Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association

Category: Information for Members

  • Behaviour in Schools Research

    Please find information below regarding the Government ‘Behaviour in Scottish Schools Research 2016’ survey. It is crucial that we ensure the survey achieves a good response rate again and your efforts to promote the survey will be central to this.

    The timings are tight, as the main survey fieldwork is due to begin on the 8th February. The SSTA has been asked to disseminate this amongst its members. The SSTA is anxious that members cooperate as it could be useful in addressing behaviour issues in school.

    Behaviour in Scottish Schools

    Ipsos MORI Scotland has been commissioned by the Scottish Government to conduct the latest wave of Behaviour in Schools Research. The research is crucial as it will allow the Scottish Government and Education Scotland to review current policy and inform future support in the area of relationships and behaviour, which is fundamental to the school experiences of both pupils and staff. The last wave of the research in 2012 led directly to the publication of new policy guidance in the leaflet ‘Better Relationships, Better Learning, Better Behaviour’. The survey fieldwork will run February-March 2016.

    Building positive relationships and behaviour in the classroom is essential to the successful delivery of Curriculum for Excellence and the implementation of Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) and will help improve outcomes for children and young people. In addition, relationships and behaviour within the school have a significant impact on the working lives of teachers and support staff. This research will be your chance to tell the Scottish Government about the reality of pupil behaviour in school, whether different approaches used to promote positive relationships and manage behaviour are working and whether you receive enough support in this area.

    This important research is supported by the Scottish Advisory Group on Relationships and Behaviour in Schools (SAGRABIS) which includes the Scottish Government, COSLA, Education Scotland and all of the teaching unions. The challenges of working in education have been borne in mind in the design of the survey and every step has been taken to try and limit the burden on staff.

    The head teacher and teacher surveys should take around 20-30 minutes to complete, and the support staff survey should take around 10-20 minutes. The results will be completely anonymous. No individual will be identifiable to the Scottish Government or in any published outputs.

    A representative sample of teachers and support staff from schools across Scotland will be invited to take part in the survey which will cover their experiences of behaviour and relationship in their schools, the impact of different types of behaviour and how staff promote positive and manage negative behaviour. If you are invited to participate the SSTA would urge you to complete the survey to ensure the quality of the data and to allow you to give your opinion on such an important subject.

  • Show Racism the Red Card – Creative Competition

    Competition flyer

    Show Racism the Red Card are now promoting their annual creative competition in Scotland which is open to all schools and colleges across the country.  Attached is a promotional flyer and all the details can be found on their website: http://www.theredcard.org/educational/competitions/scotland

     

     

  • Low Teacher Confidence with New Qualifications

    Low Teacher Confidence with New Qualifications

    The SSTA has completed a survey of its members as to the level of confidence in implementing the new Higher Qualifications. The response from members has indicated a low level of confidence in teachers’ ability to deliver and assess their pupils in the New Qualifications.

    Seamus Searson, SSTA General Secretary said, “The situation that teachers face in schools today in trying to do the best for their young people is extremely worrying. Teachers are lacking confidence in a major part of their work and there appears to be a lack of understanding or realisation of those bodies that are there to help deliver the new qualifications.

    “Teachers are again trying to make the system work despite the lack of support whilst bureaucracy is continuing to increase. Teachers cannot be expected to continue to work under these conditions”.

    The survey shows that 40% of teachers lack confidence in their abilities to deliver appropriate course materials for the New Higher and 75% in Advanced Higher. In relation to teachers ability to assess their pupils 59% lack confidence in New Higher and 85% in Advance Higher.

    • New Higher Qualifications: confidence in the ability to deliver appropriate course materials – 33% not confident and 7% not confident at all
    • New Higher Qualifications: confidence in the ability to assess your pupils – 12% not confident and 47% not confident at all
    • New Advanced Higher Qualifications: confidence in the ability to deliver appropriate course materials – 39% not confident and 36% not confident at all
    • New Advanced Higher Qualifications: confidence in the ability to assess your pupils – 44% not confident and 41% not confident at all

    When it came to the satisfaction of teachers with the various bodies that are there to support teachers in implementing the New Qualifications the survey highlighted the apparent ineffectiveness of these agencies.

    Satisfaction with sources of support in implementing the New Qualifications:

    Education Scotland – not satisfied 54%
    SQA – not satisfied 63%
    Local Authority – not satisfied 58%
    School – not satisfied 34%

    Comments made by SSTA members

    “At no point in the working week do I feel absolutely confident that changes have not been made to the arrangement documents. I dread glancing at my email during the day, only to find that some change or other has been made because I have not time nor opportunity to find out what I should now know and do.”

    “There is a lack of time to develop new material or, indeed, to get my head around the differences between the old Higher and the new Higher Modern Studies course. Moreover, there is a lack of resources and we are constantly reminded of our budgetary constraints and the need, therefore, to cut down on photocopying and printing.”

    “It’s us on the ground that are creating these courses based on very vague information from the SQA, no support from anyone else. All work created that is supposed to help always comes a year too late (understanding standards events for example). No consistency in anything, all depends on who you speak to and what council they work for.”

    “I am confident because I have a principal teacher who is a workaholic and spends a great deal of his time preparing material. However, this should not be how it has to be. Many teachers have a family and are sacrificing work life balance for the kids they teach!”

    “The amount of re-assessment is around three times than it was under the previous system and re-assessment materials are not easily available. Instead teachers are having to spend vast amounts of time generating re-assessment questions.”

    “More than ever I am relying on the informal network of contacts I have established throughout my career. This is particularly important in subjects with single teacher departments housed in larger faculties where development work rests with one person.”

    “I have been teaching for over 30 years and have never felt so ill prepared and low in confidence in my ability to deliver courses.”

    Euan Duncan, SSTA President said

    “The high level of response to this survey highlights the inconsistencies that exist between departments, schools and local authorities. It is a matter of serious concern that teachers are not feeling confident and ready to assess the exam work of young people. With workload at an all-time high it is hardly surprising that teachers are continuing to report damagingly high levels of work-related stress. While this has been recognised by government and employers, there is an urgent need for employers, SQA and Education Scotland to move beyond statements of support into real, tangible, recognisable action.”
    Further information from
    Seamus Searson
    General Secretary
    0131 313 7300

    18 January 2016

     

    Please note that the survey was taken over a two week period with 1244 responses

  • December Newsletter

    The December 2015 Newsletter is now available for members to download.

    Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to open the newsletter. If you do not have Adobe Acrobat Reader it can be downloaded from http://get.adobe.com/uk/reader/.

     

  • Asbestos in Schools

    Printable Version

    There should be records of any asbestos in your school kept within your school. These should be accessible on request. If not, ask why not?

    What is asbestos?

    Asbestos was a building material used extensively in the U.K. from the 1950s through to the 1990s.

    Why is asbestos dangerous?

    Serious, often fatal diseases can be caused when asbestos fibres are released from materials, becoming airborne and inhaled. On average, there is a 30–40 year latency period between exposure to asbestos fibres and the onset of disease.

    Where is asbestos found in schools?

    Many schools, built before 2000, will contain some form of asbestos. Asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) include:

    • asbestos lagging used as thermal insulation on pipes and boilers
    • sprayed asbestos used for thermal insulation, fire protection, partitioning and ducts
    • asbestos-insulating board (AIB) used for fire protection, thermal insulation, partitioning and ducts
    • some ceiling tiles
    • floor tiles
    • cement roofing and guttering
    • textured coatings

    Schools built after 2000 may have items that have been brought in from outside that may contain asbestos, i.e. items such as ovens which may have been donated.

    Who’s at risk from asbestos in schools?

    The most likely way ACMs will create a risk in schools is when they are disturbed or damaged through maintenance, repair or construction activities.
    School caretakers and external contractors could be at risk due to the nature of their work. If asbestos is disturbed during such work, there is a risk that fibres will be released and create risk to others in the school.

    Asbestos that is in good condition and unlikely to be damaged or disturbed is not a significant risk to health as long as it is properly managed.

    This means that teachers and pupils are unlikely to be at risk in the course of their normal activities. However, they should not undertake activities that damage ACMs, such as pinning or tacking work to insulation board or ceiling tiles.

    Who’s responsible for managing asbestos in schools?

    Responsibility for the maintenance and/or repair of non-domestic premises, including schools, is a ‘duty holder’ as defined in Regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012.
    In the majority of schools, the duty holder will be the employer which varies with the type of school.
    In situations where budgets for building management are delegated to schools by the local authority, the duty to manage asbestos will be shared between schools and the local authority. Both parties will therefore have ‘duty holder’ responsibilities for the repair and maintenance of the premises.

    What is the ‘duty to manage’ asbestos?

    Duty holders should know whether their premises contain asbestos, where it is and what condition it is in. Then they should ensure that they manage it properly.
    They must assess and manage the risks from asbestos to employees and others. They must also ensure that anyone who is likely to work on, or disturb, asbestos is provided with information about its location and condition.

    What does the duty holder have to do in practice in a school?

    The duty holder’s responsibilities include:

    • keeping an up-to-date record of the location and condition of ACMs in the school
    • assessing the risks from any ACMs in the school
    • making plans to manage the risks from ACMs in the school
    • putting those plans into action

    The school’s plan needs to contain provisions to ensure that information about the location and condition of ACMs is given to anyone who might disturb these materials.

    The duty holder should also ensure that staff who are likely to disturb asbestos are suitably trained.

    What is the role of school staff?

    Most staff will not be directly involved but still need to be made aware of the potential hazards. All staff should be instructed not to disturb or damage ACMs, for example by pinning work to walls. They should also report damage to school fixtures or fittings that could lead to the release of asbestos fibres, eg damage to ceiling or floor tiles, or to column seals in system-built schools.

    Does a school have to close if it thinks it has an asbestos problem?

    HSE expects schools to manage the risks from asbestos containing materials (ACMs) on an on-going basis. Temporary closure of a building may be needed where building work has created unforeseen problems – or perhaps led to structural damage.
    What is important is that the focus is on preventing exposure in the first place.
    Anyone with responsibility for maintenance and repair in schools, or any other work premises, has a legal duty to manage the risks arising from asbestos.
    This means taking steps to identify whether asbestos is present in buildings, assessing its condition and managing the risks to ensure that people are not exposed to asbestos fibres.
    The school should have sensible plans that are kept up to date and acted upon.

    What about pupils – can they damage asbestos?

    The likelihood of pupils disturbing asbestos containing materials (ACMs) during unsupervised or unruly activities does need to be considered as part of the schools management arrangements.
    Any vulnerable or exposed panels should be identified and protected or removed.
    These are the types of issues that should be included in the schools asbestos management plan as they are part of the essential precautions that ensure that normal school activities do not disturb or damage ACMs.

    The most likely way that ACMs in schools will be disturbed or damaged is through maintenance, repair or construction activities.

    Written by John Bennett, Health & Safety Panel

  • New Qualifications a Bureaucratic Mountain

    The SSTA is to conduct an Indicative Survey of its members on the bureaucratic burden associated with the implementation of the New Qualifications. This is in response to SSTA members across Scotland asking for some action to be taken to address the workload that is demoralising teachers in the current qualification cycle.

    Seamus Searson, SSTA General Secretary said “the situation that many teachers face in schools today in trying to do the best for their young people is intolerable. SSTA has listened to members and wants to put in measures to protect them and take teachers away from the bureaucratic mountain and return them to teaching and learning”.

    Seamus Searson added “the indicative survey will confirm the association’s view that the current situation cannot be allowed to continue and that new manageable arrangements need to be put in place for this year. The survey in January will highlight measures that teachers can take to reduce workload. Together with our new qualifications and workload survey we will have sufficient evidence to bring about real change.”

    The SSTA is currently surveying its members as to their confidence in delivering the New Qualifications. Initial returns indicate that 40% of teachers lack confidence in their ability to deliver the new Higher (Nat 6) qualifications with nearly 50% lacking confidence in their ability to assess the same qualifications. These figures increased to 75% and 84% respectively for the Advanced Higher Qualifications.

    The survey is showing that teachers are being required to teach different courses within the same class at the same time. 48% were teaching two courses (e.g. N4 and N5), 24% teaching three courses and 3% teaching 4 courses.

    When it came to the additional time required for completing the various tasks required by the SQA:

    • Internal moderation – 25% of teachers were spending more than 10 hours with a further 15% of teachers spending more than 20 hours per course.
    • External verification – 19% of teachers were spending more than 10 hours with 8% spending more than 20 hours.
    • Marking Unit Assessments – 32% of teachers were spending more than 10 hours with 54% spending more than 20 hours
    • Marking Added Value Units – 31% of teachers were spending more than 10 hours with 34% spending more than 20 hours
    • Data entry – 27% of teachers were spending more than 10 hours with 18% spending more than 20 hours

    However, when it came to the Working Time Agreements that identify the contractual work required of teachers 81% said they had not been given any additional time to complete the tasks. The findings of the completed survey will be released next week.

    Comments made by SSTA members

    “Over assessment has created serious workload issues, taking away from teaching and is very demoralising for pupils”

    “In 30 years of teaching I have never experienced stress levels and workload issues like I have in the past few years. I feel sorry for the young teachers coming into the profession as their work/life balance is extremely poor”.

    “The amount of paperwork surrounding each qualification and the micromanagement of assessment standards is beyond ridiculous”.

    Euan Duncan, SSTA President said

    “This survey is highlighting the challenge teachers having been dealing with in delivering the new qualifications and the lack of understanding that SQA and employers have in addressing teacher workload. It appears that assessment is being carried out for assessment’s sake and that teachers are not being allowed to develop their teaching”.

    Further information from

    Seamus Searson
    General Secretary
    0131 313 7300

     

  • Pre Retirement Seminars 2016

    In conjunction with Stuart McCullough from Llife ltd, the SSTA is holding a number of Pre-Retirement seminars at the beginning of 2016.

    These seminars are designed to give guidance to members who are considering retiring in the next few years. Members are advised to gain information that will assist in planning the next step in their future. A list of dates and venues of the seminars is listed below.

    Members interested in attending a seminar should contact head office to reserve your place or complete the on-line registration form .

    The following seminars are now fully booked. 

    Glasgow Mercure Hotel City Centre – Thursday 7 January 

    Glasgow Mercure Hotel City Centre  – Tuesday 9 February

     

    [table id=5 /]

    Members interested in attending a seminar should contact head office to reserve your place or complete the on-line registration form .

    Tel: 0131 313 7300 Email: info@ssta.org.uk

     

  • Vice President Election 2015 – 2017

    The result of the Vice President Election for 2015 – 2017

    [table id=4 /]

    I would like to congratulate Kevin Penrose-Campbell on his election and offer him all the best wishes during his term of office

    Yours sincerely

    Seamus Searson
    General Secretary

  • Named Person Complaints Consultation

    Printable Version

    As an association and individual teachers we were asked to contribute to the consultation process with regards to parental/carers complaints against the Part 4 (Named Person) and Part 5 (Childs Plan.) This advice note has been commissioned to update you on our responses.

    1. Should making complaints concerning functions relating to the Part 4 and/or Part 5 be restricted to a child, young person and parent as defined by the Children’ and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 (CYPA)?

     

    • Our response:-There should be an opportunity for professionals who are involved in creating or supporting Part 4 and Part 5 to identify any perceived failures with the planning and/or in the implementation of the child’s plan.

     

    1. Should the parent and child be entitled to request and authorise the assistance of other persons in making their complaint?

    Some parents/carers may require support in making a complaint.

    • To aid their understating of the process and how the outcome has been investigated and agreed.
    • Some parent/carers may require support to attend meetings and or an advocate during meetings.

     

    1. Should the merits of decision making about functions, as set out in Appendix A, under parts 4 and 5 be looked at by Scottish Public Service Ombudsman (SPSO)?

     

    • It would be valuable for people taking on the role of complaints co-ordinator to be trained by members of the SPSO team, so that there was a consistent level of understanding and practice across Scotland.
    • This would be good practice as it would create a consistent and transparent approach across Scotland.
    • This would enable parents/carers/pupils and members of the Sottish Government to see that complaints are being dealt with fairly and consistently.
    • SPSO should have a robust system in place to monitor complaint annually.

     

    1. Should complaints concerning functions relating to the Part 4 and/or Part 5 be considered as set out in Option 1?

    Option 1 would require the parent and child to make separate complaints to every organisation or body (e.g. Named Person Service, Managing Authority, Directing Authority, Relevant Authority, List Authority and any Third Person organisation) which is involved in this matter(s) relating to the provisions and functions of Parts 4 and 5 which are being complained about. (In essence the one complaint would have to be sent to and dealt with each organisation individually potentially up to 6 letters of complaints and 6 meeting to resolve the complaint.)

    • To do this would be a costly and time consuming activity with no clear outcome/benefit.
    • It could cause confusion and uncertainty for parent/carers, children and other staff involved in the process, as they would all be dealing with the same issue in a different manner with different timescales. They may also have completely different outcomes.
    • It may be worth considering how a parent/carer, child and Local Authority would deal with the one area of complaint that has after investigation and resolution ended up with a different outcome from each of the agencies involved. (Very confusing)

     

    1. Should complaints concerning functions relating to the Part 4 and/or Part 5 be considered as set out in Option 2?

    Under Option 2, the parent and child would make their complaint to the organisation providing the Named Person service for complaints made about Part 4 and/or the organisation acting as the managing authority for complaints made about the functions exercised by Part 5 of the Act. (Meaning that there would be one complaint issued that would be dealt with collegiately within the Local Authority supplying the service.)

     

    • This would eliminate the need for up to 6 letters of complaint, 6 reports of meeting and outcomes for the parent/carer, child and staff.
    • It complements the GIRFEC theory of one point of contact
    • However it does place a lot of responsibility on the complaint co-ordinator. They would require training and monitoring so that the Local Authority can eliminate any suggestions of bias
    One respondent felt that the parent/carers should have a choice about which method of complaint would be suitable for them. Either Option 1 or Option 2

     


     

    1. We invite comments on what should happen in situations where the Named Person service provider or the managing authority are coordinating the investigation of a complaint involving other bodies where they may agree with the parent and child at the outset.

     

    • Any complaints of this nature would where possible be dealt with during the meeting to create or review a child’s plan. If this is not the case then the formal route should be followed and the complaints co-ordinator should take on this role.
    • The flowcharts make it clear that once a complaint has been formalised an investigation has to take place and any comments from that investigation have to be made explicit and have a clear rationale in a letter to the complainant. Would this not help counter bias?
    • Complaints co-ordinators need to be trained alongside members of the SPSO staff so that they are working in line with the SPSO policy and procedural framework.

    Reason/s

    • Training of the complaints co-ordinators would provide clear and un-biased pathways to any complaints with regard to Part 4 and Part 5.
    • It will also give an opportunity for the SPSO to review the work of the complaints co-ordinators, to ascertain that consistency is being maintained across the country.

     

    1. We invite comments/suggestions on what information and guidance on the complaints process would help parents and children.

     

    • To commission ENQUIRE to produce a parent/carer/child friendly support booklet in various languages to aid the understanding of the complaints process.
    • Create case studies for parent/carers/children and staff in various topical areas to enable the understanding of the process
    • Questions have been asked about who would be responsible for the checks and balances of the SPSO. What government body could people access if they had a complaint against the SPSO?

    For additional information:

    http://www.childreninscotland.org.uk/sites/default/files/complaints%20response.pdf

    http://www.childreninscotland.org.uk/consultation/consultation-on-complaints-concerning-
    functions-relating-to-the-named-person-and-childs

    http://www.spso.org.uk/sites/spso/files/consultations-and-inquiries/2015/151030SPSOResponseN
    PConsultation.pdf

  • Changes to pay and pension contributions backdated to April 2015

    As of April 2014 those at the top of the classroom teacher payscale were paying a pension contribution of 9.5%. When the new tiered contributions were introduced in April 2015 the bandings meant that the pension contributions for those at the top of the payscale i.e. up to £34,999 dropped to 8.7%. However, with the backdated pay increase, these members will have jumped back into the tier whose contributions are now 9.7% i.e. from £35,000 to £41,499. This means that any backdated pay will be offset by the backdating of extra pension contributions.

    The tiered contributions were agreed by the teachers’ side of the SNCT to ensure that those at the lower end of the payscale paid less and those at the top paid more. If this had not been agreed the flat rate, paid by everyone, required to maintain the value of the pension fund would have been 9.6%.

    As with all pension increases the tiered bandings will move each April in line with the CPI rate set on the previous September. Please note that CPI in September 2015 was negative so there will be no change in the tiered bandings in April 2016.

    Changes to National Insurance Contributions from April 2016

    At the moment, if you are a member of your employer’s pension scheme, you pay a 1.4% lower (contracted out) rate of National Insurance contribution on earnings between £112 and £155 per week. This means that you are not currently entitled to the higher rate state pension. However, from April 2016, contracting out is ending and you will pay the full National Insurance contribution, this means you will start to accrue benefits in the new single tier state pension from that date.