|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
The change in the resource element of the DEL of £423,701,000 arises from a £101,530,000 increase in the voted element of the resource DEL and an increase of £322,171,000 in the non-voted element of the resource DEL mainly to the department's non-departmental public bodies.
Voted Resource DEL
The £101,530,000 increase in the voted element of the resource DEL arises from a £171,074,000 increase in
22 Feb 2005 : Column WS60
RfR2 from the take up of £168,208,000 end year flexibility; transfer from RfR1 £6,122,000 for Sure Start local authority programmes and the correction of a National College of Schools Leadership winter supplementary transfer; the transfer to RfR1 £3,256,000 for the School Standards Foundation Plan, children's services and childcare for disabled children.
A £113,641,000 decrease in RfR1; the increase in administration costs £16,424,000; from the movement of £295,356,000 to non-voted resource DEL; the take up of £145,519,000 end year flexibility; the draw down £5,942,000 from non-voted departmental unallocated provision; the net transfer from the Department of Health of £1,033,000 for care standards tribunals, a contribution to the National Service Framework Conference, a contribution to the Bichard Implementation Project and for Children's Trusts; the
22 Feb 2005 : Column WS61
transfer to the Department for Work and Pensions of £600,000 for administering young peoples bridging allowance; the transfer to the Department of Trade and Industry £75,000 for school teachers' pay and conditions; the transfer from the Home Office £400,000 for the Adult Learning Inspectorate review of prison education; the transfer from the Welsh Assembly £500,000 for student support; the transfer from the Department of Transport £3,300,000 for activities licensing; transfer to RfR2 £6,122,000 for Sure Start local authority programmes and correction of a National College of Schools Leadership winter supplementary transfer; the transfer from RfR2 £3,256,000 for the School Standards Foundation Plan, children's services and childcare for disabled children; transfer from RfR3 £4,138,000 for children's services; reclassification of £8,000,000 support for children and family capital to capital grants within resource.
Administration Cost Limits
The £16,424,000 increase in the administration cost limit arises from the take up of £17,274,000 end year flexibility to fund the departmental restructuring programme; transfer from the Department of Health £418,000 for children's services and protection of vulnerable adults; the transfer from the Cabinet Office £309,000 for the funding of the Parliamentary Council Office; the net transfer out to the Office for the Deputy Prime Minister £1,577,000 for Government Office Accommodation and Regional Co-ordination Unit costs and local public service agreements.
Non-voted Resource DEL
The £322,171,000 increase in non-voted resource DEL arises from the movement of £295,356,000 from voted resource DEL; the take up of £12,467,000 end year flexibility; the movement of £5,942,000 from departmental unallocated provision to voted support for children and families; the transfer from the Department for Work and Pensions £5,750,000 for Adult Learning Inspectorate, inspections of Jobcentre Plus; the transfer to the Department of Health £2,845,000 for teachers' pension costs and clinical scientists; the net reclassification of capital to capital grants within resource of £17,385,000 from school credit approvals to support for scientific research and innovation.
The change in the capital element of the DEL of £34,800,000 arises from a £276,874,000 increase in the voted element of capital DEL and a decrease of £242,074,000 in the non-voted element of the capital DEL.
Voted Capital DEL
The £276,874,000 increase to the voted element of capital DEL arises from a £253,689,000 increase in RfRl; from the movement of £247,689,000 from non-voted capital DEL; the take up of £10,000,000 end year flexibility; the reclassification of capital to capital grants within resource of £4,000,000 to support teachers' television from other capital programmes.
Non-voted capital DEL
The £242,074,000 decrease to the non-voted element of capital DEL arises from the movement of £247,689,000 from non-voted to voted capital DEL; the take up of £27,000,000 end year flexibility; the net reclassification of £17,385,000 from schools credit approvals to support for scientific research and innovation; £4,000,000 from schools credit approvals to support teachers' television capital to voted capital DEL.
Introduction The 14th report of the School Teachers' Review Body is being published today. It covers a range of matters referred to the review body in July 2004. Copies are available in the Vote Office and in the Library of the House of Lords and at www.teachernet.gov.uk
In making its recommendations, the review body was required to have regard to the matters set out in the remit letter of 22 July 2004. The fourteenth STRB report deals with some very important and technical issues affecting teachers' pay and I am most grateful to it for the careful and detailed attention it has given to these complex matters. The STRB recommendations are set out below (in italics) followed in each case by my response.
Payments for additional responsibilities for teaching and learning
The criterion is as follows:
A teaching and learning responsibility payment may only be made to a teacher who is accountable for a significant, specified responsibility focused on teaching and learning, that is not required of all classroom teachers, clearly defined in the job description of the teaching and learning responsibility payment holder, and requiring teachers' professional skills and judgement. The TLR payment should be for a sustained responsibility in the context of the school's staffing structure needed to ensure continued delivery of high-quality teaching and learning.
The factors are as follows:Impact on educational progress beyond the teacher's assigned pupils;
We recommend that there should be guidance on the review of staffing structures and implementation and that it should include advice to assist schools/LEAs in deciding: how to address their head of year and "pastoral" responsibilities in the new system; what type of TLR should be payable for specific line management posts; and the application of TLRs to unattached teachers.
We recommend that:
We recommend that the circumstances in which the payment of TLRs should cease, should be as follows:
Payments should be withdrawn where a teacher declined to perform the responsibilities attached to the payment; or lost the responsibilities as a result of poor performance (as a result of capability procedures); and
Subject to the timely provision of guidance and budget information to schools, we recommend specifically that:
Schools be required to review their staffing structure in consultation with staff and their representatives, and to publish their revised structure, with a timetable for implementation (as an annex to the pay policy of the school), by 31 December 2005;
The teacher's salary (through annual increment, movement to a higher salary scale or receipt of a higher level of TLR payment) excluding the management allowance, is higher than the total of his/her current salary including the management allowance; or
Our recommendations should be applied to Wales in accordance with constitutional responsibilities.
I welcome these recommendations. I believe that they represent a genuinely constructive opportunity for schools to organise their teaching and learning responsibilities in a new way, focusing on the professionalism of teachers and enabling reward to be given for significant tasks which have an impact on the educational progress of pupils and the professional practice of other teachers. I am particularly glad to recognise the flexibilities, within an overall framework, recommended within the new teaching and learning responsibility payments system, and the emphasis on openness through the pay policy, which would give schools the freedom to establish the arrangements which suit their own needs, while openly justifying their decisions.
However, I am anxious that all schools should have sufficient time to prepare and consider what staffing structure is most appropriate for them before implementation of these pay changes. To promote clarity and consistency I propose that all schools' transition periods should begin on 1 January 2006, at which point TLR payments should be available and management allowances would cease to be awarded.
I also welcome the focus on restructuring, which will be key to enabling the transition from the existing management allowance system to be managed. Action on school restructuring in Wales will, of course, be for the Welsh Assembly to determine.
I agree that guidance to schools on restructuring, transition and the new TLR payments system will be very important. However, I believe that the guidance should not be restrictive or suggest different levels of TLR payment for different tasks or responsibilities. I believe that the detailed criteria and factors for the payment of TLRs should be the focus for schools' (and in the case of unattached teachers, LEAs') decisions, and that this should be sufficient to enable them to take appropriate decisions within the context of their own individual published structures. All parties will, as usual, be consulted on the development of statutory guidance.
I welcome the proposed arrangements for transition from management allowances to TLRs, and the proposed provisions giving protections for teachers who would otherwise incur a reduction in salary, which are fair and reasonable.
The framework for the operation of safeguarding that we describe below be adopted to apply to both current and future safeguarding arrangements:
e. The teacher must know at the start of the safeguarding period what safeguarding arrangements are applicable to any particular salary element and this must be set out in the teacher's salary statement at the start of the period.
Subject to the basic principles in A above and the provisions in C below, safeguarding will apply in circumstances where:
Safeguarding will not apply, or will cease to apply, where any of the following circumstances occur:
That the three-year time-limiting for safeguarding of current arrangements be applied to operate concurrently with the three-year period for the transitional arrangements to introduce revised school structures.
The issue of safeguarding has been flagged up by the STRB on successive occasions in the past, and it has previously requested evidence on it. I very much welcome the careful and detailed consideration which the STRB has now been able to give to this matter, in the light of evidence received. The proposed safeguarding provisions set out are reasonable and balanced and I support them.
I recognise the difficulties and sensitivities which exist in the context of bringing change to this area of the teachers' pay system, and the framework proposed will enable existing and future safeguarding to be handled on a fair, uniform and predictable basis. Moreover, the framework as proposed will ensure that teachers are protected from sudden drops in total salary which would otherwise occur through no fault of their own, for a suitable period. I also welcome the recommendation of the STRB that these detailed matters are handled in future using my subsidiary powers, within the context of the framework established, which seems to be entirely appropriate.
We recommend that:
In line with its policy of expanding the AST grade, the department looks at ways of getting more mathematics and science teachers with AST accreditation, but not in an AST post, into such posts, including, where appropriate, the creation of additional AST posts in these subjects;
Paragraph 27.3 of the STPCD be amended so that the factors to which the relevant body has to have regard in setting the range for an AST's pay expressly include his or her being a teacher of a shortage subject or a subject where there is a particular need to raise the quality of teaching and learning.
The remit to the STRB invited it to consider the salary levels of secondary mathematics and science advanced skills teachers. The evidence backed this up by proposing that the cap on the pay of these teachers be removed, and to set a minimum level of salary of
22 Feb 2005 : Column WS67
f40,000. This was proposed as part of the Government's approach to overcoming the national under-achievements in these two subjects and their impact on the economy, as identified in the reports of Professor Adrian Smith and Sir Gareth Roberts.
The STRB has reflected carefully on this but has concluded that at present it will not make recommendations along the lines proposed. It has indicated that this could be considered further in a future remit, in the wider context of teachers' remuneration as a whole. I continue to see benefits in making changes to the pay arrangements for these teachers in these important subject areas. I therefore am content to return to this matter in my next remit.
It has also made some specific pay-related proposals which I propose to accept. I will reflect further on the STRB's proposals relating to getting more mathematics and science teachers with an AST accreditation, but not currently in an AST post, into such posts.
We recommend that the scheme should be introduced from September 2006, distinct from the main and upper pay scales. The scheme should be post-based and should be for exemplary classroom teachers with an established record of sustained high-quality teaching and of supporting colleagues within the school. Like ASTs they should be unable to hold TLRs, but unlike ASTs they should have no outreach function. They should:
In addition to their normal classroom duties the specific expectations of an Excellent Teacher should be:
However, we also recommend the following;
The expectations of the role set out above should reflect more strongly an emphasis on general pedagogic experience and on coaching and mentoring, and reduce the apparent overlap with the AST grade and with TLR payments;
That teachers should be able to seek accreditation regardless of whether or not an ETS post is envisaged for their school and that the title of Excellent Teacher (though not the associated salary) should be granted once accreditation has been achieved; and
We recommend that the criteria for accessing the scheme should be as follows:
The scheme should be based on written application. To qualify, the teacher should have to have been paid on U3 for at least two years, be willing to meet the expectations of an Excellent Teacher, and have their application endorsed by their head teacher. They would also need to provide evidence of work during their period on the upper pay scale that had addressed the identified needs of a particular group or groups of pupils; and successfully pass a procedure of external assessment against national standards;
A separate national (England and Wales) standard should be developed for the scheme, building on a common core of excellence with the AST standard, to take account of the distinctive profile and features of the scheme; subject to discussion with the Welsh Assembly Government, this standard might be based on the three themes of new professionalism in teaching1 and the requirements of an Excellent Teacher should reflect more closely the three themes of new professionalism in teaching, again subject to discussion with the Welsh Assembly Government;
The salary for the scheme should be a spot salary. We recommend the following baseline rates for the scheme, as at 1 September 2005: £35,000 in England and Wales, £35,988 in the fringe, £37,832 in outer London, and £41,745 in inner London. We do not think it appropriate at this stage to set a salary for September 2006.
We recommend that the department monitors actively the bedding down of the ETS and how the ETS and AST schemes are used so the review body can revisit it in three years after the scheme's introduction.
I welcome the proposed creation of the post-based Excellent Teacher scheme, and believe that the arrangements set out give a firm basis for progress in its introduction. There are, however, some specific matters which require further consideration and on which I would invite particular comment.
I note the recommendation that the expectations of the role should be revised and I am happy to consider this further in the light of consultation responses and further discussions. The same applies to the proposal to develop a separate ETS standard taking account of new professionalism. It is certainly our intention to see the ETSas well as standards for other teachersin this light.
I believe that the proposal to enable widespread assessment for ETS, regardless of whether a post is available, should be a matter for further consideration and discussion, taking account of the necessity for effective implementation of the scheme. I do, however, have greater concerns about the STRB's concept of naming a teacher as an Excellent Teacher if they have passed assessment, if they are not in a post, while giving a new and separate name to those in post, and suspect that this may cause undue confusion. I would welcome views on this.
I note the initial salary outlines recommended, which provide a very helpful steer for the future. I shall refer this matter to the STRB in my next remit, in the context of a request for general consideration of salaries from September 2006.
On localised approaches to pay we see no difficulty in postponing further consideration of this issue.
We recommend that the National Employers' Organisation publishes the result of the LEA survey on unattached teachers and any additional steps to be taken to deal with the concerns about unattached teachers by the end of March 2005 so that we can consider progress and make any further recommendations we consider appropriate.
22 Feb 2005 : Column WS70
This is a helpful steer, which I shall ask NEOST to consider. I shall also seek to ensure that the framework and guidance on the implementation of the pay changes recommended here take as full account as possible of the position of unattached teachers.
We recommend that all the main parties be included in the process (on linking teaching and learning reviews to continuing professional development and career progression) as outlined in the remit letter of 22 July 2004.
Concurrently with this, I am consulting, as required under Section 126 of the Education Act 2002, on a pay order for introduction on 1 April 2005, the main purpose of which is to reform the safeguarded position of the small number of teachers on former points 4 and 5 of the upper pay scale, in line with the safeguarding principles set out above.
|Next Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|