As the March Council meeting took place a few weeks before ASCL Annual Conference 2012, government messages about the education system, as well as recently announced proposals to change school inspection, were high on the agenda.

Decisive deliberations

School inspection consultation
Plenary debate
In full plenary, Council members debated points for inclusion in ASCL’s response to the latest consultation on school inspection in England, building on discussion in Professional Committee. The following points were agreed by the majority.

Many concerns were raised over changing satisfactory to requires improvement:

• parental confusion
• quality of improvement advice and support
• unrealistic expectations over progress with low attainment
• failure to acknowledge raising of the bar.
  

Reclassification should not be retrospective, so that a school rated satisfactory now could potentially be in special measures at its second inspection after September 2012.

No-notice inspection implies a lack of trust in school leaders and refusal to engage in a professional process. It will reduce quality of inspection and may call into question validity and accuracy of the whole inspection process. Heads may be more reluctant to take on external roles as they will not want to be elsewhere when inspectors arrive – this is not about lack of trust in senior staffbut about supporting staff and the school at a critical time.

It appears superficially rational for achievement to be a limiting judgment for outstanding, but there is concern over the apparent correlation between attainment and teaching quality; lead a challenging school.

There are serious concerns from recent inspections over inspectors’ ability to identify good teaching, and more generalised concern over the quality of some inspectors and teams.

Government messages
Plenary debate
Council members also voiced concern over recent derogatory messages about the UK education system and school leaders in particular put forward in speeches and through the media by members of government.

Council overwhelmingly passed the following resolution: “School and college leaders are committed to high standards and the continued improvement of education and outcomes for all. Council believes that persistent denigration of school and college leaders by HMCI and ministers alienates and demotivates the very professionals who are needed to lead further improvement.”

Teachers’ Pensions
Plenary debate
Pensions Specialist David Binnie outlined in detail the latest agreement proposed by government for changes to the Teachers’ Pension Scheme – the details are on page 12. Council members carefully considered the proposals and saw no compelling reason not to remain fully involved in the negotiations, albeit with the strong reservations already expressed about the attitude and approach of the Treasury during discussions with the unions.

As key aspects, such as contributions levels still need to be resolved, ASCL’s acceptance of any new scheme will be dependent on the detail of the whole package which will need to be extensively modelled.

It was noted that actuarial evidence confirms that the latest scheme is a better deal than the original proposed ‘reference scheme’ for the full range of ASCL members – though not as advantageous as the current scheme. It was also recognised that there is a real possibility of the Treasury imposing the reference scheme if an agreement was not reached.

Council reiterated its opposition to the 2012 contribution rises (for teachers pensions but not local government pensions), the first stage of which are being imposed in April; the move from retail to consumer price index and the raising of the retirement age to 68.

Assessment
Education Committee
Committee chair Andy Yarrow led a discussion about the purpose of assessment in its widest sense, to shape ASCL’s future policy discussions. Views expressed included the following.

No one method of assessment is completely accurate. Good assessment requires the triangulation of a rich portfolio of evidence. Formative assessment engages students throughout the learning journey, and a balance of external assessment and teacher assessment is needed.

There is a place for both as they support each other. Tests designed for one purpose should not be misused for another, such as GCSEs for school inspection.

Assessment should reflect student needs for future study and careers, and terminal exams do not reflect very widely the challenges expected. Students are now becoming technicians in assessment rather than experts in the subjects that are being assessed.

Some re-sits and modularity should be permitted. It is too early for a measured view on controlled assessment.

Local pay
Pay and Conditions Committee
The committee led by chair David Trace discussed ASCL’s view on the secretary of state’s request that the School Teachers’ Review Body (STRB) investigate how the teachers’ pay framework could be made “more market facing in local areas”.

The committee could see no benefits to introducing local pay scales and felt there was already enough flexibility in the pay structure to accommodate most situations. The only areas of concern might be around the London weighting.

Concerns were raised about divisions that may occur within areas as a result of these arrangements, particularly in widening the gap between successful schools and those labelled as failing. The point was made that the vast majority of private companies use national pay scales. The committee agreed that it was dangerous to introduce any changes to pay in advance of a new national funding formula.

STRB remit
Pay and Conditions Committee
Other aspects of the STRB remit were discussed, to inform ASCL’s response. There was significant discussion regarding the existing pay arrangements for teachers. It was felt that imperfect though the system is, it would not be prudent to make adjustments in advance of changes to the national funding formula.

The secretary of state has asked the STRB how pay scales should be reformed to more effectively link pay and performance, including progression arrangements. The committee felt that, as teachers’ pay is already aligned to performance management, the answer was not to change the system but to look more closely at practice.

The committee was strongly in favour of retaining the present arrangements for leadership pay. The point was made that while pay based on pupil numbers does not reflect the responsibilities of heads in smaller schools, there is flexibility for governors to reward heads.

In respect of business managers, the committee agreed that salaries should be aligned with the leadership team. Executive heads’ pay and conditions needs clarification; it needs to recognise the additional level of responsibility and risk associated with leading more than one school.

School financial information
Funding Committee
Chair David Grigg noted that all the information on the DfE benchmarking website is being made public. Some institutional data is incorrect; in most cases accuracy depends on the census information on school management systems.

The committee requested that ASCL advise members in schools to be aware of what is being reported on the DfE school performance website. Members can challenge the information reported. ASCL Funding Specialist Sam Ellis can advise schools that wish to do this.

Governance consultation
Public and Parliamentary Committee
The committee, led by chair Peter Campling, discussed the government’s consultation on school governance. There was no clear consensus as to optimum size for a governing body – there were examples of small and large groups which worked well – and the committee restated ASCL’s view that it should be for the head or principal to decide on the size. However, problems could be envisaged for academy heads with ineffective governing bodies as they have nowhere to go for assistance. The committee asked that ASCL produce additional guidance for members about effective relationships with governors, particularly in the context of schools becoming academies. As the March Council meeting took place a few weeks before ASCL Annual Conference 2012, government messages about the education system, as well as recently announced proposals to change school inspection, were high on the agenda.

Fond farewell
Council members said farewell to Tony Neal, who served as ASCL’s representative on the General Teaching Council, following that body’s closure. Tony joined Council in September 1995, was honorary treasurer from 1997 to 2000, vice president 2000-01 and president from 2001-02. Thanks were expressed to Tony for his hard work as well as his insightful and entertaining contribution to debates over many years.

• Full minutes from Council meetings, as well as a list of Council representatives and their contact details, can be found at www.ascl.org.uk/about_us/council_and_executive The next Council meeting is 21-22 June in Coventry.

Designed with IMPACT

© 2024 Association of School and College Leaders | Valid XHTML | Contact us