[Ed Waller]

neil mcdonald, on Oct 1 2005, 09:47 AM, said:

One of the simplist arguements for TLRs is that for a while some staff in schools have MAs for roles that have nothing to do with teaching anf learning.

Fail to see how this is an argument for.... Has anyone got any examples?

[Derek Bos]

A possible scenario. A SLT team, six faculties, each headed by a faculty leader and an assistant leader, all HoDs disappear. No retention points, no 1+, a reduction in pastoral leaders from 5 to 3 with an enhanced role for SLOs, the downgrading of one HoF from MPA4 to TLR2, new job descriptions for everyone and change in responsibilities for all posts. No attempt at assimilation, basically drawing up a new structure and then fitting people into the structure where possible.
Presumably this scenario can be the basis for consultation becasue the status quo is not an option, agreed by the Unions, schools are free to draw up their own structures, schools do not have to follow the same structure and the teaching profession has been divided and conquered.

[Ed Waller]

Derek Bos, on Oct 1 2005, 06:25 PM, said:

A possible scenario. A SLT team, six faculties, each headed by a faculty leader and an assistant leader, all HoDs disappear. No retention points, no 1+, a reduction in pastoral leaders from 5 to 3 with an enhanced role for SLOs, the downgrading of one HoF from MPA4 to TLR2, new job descriptions for everyone and change in responsibilities for all posts. No attempt at assimilation, basically drawing up a new structure and then fitting people into the structure where possible.
Presumably this scenario can be the basis for consultation becasue the status quo is not an option, agreed by the Unions, schools are free to draw up their own structures, schools do not have to follow the same structure and the teaching profession has been divided and conquered.

Yep, this is a possible scenario... one which every one involved below SMT should scream loudly about, and prepare their grievance procedures accordingly.
I said earlier, and it's probably worth repeating here....

There is a requirement to review. There isn't a requirement to change. Not all unions have agreed to this but the NUT would probably look a little foolish to deny it was happening. Depending on what structure is adopted, it would be possible to assimilate.

The teaching profession has only been 'divided and conquered' if we refuse to fight against any abomination that any school might try to introduce. Similarly if there is a reduction of people in 'responsible' roles as noted in the 'nightmare scenario' how long would those people with one be able to run the school if the rest of the staff didn't help out? How fast would the staff find other schools where this model was not adopted. This is perhaps one key for the future: how will the school expect to recruit the best and improve results etc if it doesn't treat its staff well, including an appropriate pay and career structure...

[neil mcdonald]

Ed Waller, on Oct 1 2005, 10:05 AM, said:

neil mcdonald, on Oct 1 2005, 09:47 AM, said:

One of the simplist arguements for TLRs is that for a while some staff in schools have MAs for roles that have nothing to do with teaching anf learning.

Fail to see how this is an argument for.... Has anyone got any examples?

Trust me, two posts in my school have nothing to do with teaching and learning. One that was removed due to teacher moving on was teacher in charge of the Library.

[johnwayne]

hi - help needed on this one. If a teacher loses out on a management point due to the new structuring etc - but as we know the money is safeguarded for the 3 years - does that teacher have to continue with the responsibilites?? I thought yes - because they are still going to be paid for it - hope I have made myself clear?

[neil mcdonald]

This is an interesting one, especially when a teacher has lost their post in restructuring. I would imagine that a teacher would still be expected to perform a similar duty until the cross over period between the new and old staff structure has ended.

This of course poses a problem - what about the teachers whose mainscale pay quickly overtakes their protected pay? Could they be honestly be expected to continue to work with some kind of management suties despite having little to no financial rewards?

I am sure the Union bods on this one will have more understandign about this. However this is something I'll be asking at Govenors.

[Ed Waller]

neil mcdonald, on Oct 2 2005, 09:45 AM, said:

This is an interesting one, especially when a teacher has lost their post in restructuring. I would imagine that a teacher would still be expected to perform a similar duty until the cross over period between the new and old staff structure has ended.

This of course poses a problem - what about the teachers whose mainscale pay quickly overtakes their protected pay? Could they be honestly be expected to continue to work with some kind of management suties despite having little to no financial rewards?

I am sure the Union bods on this one will have more understandign about this. However this is something I'll be asking at Govenors.

Neil is spot on about people who get safeguarding. They may still be required to perform some function for it. I'd be surprised if it were the same function, as the person who would make the request - the head - would just have said that it wasn't a valuable teaching or learning function. Refusal to carry out the task could lead to loss of safeguarding. When safeguarding is finished (up to 3 years, normally much shorter because of movement along the M or UP spines) the teacher need no longer perform that function.

A little concerned that his school doesn't appear to have a librarian and doesn't see the library function (books??) as part of teaching and learning. Must have made the Head of English slightly bemused if nobody else.

[neil mcdonald]

Ed Waller, on Oct 2 2005, 11:19 AM, said:

neil mcdonald, on Oct 2 2005, 09:45 AM, said:

This is an interesting one, especially when a teacher has lost their post in restructuring. I would imagine that a teacher would still be expected to perform a similar duty until the cross over period between the new and old staff structure has ended.

This of course poses a problem - what about the teachers whose mainscale pay quickly overtakes their protected pay? Could they be honestly be expected to continue to work with some kind of management suties despite having little to no financial rewards?

I am sure the Union bods on this one will have more understandign about this. However this is something I'll be asking at Govenors.

Neil is spot on about people who get safeguarding. They may still be required to perform some function for it. I'd be surprised if it were the same function, as the person who would make the request - the head - would just have said that it wasn't a valuable teaching or learning function. Refusal to carry out the task could lead to loss of safeguarding. When safeguarding is finished (up to 3 years, normally much shorter because of movement along the M or UP spines) the teacher need no longer perform that function.

Ed, thinking of this with a Human Resources/Contracts perspective (I did it before teaching!) If the period between agreement and implementation is say three years then, it does not matter if the real pay surpasses the protected - the agreement has been made. The case for this is for those teachers at the top of their scale. Protection for them is much more important and because you can't divide who gets their duties removed because of real income values, it seems much more likely that teachers will still have to fulfill a duty until the implementation date is reached.

If a teacher refuses this then the pay protection does not count for anything.

Of course the realities will no doubt mean that an agreement could be reached where once pay rises overtakes the protection level, the management responsibility will be removed by mutual consent.

I hope I have made this clear!

By the way I just realised this is my 1000th post!

This post has been edited by neil mcdonald: 02 October 2005 - 11:46 AM

[Ed Waller]

neil mcdonald, on Oct 2 2005, 12:44 PM, said:

Ed, thinking of this with a Human Resources/Contracts perspective (I did it before teaching!) If the period between agreement and implementation is say three years then, it does not matter if the real pay surpasses the protected - the agreement has been made. The case for this is for those teachers at the top of their scale. Protection for them is much more important and because you can't divide who gets their duties removed because of real income values, it seems much more likely that teachers will still have to fulfill a duty until the implementation date is reached.

You're right that if you agree to do something for three years, the agreement has been made. I guess I was expecting people to agree to do something for the extra money, which obviously would cease when there was no extra money. If any schools attempt to ask for a three year task, regardless of money, they should receive some speedy advice from the local union rep. Mine will for sure if it attempts such a nonsense.

neil mcdonald, on Oct 2 2005, 12:44 PM, said:

By the way I just realised this is my 1000th post!

Celebratory cheers

[neil mcdonald]

As I said, the people I think this deals with more than anyone else are those post threshold for whom protection will be a longer term affair.

[gav]

As I understand it, if you lose out financially and are given a three year safeguard then refuse to undertake the duties (i.e. in your current position) the school is allowed to make you redundant. I will double check this but this is what we have been told.

[benitoball]

Up here in Scotland many an authority has undertaken restructuring of middle management, much akin it appears to what may be introduced in England. Essentially the posts of Head of Department have been replaced with a smaller number of Faculty Heads.

One important difference in terms and condirtions it would appear however - those Heads of Department who chose not to apply or failed to gain a management post in the new structure are entitled to lifetime conversation of salary which will be subject to subsequent pay rises. No expectation either that they will continue to undertake additional duties for the extra cash.

[A Finemess]

benitoball, on Oct 2 2005, 08:46 PM, said:

One important difference in terms and condirtions it would appear however - those Heads of Department who chose not to apply or failed to gain a management post in the new structure are entitled to lifetime conversation of salary which will be subject to subsequent pay rises. No expectation either that they will continue to undertake additional duties for the extra cash.

Sorry Benny. Not quite right and a potentially dangerous misunderstanding. The conservation only applies to those whose appointment pre-dates the 2001 Agreement (April 2001). Anyone appointed after that date is entitled to only 3 years conservation. What happens after that ? The unions have their view. The management view is back to top of basic scale. Unlikely to happen? Well what about two schools merging to build a single new PPP school?

[Derek Bos]

Well it happened today- the nightmare scenario I put forward in a previous post has been proposed at our school. At present staff of about 63 have 39 MAs between them, this will be reduced to 24 TLRs. Approximately 8 x MA2 and 12 x MA1s have gone. Five pastoral heads are to be replaced by three on a reduced scale meaning a loss of £1813, for those able to get a post. One subject leader reduced from MA4(£7833) down to a TLR equivalent of £3958. No attempt at assimilation, there are some people who gain.
Anybody else in the same situation?

[gav]

One of the longer term effects of the new TLR system will be to introduce a system of market economy into schools. By setting different pay structures with different amounts for the same role, schools will be competing for middle managers. Schools that set their TLRs too low will in the long term get staff of a 'lower quality' than those schools that set them higher. However, in the short term, given the relative inflexibility of the teaching profession as a labour market, such schools will gain financially (although this gain will not be in real terms due to the government clawing it back in a number of ways.)

So - as with any unsophisticated market economy, short term visible gain is valued more highly than the more long-term less visible drawbacks. How many heads actually consider stress and loss of morale on the part of the staff as a cost? What 'price' do they put on this cost? There is also the problem of shortage subjects receiving higher TLR ratings than subjects such as History. Again, it seems as if there will be a 'market' solution to this - offer more TLRs for Maths, ICT etc and cut the wages of History, Geography etc. What you will in fact gain is not a true market solution but a perverted one. E.g. because Maths is a compulsory subject with a shortage of teachers, you have the situatrion where less 'able' teachers might be paid more money as schools offer incentives to fill vacancies (this is already happening to a lesser extent.) If it were a genuine free market situation schools could make Maths optional at GCSE for example and make History compulsory (just an example - I'm not necessarily advocating this scenario.)

We should all be very worried about this. It seems that no-one has thought through the long term implications of these reforms.