Transcript TEACHERS’PAY IN THE MELTING POT
From MAs to TLRs
TEACHERS’ PAY IN THE MELTING POT
OVERVIEW
“IN THE MELTING POT” No payments safe, all members affected
not an assimilation exercise linked to remodelling and based on cutting the teachers’ paybill restructuring could remove any payments
three year cash safeguarding only cuts in pay and pensions for many teachers fewer career prospects for others
WHAT IS A “RIG”?
“Rewards & Incentives Group”
DfES National Employers Organisation ATL, NASUWT, PAT, SHA – and formerly NAHT
joint proposals to STRB, accepted by STRB and by Secretary of State
NUT excluded from RIG
HOW THE TLR SYSTEM EMERGED 2002 – STRB asked to consider MA system:
too many MAs? not focused on teaching & learning? used for R&R or PRP purposes?
2003 – STRB agrees changes are needed
proposes discussions between all the parties 2004-5 – development of TLR system
RIG discussions – NUT excluded
RIG proposals accepted by STRB and Ruth Kelly
THE NUT’S STANCE Continued opposition to TLR system Opposition to reduction in number of posts of responsibility Protection for members against any loss of pay resulting from introduction of TLRs
THE TLR SYSTEM EXPLAINED
SUMMARY OF THE TLR SYSTEM (1) No nationally prescribed levels or values for TLR payments Schools to decide:
number of posts of responsibility
number of different levels of TLR payments actual values of TLR payments
SUMMARY OF THE TLR SYSTEM (2) Two TLR bands Prescribed minima and maxima:
TLR1: minimum £6,500 maximum £11,000
TLR2: minimum £2,250 maximum £5,500 more than 1 level of payment possible within these limits
CRITERIA FOR TLR PAYMENTS (1) To qualify for any TLR payment
significant responsibility not required of all classroom teachers focused on teaching and learning requiring teachers’ professional skills and judgement
CRITERIA FOR TLR PAYMENTS (2) To qualify for any TLR payment (contd)
leading, managing & developing a subject or curriculum area OR leading, managing & developing pupil development across the curriculum impact on educational progress beyond the teacher’s assigned pupils leading, developing and enhancing the teaching practice of others
CRITERIA FOR TLR PAYMENTS (3) To qualify for TLR1 payments
having line management responsibility for a significant number of people Responsibility for which a TLR is awarded should be clearly defined in the job description
LEVEL OF PAYMENTS (1) Schools determine their values Decisions on payment levels must :
“have a clear rationale”
“be made against clear published criteria with differences between posts attracting different levels clearly delineated” “take into account differential job weight and meet the provisions of equal pay, equality and other relevant legislation” (RIG proposals)
LEVEL OF PAYMENTS (2) Spot values not scales More than 1 level possible in each band:
Minimum differentials of £1,500
Up to 3 levels possible at TLR2 Up to 4 levels possible at TLR1
SAFEGUARDING Cash safeguarding for 3 years only
difference between existing MA and any TLR awarded will be safeguarded may be lost earlier due to promotion or incremental progression
does not apply to teachers with post April 2004 “temporary” MAs Additional responsibility or work may be required to retain safeguarding
ANYTHING ELSE?
TLRs not to be used for SEN, R&R or performance Permanent payments only:
“no justifiable rationale for other than permanent payments to be made for such responsibilities”
except eg cover for secondments, maternity leave or vacancies pending permanent appointment MAs stay frozen pending their abolition
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TLR SYSTEM
THE TIMETABLE TLRs to be introduced from 1 January 2006 MAs to be abolished after 31 December 2005 Staffing structures to be reviewed and revised by 31 December 2005 Three year transition to new structures
PHASE 1 – REVIEWING STAFFING STRUCTURES (1) Schools are required to:
review the structure in consultation with union representatives & staff determine proposals for implementing TLRs and any other changes, plus plan for implementation, by 31 December 2005 Schools are not required to alter the structure – only to determine how to implement TLRs in place of MAs
PHASE 1 – REVIEWING STAFFING STRUCTURES (2) NUT position: “No detriment” and minimum changes Reorganise the structure?
alter or reduce responsibility payments alter or reduce teaching posts extensive consultation, disruption and disaffection not required by law - is it needed?
PHASE 1 – REVIEWING STAFFING STRUCTURES (3) Mismatch between MAs and TLRs
minimum TLR2 (£2250) > MA1 (£1638) next level of TLR2 (£3750) > MA2 (£3312) keeping the same number of responsibility payments will cost more
MA3 (£5688) is between the TLR bands should MA3s become TLR2 (with lower pay) or TLR1 (with higher pay)?
PHASE 1 – REVIEWING STAFFING STRUCTURES (4) The case for retaining the existing staffing structure
the existing structure is already based on the needs of the school teachers’ pay is protected pastoral posts are protected increases in workload are avoided pitfalls of discriminatory outcomes are avoided
PHASE 2 - IMPLEMENTING CHANGES (1) Decide how to implement any changes
minimum changes allow an assimilation process if not, decide how to appoint, when to ring-fence, how to deal with grievances, etc 3 year cash safeguarding for those who lose out
PHASE 2 - IMPLEMENTING CHANGES (2) Decide when to implement changes Three year transition period:
starting 1 January 2006, ending 31 December 2008
PHASE 2 - IMPLEMENTING CHANGES (3) Immediate implementation?
NUT believes schools should where possible implement immediately Delayed or phased/staged implementation?
problems with new appointees “leapfrogging”
IN SUMMARY The Choices Retain, as far as possible, the existing structure
manageable cost, no reason to change Reorganise the structure
unnecessary workload, disruption, disaffection and opposition