Held just two weeks before the teacher unions' one-day strike on pensions, the June Council meeting was dominated by this topic and debate over how ASCL should proceed.

Ever-shifting pension debate

Pensions

Plenary debate
Council debated the latest developments in the pension negotiations and how ASCL should proceed. Three formal options for action were discussed: ASCL members going on strike, coordinated one-day strike with other unions, or industrial action short of strike (such as working to rule or no parents evenings).

Council members voiced strong support for industrial action short of striking, but more reluctance to go on strike. The majority felt that ASCL should take a stepped approach and resort to striking as the absolute last option.

However, it was agreed that ASCL needs to seek views of whole membership to ensure an accurate reflection of views. Council determined that a survey of members should be taken and that Executive should be given the authority to act on the evidence gained.

The need to emphasise the negative impact of pension changes on recruitment and retention was noted. In addition, as contributions increase, fewer would opt into the scheme making it less viable as there is less money to pay for existing pensioners.

A publicity campaign was recommended, to encourage parental support and to show how much heads and teachers do to support families and communities. See www.ascl.org. uk for the latest developments.

---

Local representation

Plenary debate
Honorary Secretary Sue Moore introduced a debate on the future of regional and local ASCL representation in the face of the changes within the education system, particularly in England.

It was felt that the local role will become more important as the education service fragments and local authorities become less effective.

Clarification on the role of regional officers, field officers, branch secretaries and Council members would be helpful. Lines of communication between members and branch secretaries, Council representatives and headquarters need to be made more explicit. Council representatives said they would welcome better means of seeking views of those they represent to ensure all members’ views are heard. Members need clear mechanisms for contributing to consultation responses and major policy decisions. New website functionality may help with this.

There is a need to review Council representation to see if there is a way to achieve a more accurate reflection of membership demographics.

However, ASCL's broad church is one of its strengths and Council would not wish to be split into different factions. It was agreed to go out to consultation of the whole membership in the autumn on the issue.

---

National funding consultation

Funding Committee
Funding Specialist Sam Ellis outlined his proposed model for a fair funding formula. Sam and Policy Director Malcolm Trobe would be meeting with DfE officials in June to discuss the idea of activityreferencing the formula.

The committee reiterated its support for the principle of a national funding formula with the caveat that it is fair and subject to careful modelling and sensitive transitional arrangements. While the 'winners' and 'losers' will not become clear until the consultation is published, it will be critical to prepare ASCL members for this.

The committee agreed to convene a special meeting in September to respond to the funding formula consultation, which is published in July and closes in October, before the next regular Council meeting.

---

Free schools and UTCs

Public and Parliamentary Committee
Referring to the position statement approved at the previous Council meeting, the committee reiterated the need for a level playing field, particularly concerning funding and freedom of information. It was felt that a level playing field was not a barrier to diversity.

The committee had concerns about the opening of UTCs, free schools and studio schools where there was not a sufficient adjustment period nor adequate regard for existing schools in the local area. It could potentially result in a significant number of failed schools in the competition for places. It was proposed that legislation may be required in order to avoid the creation of surplus school places.

The committee agreed to consider in greater detail ways in which schools can better support each other during periods of change.

Revised admissions code Public and Parliamentary Committee Discussing the proposed, slimmed down Admissions Code and Appeals procedures, the committee acknowledged that ASCL's broad church made it difficult to come to a strong consensus on admissions. It agreed the following position statements.

"The committee broadly agrees that local authorities should maintain their role in school admissions.

Local authority involvement has the potential to reduce bureaucracy while promoting fairness and transparency.

Popular and successful schools should not be able to grow their intake beyond capacity to the detriment of others within the local authority."

---

SEND green paper

Education Committee
Joan McVittie had met with Baroness Warnock and others and shared the concern the SEND green paper should have come out before the education green paper.

Education Policy Specialist Sue Kirkham and Inclusion Chair Rachel Bertenshaw had drafted and shared the ASCL response to the green paper, which broadly agreed with ASCL's recommendation for a single identification, assessment and planning process for all children with SEND, lasting from birth and throughout their life. The committee backed the response.

---

Pay issues

Pay and Conditions Committee
The committee discussed proposals for differentiated pay in various regions parts of the country. While this has advantages, it may become convoluted and overall funding levels may not allow it. It was felt that the flexibility required to recruit people to difficult schools should come through the reform of TLRs.

The committee discussed the possibility of allowing headteachers to reduce the pay of staff rather than having to make people redundant. It was felt that paying different amounts for similar jobs could create disputes and greater flexibility could therefore increase workload.

The comment was made that the committee should continue to challenge the root of the problem – the funding cuts – rather than focusing on decisions based on an acceptance of them. The committee agreed this position statement:

"The committee believes that the government should maintain its current position with regard to flexibilities in pay."

---

Performance management

Pay and Conditions Committee and Professional Committee
Pay and Conditions Specialist Stephen Szemerenyi outlined the government’s consultation on performance management. The general tone is quite moderate and supportive, however a number of concerns were voiced by committee members.

The proposal to combine performance management and capability under one heading of discipline was opposed on the basis that it would undermine both processes. The committees disagreed that a reviewer's recommendation could go straight to the governing body; headteachers should be able to quality assure decisions.

The proposal to include performance management reports as part of job references was rejected as it would change the nature of the performance management process, making it less open and constructive.

A stronger focus on pupil progress was supported and the removal of the three hour limit on lesson observation welcomed, but it was noted that academies were not subject to new regulation. If the principles were important they should apply to academies as well.

Stephen said he would reflect these points in ASCL's response to the consultation.

---

Teacher standards

Professional Committee
The committee discussed the proposed new teacher standards, to replace the existing Teacher Standards and GTCE Code of Conduct. It was felt that the proposed code fell short of what already existed in the GTCE code and that the conflation of standards was a superficial attempt to reduce bureaucracy.

The committee agreed that it would support a separation between the conduct and capabilities standards. The framing of the conduct section was unworkable because it was not based on definitive judgements.

Capability judgements were appearing to force binary answers, which precluded any sense of progression. Performance indicators against a better framed set of statements or different sets of standards for different levels of experience were preferred options.

An overview of the finalised standards, published at the end of July, appears on page 6.

---

School inspection

Professional Committee
The committee heard from Inspection Specialist Jan Webber about the feedback thus far from the pilot inspections under the new framework. The committee agreed a number of position statements which it asked Jan to take back to Ofsted.

"The committee approves of inspection teams reviewing progress over time rather than a single lesson, but notes that learning is not linear and not all students progress at the same rate. The sophistication with which schools analysed their data should correspond to Ofsted inspections. Progress measures should include consideration of students' entry levels.

The committee strongly supports ASCL producing a template that schools could use in place of a SEF, but noted that Ofsted could not endorse any such document as it would then become a de facto SEF."

---

• Full minutes of Council are on the website at www.ascl.org.uk/council
• The next Council meeting is 13-14 October in Coventry.

Designed with IMPACT

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