|
MEMORANDUM submitted by LOCAL GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYERS
SCHOOL SUPPORT STAFF IN TODAY'S SCHOOLS
Background
Estimates of the number of support staff in
The role of the school support staff has changed beyond all recognition in the last ten years with a rapid growth in the range and depth of the skills and responsibilities they exercise. Support staff has been crucial in delivering the remodelling changes to teachers' contracts that have allowed them to focus on teaching rather than administration; support staff have been key in providing the extended services for schools; and for professionalising the running of schools. In the classroom, support staff are directly delivering education under teachers' supervision and will be instrumental in carrying out the personalised learning agenda. Yet the deployment of school support staff varies widely. Of 12,000 qualified Higher Level Teaching Assistants only half are being used in that role. Some schools are going too far, with Teaching Assistants taking whole classes on a regular basis. There is often confusion between local authority officials on the one hand and heads/governors of community schools on the other as to who is responsible for support staff. In Foundation and VA schools the Governing Body is the employer
Why We Need A School Support Staff Negotiating Body (SSSNB)
Most School Support Staff are currently part of the National Joint Council (NJC) for Local Government Services - which covers 1.7 million local authority workers. The parties to this Council and signatories to pay and conditions agreements are the Local Government Employers body (LGE) and the three recognised TUs (GMB, UNISON and UNITE). National conditions are supplemented by local authority agreements, all of which are contractual.
It has been recognised for some time that these arrangements are suitable for staff providing 'town hall' services but not for those based in schools. Job evaluation and pay structures are not designed to meet the needs of school staff. Job descriptions have to be in standard formats, often unsuitable for schools. Bizarre work-arounds have emerged, like term-time pay formulas and multi/split contracts. Heads and governing bodies of schools find the local authority processes unwieldy and time consuming. The position is neatly summarised by Price, Waterhouse, Cooper in a report of March 2008.
"Our conclusion from all of the discussions carried out during this study is that there is a lack of strategic direction in the management of support staff pay, and (except in the foundation/VA schools) a lack of accountability as to who is responsible for the pay and other terms and conditions of school support staff. The consequence of this is a feeling of nobody being in control and a lack of accountability for decision making. For example, where new roles are established the process for deciding on the appropriate salary varies hugely between schools; sometimes the process is over-complicated and time consuming, whereas in other instances no paper process is followed."
This situation is unacceptable to schools, local authorities and staff. The existing machinery for determining support staff pay and conditions has to be consistent across 1.7 million workers and cannot be made bespoke to schools. In light of the work carried out over the past five years the Secretary of State has decided that the best solution is to create a new national body that will offer national consistency and local flexibility. The chronology of these deliberations is shown below. Chronology
2003 - Remodelling agreement; teacher duties transferred to support staff.
2004 - Government/TU debates on the effects of remodelling and schools diversification on support staff.
2005 - Government sets up a school Support Staff Working Group (SSWG) with a remit to come up with proposals on recognition/facilities and pay/conditions structures.
2006 - SSWG report to Ministers recommended developing proposals for a new negotiating body and proposals for recognition and facilities. Agreed by Ministers and social partners.
2007 - SSWG findings and proposals to Ministers recommending a negotiating body for school support staff and recognition and facility arrangements. Agreed by Ministers and social partners. Announced by Ed Balls at Labour Party Conference.
2007 - Proposals developed in a "constitution". A free standing collective bargaining (negotiating) body with statutory underpin through the support staff regulations (secondary legislation).
2008 - March. PWC report and recommendations. SSWG develop constitution and further proposals.
2008 - DCSF Ministers accept proposals, extensive discussions with other government departments. Eventually cleared in summer 2008.
2008 - September. Officials advise TUs and employers that body negotiation will be statutory and present outline. TUs and employers raise issues.
2009 - January. DCSF sent TUs and employers description of the Bill clauses.
2009 - The Bill was read in the House on 4 February and published on 5 February. The SSSNB
The SSSNB will be a Negotiating Body and a Non Departmental Public Body
and its agreements will apply to all support staff in all maintained schools in
The SSSNB will have an Independent Chair. His role will be to receive and manage delivery of the matters referred to the SSSNB by the Secretary of State, chair meetings of the SSSNB, facilitate formal and informal discussions between the parties, act as a conduit to the Secretary of State, and ensure that the SSSNB will have regard to government policy.
The main work of the SSSNB will be to negotiate a new pay and conditions framework for support staff that combines the twin objectives of national consistency and local flexibility. The SSSNB is looking at developing:
· A common core contract and conditions of service including a method of calculating pay · National role profiles for core roles and a national pay framework
· A process for assimilating school support staff to the pay framework
DCSF has commissioned consultants to examine current practice in schools then present options and, where appropriate, recommendations for a new pay and conditions framework. These options and recommendations will provide the basis for substantive negotiations in the SSSNB starting in 2009.
The ACSL Bill
Both Employers and Unions continue to have concerns about several clauses in the Bill related to the establishment of the SSSNB which we feel will undermine its operation as an effective negotiating body.
Under Clause 216, matters may be referred to the SSSNB by the Secretary
of State for consideration. It is proposed that if agreement has been
reached, those agreements will be submitted to the Secretary of State
with a recommendation from the SSSNB that the Secretary of State should either
ratify the agreement for implementation by all local authorities and governing
bodies of all schools maintained by local authorities in the agreement. It would make sense for employers to be required to "have regard to" advice agreed by the SSSNB and "implement" core terms and conditions agreements reached by the Body. This would not undermine the ability of the SSSNB to make agreements that incorporate discretion and flexibility for employers.
In clause 215 the Bill does allow the SSSNB to consider matters not referred to it but in 215 (3) it must first seek the consent of the Secretary of State to do this which we feel denies both unions and employers the opportunity to raise matter for discussion and negotiating. Moreover, we could have misgivings about the fact that the Secretary of State can make his own provisions on pay and conditions and allow parties to only 'have regard to' an agreement from the SSSNB rather than implement it which is stated in Clause 220 (2)).
While we intend to work closely with the DCSF to ensure that the SSSNB acts as a true negotiating body we feel that under some of the clauses in the Bill the Secretary of State has extensive powers which we believe inhibits the negotiating machinery. We therefore hope that where decisions are made by agreement between employers and unions the powers of the Secretary of State will be exercised only in exceptional circumstances.
In addition, the Trade Unions are concerned that there is no express "recognition" of them. GMB, UNISON and UNITE are currently recognised to represent school support staff in the NJC and if this cannot be replicated in the Bill then it needs to be ensured through other areas.
March 2009
|