Appendix 1: School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Order 2017 (SI 2017/811)
Additional Information from the Department for Education (DfE)
Q1: What view does DfE take of respondents’ claims that there are significant recruitment and retention issues for the teaching profession?
A1: Paragraphs 2.16 to 2.18 and 2.26 to 2.28 of the STRB’s report clearly set out the Government’s position in relation to recruitment and retention. At a national level we are retaining and recruiting the teachers we need. We recognise however that the situation is becoming increasingly challenging and that this is more acute in certain subjects and particular schools or areas of the country.
Q2: What information does DfE hold about recruitment and retention of teachers, and about the impact of these issues on the quality of teaching in the maintained sector?
A2: The STRB in arriving at its recommendations on teacher pay made a detailed consideration of the current evidence on recruitment and retention. Chapter 3 of the STRB’s report sets out a detailed description and analysis of this evidence.
The DfE Schools Workforce Census9 publishes statistics on the recruitment and retention figures—this includes figures on the number of new entrants to teaching, retention rates and vacancy rates. The department also publishes the ITT Census and Performance Profiles data10 which show numbers (and characteristics of) trainees starting ITT and outcomes of ITT (i.e. achieving QTS, being employed in a state school within 6 months of qualifying) respectively.
In relation to the issue of impact on quality, we would agree with the STRB’s paragraph 5.22 which says that it “is essential that the national pay and allowance framework for teachers attracts high quality graduates to the profession, retains experienced and capable teachers, and motivates and rewards fairly those who take on additional responsibilities and leadership positions.” We believe that the pay and allowances framework enables schools to recruit and retain quality teachers, although the framework in itself if not directly about assessing teacher quality.
Q3: Has DfE made any assessment of the impact of the pay and conditions specified in this Order on the future recruitment and retention of teachers?
A3: As in all previous years, in determining whether to accept the STRB recommendations the department assessed whether the recommendations would meet the objectives listed below, and were in line with the analysis already submitted to the STRB.
Q4: What does DfE see as the objective to be achieved by the annual determination of teachers’ pay and conditions: is the objective to recruit and retain sufficient numbers and quality of teachers, or is it intended to meet a different aim?
A4: The pay system is intended to provide schools with the flexibility to recruit and retain capable teachers and school leaders; ensuring affordability, both nationally and at school level; and increasing the autonomy available to school leaders to address individual circumstances through pay.
Q5: Given that DfE would have preferred a longer consultation period, and that most respondents were dissatisfied with the 3 week consultation period, how can DfE regard the consultation it carried out as a satisfactory basis for implementing these proposals?
A5: The Government took the view that its absolute priority was not to disadvantage teachers by delaying the implementation of the pay award if possible. It took the view that, taking account of the recommendations in this year’s report and the consequential amendments to the STPCD, it would be possible to hold a meaningful consultation and still ensure teachers received their pay awards on time. All consultees to the process submitted their responses within the required timeframe, ministers were able to consider those responses and agree final amendment to the STPCD.
In addition, it should be noted that this was not the only consultation opportunity during the STRB process. Consultees also had a 6-week period in which to submit written evidence to the STRB, as well as the opportunity to give oral evidence on how the STRB should enact its remit and on teacher pay more generally. The Department also meets on a regular basis throughout the year most of the statutory consultees to discuss pay and conditions issues. Therefore, the wider views of the consultees on teacher pay were well known prior to this consultation and this shorter consultation was focussed on the department’s decision to accept the recommendations.
Q6: The Order was laid on 3 August, well over a week after Parliament rose for the summer recess, and it is being brought into force on 1 September, before Parliament returns. How does DfE justify this handling of an instrument that is of undoubted significance for public sector pay policy, which means that the scope for Parliamentary scrutiny is almost nugatory?
A6: …it has been annual practice since 2009 to make and lay the Pay Order and STPCD in the first or second week of August ensuring that this is achieved at least 21 days in advance of the Order coming into effect on 1 September. The laying of the pay order is the end of a lengthy process in which there is little room for manoeuvre—the STRB will usually receive its remit in Sept or Oct (the precise timing is normally determined by the Chief Secretary of the Treasury’s annual letter to review body chairs setting out the Government’s strategy on public sector pay). Once it has received its remit the STRB will normally require six or seven months (depending on the complexity of the remit) to accumulate and analyse written and oral evidence from each of the statutory consultees. The Department will usually receive the STRB report in April each year and in normal circumstances would be able to conduct separate consultation exercises for the report and the STPCD. However, in the past 3 years we have had two general elections and the EU referendum, all of which have significantly delayed the process. At every stage of the process the Department is at pains to ensure that other parties to the process are given the maximum amount of time, whilst ensuring we are as efficient as possible in our own timings.
… this is not a practice we have received criticism for in the past, apart from last year, and the delay to publication caused by the election meant that any alternative date for laying would not have been possible for the order to come into force for the start of September.
22 August 2017