Memorandum by the National Union of Teachers
(NUT) (LGC 08)
INTRODUCTION
1. The National Union of Teachers (NUT)
welcomes this opportunity to respond to the Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister (ODPM) Select Committee inquiry into consultation
in local government.
2. The NUT is the largest teachers' union
in England and Wales, representing over 250,000 serving members
including headteachers and classroom teachers, permanent and temporary
teachers, supply and agency teachers, inspectors and advisors,
education psychologists.
BACKGROUND
3. The NUT's view is that there are a number
of principles which underpin good consultation practice. These
include:
— consultation to commence when proposals
are still at a formative stage; and at subsequent stages as a
proposal develops;
— the provision of full information
to consultees, including where appropriate financial exemplifications
illustrating the impact of proposals on schools and an intelligible
description of the proposal; and
— sufficient time for consultees to
make responses and for such responses to be taken fully into account.
Periods of school closure should be taken into account when deciding
timescales.
4. Consultees should be defined and involve
all relevant stakeholders, including teacher organisations, parent
and governor organisations and those concerned with education
in the wider community.
THE IMPACT
OF NEW
COUNCIL CONSTITUTIONS
5. The NUT is concerned that the move to
new political management structures in local councils, arising
from the Local Government Act 2000, has reduced the ability of
trade unions to participate as stakeholders in the political process
at local level. Both the interests of employers and the legal
rights of employees require effective mechanisms to be in place
for representation, consultation and negotiation—regretfully
however, restructuring has, in some local authorities, placed
employer/union joint negotiating committees and joint consultative
committees under threat.
6. Research[28]
on the impact of new council constitutions suggests that the Act
has also had an adverse impact on public participation in local
government. Only 19% of stakeholders agreed with the statement
that the "public is more involved in decision making"
whilst less than half (45%) of stakeholders felt that "the
council's relationship with partners has improved".
7. There will be further reorganisation
in local government as a result of the Children Act and education
and child social services directorates being combined. It is crucial
that there is full involvement and teachers' representation on
the various new bodies that will be set up.
COMMERCIAL CONFIDENTIALITY/INTERESTS
8. The NUT is concerned that "commercial
confidentiality" and the "harming of commercial interests"
is cited during consultation exercises as the basis for the non-disclosure
of information. These exercises are undermined when key information,
such as funding agreements for Academies or financial data about
PFI projects, is withheld from the public domain.
9. Notwithstanding the NUT's opposition
to both the Academies initiative and PFI, the Union understands
the need for some commercial data to remain confidential. There
has however, got to be a proper balance between the need for transparency
and commercial confidentiality. The Union agrees with the conclusions
of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) that it is
"important to ensure that commercial confidentiality is not
employed as a spurious justification to withhold information from
public view"[29].
10. The NUT believes that weaknesses in
the current guidance[30]
from the Treasury Taskforce on the disclosure of information in
PFI projects are hindering transparency during consultation processes.
It would be helpful if the Government could revise the guidance
and set a clear timetable for the release of key PFI documents,
such as the Outline Business Case, together with a requirement
for local authorities to give full explanations when information
is not disclosed.
11. A survey published last year by the
IPPR[31]
highlights the weaknesses in the current guidance. The IPPR found
that it is still common practice to withhold an unacceptable amount
of information about PFI projects, thus compromising their accountability.
Although the survey pointed to good disclosure practices in the
NHS, the IPPR said that disclosure in other parts of government
(including education) was sometimes poor. The IPPR attributed
this difference in standards of disclosure, in part, to the different
guidance on disclosure operating in different parts of the public
sector. Guidance for NHS PFI projects is clearer and more robust
and had led to better standards of information disclosure. The
IPPR concluded that poor disclosure practices, for example in
schools PFI, could be remedied by adopting NHS disclosure practices
across government.
12. It is also important to ensure that
when information is disclosed, it is done so in a timely and clear
manner. An investigation into the Haringey schools PFI project[32]
found that the Council delayed consulting school governors about
the PFI proposals until the plans were almost ready for Treasury
approval. Later, it provided them with a mass of complex detail
that they were ill equipped to understand, and gave them little
help in understanding it.
BUILDING SCHOOLS
FOR THE
FUTURE/ACADEMIES
13. If local government consultations are
to be effective local authorities need to have the freedom to
be responsive to local needs rather than directives imposed by
Whitehall. Consultation exercises will be largely futile if there
is a view amongst some in central government that local government
is no more than an agent for delivering national services and
initiatives.
14. For example, local authorities are described
by the Government as the "lead partner" for the Building
Schools for the Future (BSF) initiative to modernise English secondary
schools. Yet several LEAs in the first waves of BSF projects oppose
the establishment of Academies and have reportedly been told by
the DfES that they must include Academies in their plans if they
are to receive the funding. There are plans to establish an Academy
in Newcastle despite all the political parties represented on
the council, the Lead Member for Education and the officers being
opposed to it.
15. Local authorities will be consulting
on the establishment of Academies but it is unclear what utility
such consultations will have if the choice is effectively between
agreeing to an Academy or, as in Newcastle's case, losing £130
million in funding to improve school buildings. Local authorities
have little room for manoeuvre if they are being "blackmailed"
by central government to include Academies. Members of the public
and local stakeholders will also be discouraged from making representations
to such consultations if it is clear that the decision has already
been made elsewhere.
FUNDING FORMULA
CONSULTATIONS
16. LEAs are able to propose revisions to
their funding formulae annually. Consultation on such revisions
normally takes place in the autumn term prior to the financial
year in which the changes will take effect.
17. There have been a number of cases where
consultation papers on changes to LEA funding formulae have not
included financial exemplifications illustrating the impact of
such changes on individual schools. Proposed changes to funding
formulae are sometimes described in algebraic terms only. In the
NUT's view this is not supportive of the principles of good consultation
practice outlined earlier in this response.
18. It is true that funding allocations
for the following financial year are usually not known at the
time of the proposed changes. This does not, however, preclude
an LEA from modelling the financial impact of such changes against
school budgets for the current financial year. Indeed, the LEA
should have undertaken such a modelling exercise as part of its
own evaluation exercise prior to proposing changes to the funding
formula.
19. Although modelling against current school
budgets would not give the precise funding allocations for the
following financial year, it would illustrate the redistributive
impact of any proposed changes to funding formulae. This would
allow consultees to assess the changes against the key objective
of ensuring that funding formulae address the needs of schools.
It would also enable them to make a fully-informed response in
the light of all the relevant information.
20. The NUT is concerned that LEAs' ability
to implement changes to their funding formulae will be severely
circumscribed by the requirement that schools' budgets should
be protected by the DfES' minimum funding guarantee. This provides
schools with a minimum increase in funding per pupil and a minimum
increase in their fixed costs budgets in 2004-05 and 2005-06.
Unless LEA funding is increased in the longer term above the cumulative
annual per pupil guarantee, schools will become funded almost
entirely on a per pupil basis which reflects historic funding
patterns rather than current needs.
OTHER FUNDING
ISSUES
21. Provision must be made for the likely
costs of the 10% Planning, Preparation and Assessment (PPA) time
to come into effect from September 2005. These costs are likely
to fall mainly on primary schools, as most secondary schools already
provide 10% or more PPA time in the form of non-contact time.
LEA consultations on school funding allocations should, therefore,
include a detailed evaluation of the additional resources needed
to properly implement the PPA requirements from September 2005.
The evaluation should take the form of an audit of school plans
for implementation of PPA.
22. As part of this process, LEAs should
set in motion arrangements to examine how to identify and allocate
the funding for the minimum guarantee and the additional increase
of 0.8 and 1.0% specified for primary and nursery schools for
2005-06. Schools should be invited to comment on whether the proposed
funding is adequate for the implementation of PPA. Given that
actual resource needs will vary from school to school, this consideration
should include a survey of schools.
23. Consultations also need to ensure that
primary schools are protected against the impact of falling rolls.
The NUT believes that falling rolls should provide an opportunity
to reduce group sizes and assist primary schools to provide the
necessary PPA time to teachers. As part of the consultation process
LEAs should put forward strategies to protect the curriculum in
primary schools, reduce class sizes, and avoid an increase in
the number of mixed age classes. They should also consult on any
DfES guidance issued to LEAs.
24. LEAs should accordingly consult closely
with Schools Forums, trade unions and schools on any changes to
LEA budget allocation formulae necessary to secure the minimum
funding guarantee for primary and nursery schools. Consultation
should also take place on any further necessary changes to ensure
that falling primary rolls do not lead to reduced funding levels
and consequential damage to primary schools.
SCHOOLS FORUMS
25. Consultation processes have been significantly
affected by the introduction in 2003 of Schools Forums. Schools
Forums play a key role in school funding matters. LEAs were required
by the Education Act 2002 to establish a Schools Forum to act
as a vehicle for consulting representatives of schools and other
bodies on the funding of schools in the LEA and related issues.
The NUT's view is that Schools Forums can play a key role in assisting
the objective of securing funding for schools in accordance with
their needs.
26. Schools Forums do not have the power
to veto LEA proposals, or to take decisions that are binding upon
LEAs, but LEAs must take account of their Schools Forums' views.
Schools Forums must be consulted on any LEA proposals relating
to: the funding formula; discharge of the LEA's functions relating
to specific areas within the Schools Budget, such as arrangements
for SEN pupils and the allocation of central government grants;
and service or supply contracts where the costs of the contracts
are met from school budgets.
27. The LEA may also consult the Schools
Forum on other matters connected with the Schools Budget, on matters
relating to the LEA's activities and services financed from the
LEA Budget, the LEA's capital expenditure and on any other matters
relating to the funding of schools. Wider issues have been placed
before some Schools Forums and some Schools Forums have set up
sub-groups to look at particular issues in detail.
28. Meetings of the Schools Forums, the
timing and frequency of which are determined by the LEA, must
be arranged in order that the Schools Forum can be consulted and
its views taken into account in deciding how the Schools Budget
will be spent in the following financial year. A minimum of three
meetings a year, which may have to include two meetings in the
autumn term, is normally required.
29. Schools Forums must have at least 15
members. Schools must be represented via "schools members",
who may be headteachers or governors. LEA elected members, LEA
officers and trade union representatives may be represented on
the Schools Forum as "non-schools members". The DfES
has, in its guidance, specifically encouraged LEAs to consider
the appointment of trades union representatives as non-schools
members, stating that such representatives ". . .can provide
valuable perspectives on the effect of changes on groups of employees"
(Section 1, paragraph 1.6 of the DfES letter to LEAs and others
of 12 August 2002). The NUT believes that LEAs should distribute
information on the procedures relating to appointment of "non-schools
members" to Schools Forums.
30. The NUT wishes to emphasise that LEAs
should continue separately with their normal consultation with
trade unions on matters affecting the funding of schools and LEA
services. LEAs should also continue separately with their normal
consultation with individual schools. It is important that schools
not directly represented on the Schools Forum do not lose the
right to be consulted on funding issues. Consultation with trade
unions and individual schools should be on the basis of the principles
of good consultation practice outlined earlier.
31. Schools Forums need support from LEAs
in order that they can play their full part in the consultation
process. This includes the provision to members of Schools Forums
of relevant documents and appropriate training.
"EVERY CHILD
MATTERS" AGENDA
32. In its publication, Bringing down
the Barriers, the NUT has set out a number of proposals with
respect to the Government's "Every Child Matters" agenda.
The NUT believes that while schools have always been at the centre
of their communities, there is, as yet, no clear picture of how
schools over the next decade will provide additional services
to children, to their parents and to the wider community. Neither
is there, as yet, a clear picture of the future relationship local
authorities, as distinct from local education authorities, will
have with schools.
33. While children's trusts are being established,
the relationship between trusts and schools has yet to be explored.
Schools cannot simply create new services themselves. Neither
could local authorities simply establish new services in schools.
34. For this reason, the NUT has proposed
that local authorities should establish local education advisory
forums to advise local authorities on the development of the "Every
Child Matters" agenda, including the development of extended
and full service schools. Education advisory forums would be responsible
also for providing advice on the development of a single conversation
with school and its relationship with the quality assurance of
other local authority services.
35. The NUT believes that if local authorities
are to co-ordinate and ensure the effective provision of range
of services of schools, then education forums should have the
requisite status to be effective. Their membership should include
representatives of parent, teacher and governor organisations
and could be chaired by lead members of children's services. It
is essential in this context that local authorities retain second-tier
officers for education and social services in order that schools
can be confident that when initiatives are proposed and agreed,
they can be implemented successfully.
36. Part of the engagement process between
local authorities and schools would involve audits conducted by
schools of their need for additional services; audits which would
be conducted in conjunction with local authorities.
SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL
NEEDS PROVISION
37. One of the most consistent forms of
consultation conducted by local education authorities is on future
special educational needs provision. Local education authorities
are required to review regularly special education provision.
The form of that consultation is crucial to the acceptance by
parents and teachers of future proposals. The NUT has argued consistently
for consultation which actively involves parents and teachers
in the formulation of proposals for any reorganised provision.
38. From its extensive experience, the NUT
believes that partnership at local authority level and school
governing body level between teachers, parents and the local education
authority, through working groups, are much more likely to bring
consensus than SEN plans which are imposed on school communities.
It is essential also that there is a reasonable time span for
consultation on reviews; a time span which is certainly not less
than two terms.
SCHOOL ORGANISATION
COMMITTEES AND
SCHOOLS ADMISSIONS
FORUMS
39. The School Standards and Framework 1998
established school organisation committees and schools admissions
forums. The NUT has called consistently for teacher organisations
to be represented on both committees and forums. There are a number
of examples of good practice where teacher organisations are represented.
The NUT would urge the ODPM to include within any future guidance
recommendations that teacher organisations should have representation
on these bodies.
GOVERNING BODY
ACCOUNTABILITY
40. Both foundation schools and Academies
have governing body structures on which there are inadequate forms
of elected representation. On both categories of governing body,
sponsor governors and foundation governors can outvote elected
governors, whether those elected governors represent parents or
teaching and support staff. Local authority representation on
Academies is optional and very greatly reduced on foundation school
governing bodies. The ODPM should re-examine the issue of democratic
accountability on such governing bodies and seek to restore the
balance of such accountability.
EQUALITY ISSUES
41. There are also very important equality
issues arising from an examination of local government consultation.
Consultation should focus on "the equality impact" of
local authority proposals. One obvious equality impact assessment
should be one which focuses on the effects of any proposals on
minority ethnic communities. It is not clear also whether schools'
forums, when considering funding formulae, conduct an equality
impact audit of proposals. An audit might include an assessment
of funding proposals on provision for high numbers of children
of Asylum seekers and refugees, for example.
42. It is important that local government
consultation is informed by information and statistics about the
nature of pupils' needs, including information which is disaggregated
by age, gender, disability and race.
28 ODPM Evaluating Local Governance Evaluation Team
"A Summary of Research Evidence on New Council Constitutions
in Local Government" (2004). Back
29
Institute for Public Policy Research "3 steps forward, 2
steps back-Reforming PPP policy" (2004). Back
30
Treasury Taskforce Policy Statement No 4 "Disclosure of Information
and Consultation with Staff and other Interested Parties"
(1998). Back
31
Institute for Public Policy Research "Openness survey paper"
(2004). Back
32
Melanie McFadyean and David Rowland "PFI vs Democracy? School
governors and the Haringey Schools PFI scheme" (2002). Back
| 
