schools? Is it likely to become an issue?
I do not want to cut you short, but we must move on to other items.
This is a very important issue.
Yes, but it does not have much to do with the subject that is before us. We are straying too far from the instrument. The point has been made and we take it on board. We will consider shortly what we will do about it.
You said that you are against the requirement to advertise nationally. I see all the other difficulties that you have because of the temporary nature of the suspension. Are you against the policy of advertising posts nationally?
That question takes us back to whether there should be a permanent suspension of the requirement or whether it should be limited to the timeframe that is set out in the statutory instrument. If the Executive indicated that it was its intention to suspend the requirement permanently, we would respond to the relevant consultation then. At the moment, the suspension is needed because of the requirement to place assistant principal teachers and senior teachers in principal teacher posts, and because of the position in relation to school closures and amalgamations. However, the EIS's view is that there is a further debate to be had about a permanent suspension of the legislation.
The view of the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association is that the requirement should be abandoned permanently, because there is no benefit in it. It is simply a technical requirement that was introduced many years ago for other purposes—largely, to give more power to school boards and to enhance their role. We have long since outgrown the rationale and the need for the provision, so it is not required.
There is provision in section 87B of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to ensure that local authorities do not practise nepotism or work only within their catchment areas for narrow reasons. Employment law generally has moved on so much since 1989 that the kind of practices that are alleged to have gone on at some point would not now happen. The provision is redundant. Given the fact that it has been suspended, its permanent removal would cause no practical problems.
We have moved a little way beyond the legislation, but you have raised a number of issues that it is helpful for the committee to know about. We need to decide whether we want to do anything further on the issue in due course. Next week we will take evidence from Executive officials on the statutory instrument. There does not appear to be opposition to extending the suspension, which is the immediate issue that we are considering. We are grateful for your input this morning.
I suspend the meeting for 10 minutes, to enable us to examine the new papers and suggestions that are before us, before we consider our stage 1 report on the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—