Memorandum submitted by NASUWT (AS 11)

 

The NASUWT is the largest union representing teachers and headteachers in the UK, with over 270,000 serving teacher and school leader members.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

 

1. The Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill is an important and significant piece of legislation. The NASUWT is, broadly, supportive of the direction of travel of the key aspects of the Bill and believes that it has the potential to enhance significantly educational provision for children and young people.

 

APPRENTICESHIPS, STUDY AND TRAINING

(Part 1 Chapter 1) and Chapter 2

 

2. The NASUWT supports the ambitions to place the Apprenticeships programme on a statutory footing. All public services, including the education service have key role to play in the provision of high quality apprenticeships.

 

The role of employers in the apprenticeships programme (Clause 11)

 

3. The NASUWT is concerned about the role employers will play in defining the provision offered by the learning and skills sector in future. Employer-dominated SSC will exert significant strategic influence over the design, approval and delivery of learning and skills qualifications and provision. While clearly there must be employer engagement, other important stakeholders must be included in this process, including learners, trade unions and agencies with specialist expertise in the field of adult learning. This broader support will ensure that the range of learning opportunities available for young people is not constrained.

 

4. The Bill, or associated regulations, should include appropriate provisions to ensure clear and positive action to tackle negative stereotyping, discrimination and job segregation in access to post-16 learning and skills training. It will be particularly important to monitor the equality impact of the delivery of apprenticeships.

 

Information advice and guidance (Clause 35)

 

5. The NASUWT supports the Government's commitment to revitalise the provision of independent Information, Advice and Guidance (IAG).

 

6. Currently, a limited number of sources of IAG are available. Information from learning providers and employers, while often comprehensive and readily accessible, may not be genuinely independent and impartial. All learners must have access to external sources of IAG which are not only seen to be but are impartial.

 

7. The proposal to place the responsibility on schools to provide comprehensive information potentially is problematic unless the intention is for the schools to be the vehicle through which the information is accessed rather than schools themselves should provide the information.

 

Time off for training (Clause 39)

 

8. The Union welcomes the provisions in respect of giving all employees a right to request time away from their core duties to undertake training. The Union remains concerned that allowing employers to decline such requests for 'good business reasons' will undermine this provision in practice.

 

9. The provision to exclude agency workers from these rights is unjustifiable and inconsistent with the sprit and letter of the Agency Workers' Directive and should be removed from the Bill.

 

LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY FUNCTIONS (Part 2)

 

The central role of local authorities in post-16 education provision

 

10. The NASUWT broadly supports local authorities being given strategic lead responsibilities for commissioning and funding all education and training for young people up to the age of 19 and establishing a system where local authorities have this role across the 0-19 age range.

 

11. It is right that local authorities, as democratically accountable bodies, should play a central role in planning and organising provision for 16-19 learners.

 

12. The NASUWT welcomes the further alignment in these provisions of academy schools with the local family of schools.

 

School travel arrangements (Clauses 51-54)

 

13. The NASUWT agrees that local authorities should have the scope to shape and adapt school travel arrangements to address local issues. It is clear that local delivery of the proposed reforms to learning entitlements in the 14-19 sector will not be possible without collaboration between schools and other institutions, involving multi-site learning.

 

14. The Government and local authorities will need to work with relevant agencies and organisations, including trade unions, on an in-depth audit of existing provisions, an impact assessment of extending local authorities responsibilities for transport and on ways in which guidance and support can be strengthened so that local travel arrangements allow learners to access their entitlements.

 

THE YOUNG PEOPLE'S LEARNING AGENCY FOR ENGLAND

AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF SKILLS FUNDING (Parts 3 and 4)

 

Young People's Learning Agency

 

15. The Union does not support the establishment of the Young People's Learning Agency (YPLA). This is an unnecessary tier of bureaucracy and administration. Local authorities should have a full and proper role for the planning of local provision and be accountable for the efficacy of their commissioning plans for young people. There is no need to establish new bodies to oversee, moderate and approve the plans. The DCSF and DIUS would be more effective in undertaking such a national moderation role and would be more likely to do so in a cost effective way.

 

16. The NASUWT fundamentally disagrees with the transfer of elements of the Secretary of State's responsibilities for academies to the YPLA. If powers are to be transferred, it should be to a body which is democratically accountable, the local authority.

 

17. The NASUWT is concerned that the YPLA could be utilised to pressurise local authorities to rationalise or reorganise local provision in the interests of cost efficiencies rather than meeting the needs of learners. It cannot be held accountable for its actions in any meaningful way. Clause 64 of the Bill gives the YPLA powers to intervene directly in circumstances where it decides that the quality of provision organised by local authorities or sub-regional groups of local authorities is inadequate. This means that the YPLA has all the hallmarks of an embryonic LSC or the former Further Education Funding Council. Such recreations should be avoided.

 

18. The Union notes the proposal in Schedule 4 to make the Chief Executive of the Skills Funding Agency a member of the DIUS board and a civil servant directly accountable to the Secretary of State. This goes some way to addressing concerns about accountability. It is unclear why a similar model has not been considered appropriate for the YPLA.

 

THE SIXTH FORM COLLEGE SECTOR (Part 6)

 

19. The NASUWT welcomes these provisions.

 

20. The NASUWT understands the need for provisions for dissolution of Sixth Form Colleges but believes that where such a college was established and incorporated and inherited assets from a local authority, the local authority should have precedence in terms of the transfer of the assets on dissolution.

 

THE OFFICE OF QUALIFICATION AND EXAMINATIONS REGULATION (Part 7)

 

21. The NASUWT supports, in principle, the creation of an independent regulator for qualifications and examinations, the Office of the Qualifications and Examinations Regulator (Ofqual), which guarantees and underwrites educational standards, and is perceived as being free from political inference.

 

22. However, the provisions in Clause 162, provide limited opportunities for organisations to influence and make representations about the regulation of qualifications and examinations. There is a danger that this will have the effect of further removing the voice of practitioners from the design, creation and implementation of qualifications and assessment for adults, young people and children.

 

23. The Bill should ensure that Ofqual has in place appropriate mechanisms for securing consultation with relevant stakeholders, including trade unions, on issues relating to its key areas of responsibility and establish means by which Ofqual can be held to meaningful and democratic account.

 

24. The Union is concerned by the proposal in Clause 126 which appears to privilege the voice of employers over other interested parties disproportionately. The provisions should be amended to restore balance.

 

QUALIFICATIONS AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (Part 8)

 

25. Clause 171 which states that the QCDA should 'provide assistance' to Ofqual, is insufficiently clear. More specific provisions by which the two organisations should co-ordinate their work must be defined.

 

CHILDREN'S SERVICES (Part 9)

 

 

Children's Trust Boards

 

26. The NASUWT welcomes Children's Trust's being placed on a statutory footing and the extension of the duty to cooperate to all schools, including academies.

27. The NASUWT believes that all Trusts, regardless of their location, should have a representative and balanced Board membership which allows schools an effective input into the work of the Trust. Clause 185 gives each local authority a considerable degree of autonomy to determine the composition of the Board. This extensive discretion is unnecessary and unhelpful. These provisions should be amended to provide for a core membership of the Board to give consistency across the system as a whole but with provision for local flexibility over and above this. There should be clear principles upon which the composition of Children's Trust Boards should be based.

 

Sure Start Children's Centres

 

28. The NASUWT supports the proposal to introduce legislation to recognise SSCCs as part of the universal infrastructure for children's services by placing them on a statutory footing.

 

29. In respect of Clause 186, the Union strongly recommends that local authorities should be required to consult the relevant workforce trade unions, as well as local parents, the local community and local providers of childhood services when considering whether to establish or close an SSCC. Legislation, regulations and guidance should provide for workforce trade unions to be represented on the SSCC advisory board.

 

 

 

 

PROVSIONS IN RESPECT OF SCHOOLS (Part 10)

 

Schools causing concern (Chapter 1)

 

30. Chapter 1 amends the current intervention powers of both local authorities and the Secretary of State in respect of schools failing to comply with the teachers' and headteachers' terms and conditions. This is very welcome.

 

31. The provisions in the Bill are essential to ensure all members of the teacher workforce receive their statutory rights to enable them to work effectively and efficiently to raise standards. There is clear and unequivocal evidence that this has not been happening and other remedies have been tried and not resulted in universal compliance.

 

32. The measures set out in the Bill in respect of compliance will make it clear to all governing bodies and to local authorities that the implementation of statutory provisions is neither optional nor voluntary.

 

33. The provisions of the Bill do not place any additional burdens on schools but extend existing provisions to identify consequences for not complying.

 

34. The Union welcomes the inclusion of complementary enabling provisions to be applied by the Welsh Assembly Government but as the core provisions of the teacher's contract are not devolved the Bill should be amended to ensure that the Welsh Assembly Government acts upon these provisions within a timescale that is consistent with that which applies to the relevant provisions on compliance within the Bill.

 

Parental complaints (Chapter 2)

 

35. The NASUWT is not convinced that a parental complaints procedure of this nature is necessary. However, if one is to be introduced, the Union supports the decision that the relevant body to consider the complaints is the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) rather than some other body constituted specifically for this purpose.

 

36. It is absolutely essential, however, that it is clear in legislative and regulatory provisions that the LGO cannot either recommend that a staff disciplinary or competence procedure be reopened or that, where an employer has determined a formal procedure was not appropriate, one should be applied retrospectively. Without this safeguard, there will be potential significant legal and natural justice issues for employees and serious consequences for employers in terms of managing and making professional decisions about their workforce. Any provision which allows the LGO to consider complaints about staff could lead to a situation where rather than making the right and fair decision, employers are driven to seek to protect their own position by always opting for a formal procedure and the most severe sanction. This would have major implications for morale and motivation of staff and for industrial relations in the workplace. Either the Bill or associated regulations must address these issues.

 

37. There are significant issues of appropriateness, manageability and proportionality, particularly with regard to the provisions for pupils to have direct access to the procedure.

 

Inspections (Chapter 3)

 

38. The NASUWT does not believe Ofsted health check statements are either necessary or appropriate. They will add yet another layer to an accountability system already in need of reform. This provision should be withdrawn from the Bill.

 

Creation of School Support Staff Negotiating Body (SSSNB) (Chapter 4)

 

39. The NASUWT welcomes the establishment of the SSSNB. This is a crucial element of workforce reform. The Union believes, however, that pay and conditions issues should not be subject to a 'have regard' provision as indicated in the Bill.

 

LEARNERS (Part 11)

 

Powers of search (Clauses 229-232)

 

40. The Union restates its support for this provision and for the fact that there should be no expectation that teachers or headteachers should take direct responsibility for searching pupils.

 

41. The Union is content with the provisions of the Bill which simply extend the scope of existing provisions. The Union strongly cautions against the Government accepting any proposals for open-ended or unlimited extension of the power to search beyond drugs and stolen property.

 

Recording and reporting use of force (Clauses 232-234)

 

42. The Union supports the principle of recording use of force and rejects assertions that recording these or other incidents are unnecessary additional burdens on school leaders.

 

43. Greater clarity should be established, however, either within the Bill or through statutory guidance, on the uses to which data collected in relation to use of force should be put.

 

44. The provisions pose a risk that such data will be aggregated and this could lead to the development of a wholly inappropriate and misleading performance measure on the extent of violent and disruptive pupil behaviour in individual schools, inviting invidious comparisons to be drawn between schools based on the number of instances of use of force. Although this is clearly not the intention of the Government's current policy, it should be recognised that a future change of policy could lead to the development of such a performance measure. The Bill or statutory guidance should therefore make clear that the information collected will not be used as a means by which school performance measures will be developed.

 

45. Once this provision is on a statutory basis, to ensure consistency of application a clear definition of 'significant incidents' and 'use of force' will need to be developed.

 

Recording incidents of bullying

 

46. The NASUWT welcomed the announcement made by the Government in September 2008 to introduce a requirement for schools to record incidents of bullying of staff and pupils. The Union had expected this provision to be in the Bill. However, providing that a clear commitment is given that this will be enshrined in secondary legislation, the NASUWT accepts its omission at this stage.

 

School Behaviour Partnerships (Clause 235)

 

47. The NASUWT welcomes the provisions requiring all maintained secondary schools and academies to operate within behaviour and attendance partnerships.

 

48. The provisions in the Bill relate exclusively to secondary schools. The NASUWT would like to see the duty extended to primary and special schools.

 

49. The Union also believes that alternative provision through PRUs (short stay schools) must be an intrinsic part of the support provided by a local authority for Behaviour and Attendance Partnership arrangements to support effective reintegration of pupils who move into short stay provision.

 

50. Where Behaviour and Attendance Partnerships are allied appropriately to the work of Safer Schools Partnerships, they have the potential to significantly improve outcomes for children.

 

51.The Bill and statutory guidance should make clear how the interface between the various partnerships in which schools are involved should operate, not least to ensure that schools are not overburdened.

 

52. The NASUWT is opposed to it being left solely to individual school governing bodies and proprietors to determine which other schools they will work with in a Behaviour and Attendance Partnership. This has the potential to create and/or reinforce a hierarchy of schools and lead to some schools (e.g. those schools with relatively high rates of pupil exclusion, high proportions of SEN pupils, or with relatively inferior performance on other measures) becoming, in effect, a partner of last resort or not being invited to work in the partnership from which its pupils would benefit most significantly. Specific provision should be made to enable local authorities to have the power to direct the shape of local partnership arrangements should this situation emerge.

 

Short Stay Schools (Clause 236)

 

53. The NASUWT does not support the intention set out in the Explanatory Note that when Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) are closed a competition may be held for alternative providers from outside the state sector. Independent studies confirm that this would, in the longer term, drive up costs of provision, reduce quality, threaten staff recruitment and retention and undermine state provision.

 

PROVISIONS OMITTED FROM THE BILL

 

54. The Bill provides the opportunity to address some outstanding issues of concern, in particular:

 

· concerns about the current remit of the GTC England; and

· the exclusion of academy schools from the application of the national pay and conditions framework and union recognition.

 

55. The legislation which sets the remit of the GTC England enables it to extend its role beyond registration and regulation of the profession. A strong regulatory body is required which acts in the public interest and commands the respect of the profession. The GTC in England has failed to establish any credence with the profession or the public. It engages in activities which duplicate the work of other bodies, add little value and are of limited relevance to the profession. Provisions should be introduced to confine the GTC to registration and regulatory functions.

 

56. The Bill rightly seeks further to align the academy schools more closely with the local family of state schools. There is, therefore, no credible rationale for continuing to exclude the academies from being required to use, as their baseline for pay and conditions of service of teachers and headteachers, the provisions of the national framework which apply to all maintained schools and which enable teachers and headteachers to raise standards. There is equally no rationale for continuing to prevent automatic union recognition in academies.

 

March 2009