TALKING MAY HELP RESOLVE PUPIL INDISCIPLINE

“Talking may actually help reduce the problems of classroom indiscipline,” was the rather unusual statement from the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association today. “The indications which we are receiving from members in schools are that talking helps – when talking is amongst the teachers. Many schools have been working on a strategy of dealing with matters relating to pupil discipline through a committee involving senior managers and classroom teachers,” said David Eaglesham, SSTA General Secretary. “This use of such a committee permits a school-wide analysis of behaviour problems and responses by teachers and senior managers. It gives a focus for reviewing initiatives taken and for proposing and adopting new solutions. Those schools which are experimenting with this approach report that there has been significant improvement in dealing with problems and in the number of problems occurring.”

Based on their information, the Association will be carrying out a survey early in 2006 to establish how widespread this approach is and how effective it has been. “If our survey contains the reports received thus far, this approach may be helpful for many schools as part of their strategy to deal with pupil indiscipline and the management of behaviour. These issues remain at the forefront of concern among teachers, and remain also a hindrance to improving standards in schools. As ever, no single ‘magic bullet' solution will be found, but each significant contribution to addressing the overall problem is most valuable.”

Further details from:David Eaglesham, General Secretary

Mobile: 07770 988312

MCCRONE - THE FINAL TEST

Some five years ago after it was approved, the McCrone Agreement on pay and conditions for teachers faces its final test as 2006 approaches. The Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association today warned its members that a crucial final stage of the implementation needs to be dealt with in coming weeks.

"For many teachers, the McCrone Agreement may seem as if it is from a previous era, and in terms of pay that is largely true. We are now almost in the third year of the pay agreement which followed the McCrone settlement," said David Eaglesham, General Secretary of the SSTA. "What remains, however, is probably the most difficult aspect of all within the agreement - the so-called "Collegiality" concept. This involves, firstly, the final reduction in class contact for teachers from August 2006, but much more controversially, the potential abandonment of the discretion of individual teachers about how to balance their working week is directed."

At present, teachers have 8 hours of the working week given to them for marking and preparation. Under the system proposed from August 2006 onwards, there would be no "protected time" of this nature. Instead, the only limitation within the 35 hours "working week" will be the limit on class contact. Many teachers fear that the time they can currently devote to marking and preparation for pupils will be swallowed up by "corporate activities" within the school or local authority. This would effectively force teachers to add up to 8 hours to their actual working week which is generally reported at 42-43 hours already. "Abandoning this protected time is something which teachers will only agree to if and when they are completely convinced that the time they currently devote to marking and preparation will not be reduced in any way, but rather increased to allow for better delivery of education to young people.

Previous experience has shown us that ‘corporate activities’ can be expanded almost infinitely to fill any available time. If this is the approach planned for schools, then teachers will refuse to go along with it. The first and most important activity is the teaching and learning process – time must be made available for this before any bureaucratic exercises are contemplated."

The decision on how to proceed beyond August 2006 will be taken in national discussions in the first few months of the year.

Further details from:David Eaglesham

General Secretary 29 December 2005 [/html]

In his New Year message to SSTA members, General Secretary, David Eaglesham, warned of the threat to pensions which will be faced in 2004.

“Members will already be aware of the Government's proposals to increase the pension age for teachers from 60 to 65 from 2006 for new entrants and from 2013 for existing teachers.This will have a major impact on many serving teachers, especially those aged 49 and under at present. It will also have a major impact on future recruitment of new staff which may in turn lead to a shortage of teachers and part-time education”.

“Members will also have noted that their AVC or FSAVC provisions are unlikely to be performing well; and in some cases may be performing very badly.”

“This year may also bring the potential of increased levels of contribution to the pension scheme. Longer life after retirement has contributed to increased costs to the scheme.”

“In 1981, the average life expectancy of a male teacher at age 60 was 80 years of age. By 2001 this had risen to 86 years of age. For a women teacher the equivalent figures were 84 and 88.5 years of age. The burden of this on the Scheme is very considerable and is unlikely to reduce over coming years as health standards continue to rise.”

“Members will be faced with some difficult choices as the year progresses. They will have to seek advice from professional advisers and from the Association to ensure that they are best placed to face retirement.”

“The Association has for many years run Retirement Planning Courses to give advice to members. These will again run in 2004, and are already heavily subscribed.”

“The Association will continue to advise members and will be calling on them to campaign against the Government proposals during the year.”

Further details from:David Eaglesham

General Secretary2 January 2004

CURB ON UNRULY PARENTS

The Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association today outlined a proposal to deal with unacceptable behaviour by a small number of parents attending Parents' Meetings in secondary schools in Scotland.

The Association has noticed a significant rise in reports of incidents at Parents' Meetings in which individual parents have become abusive and occasionally unruly whilst meeting with staff.

“It is most regrettable that such incidents appear to be on the rise” said David Eaglesham, General Secretary.

“Although there are very few such instances, the Association has a ‘zero-tolerance' view of these and is seeking to alert schools to the need to have plans in place to deal with abusive, threatening or violent behaviour by parents.”

Reports to the SSTA within the last year have included cases of teacher being subjected to prolonged harassment, verbal abuse, threats of violence and physical assault.

“Our own Head Teachers' Panel has just prepared an advice leaflet for all schools reiterating the Association position on violence in all forms, and offering practical advice on how to deal with it. This is a timely document and we will be commending it to all schools. Application of the recommendations in this will help avoid incidents at Parents'

Meetings.”The Association is particularly concerned about the subsequent behaviour of parents who have previously been warned about their conduct within school.

“If there is a history of inappropriate behaviour, then schools, with the backing of their local authority, must consider banning these parents from attending general meetings of parents and setting up separate scheduled and supervised contact instead. This would only apply in a tiny minority of cases, but plans need to be in place for this before problems occur.”

“This is not a problem unique to education, but one familiar to colleagues in healthcare, the emergency services and front line public service in general. A consistent line on such matters is essential to protect employees.”

Further information from

DAVID EAGLESHAM

General Secretary

CONCERN FOR PUPIL HEALTH

The Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association today announced a campaign to highlight its concerns about the lack of legislative protection for children and young people with regard to health and safety whilst they are in schools.

As the law stands at present, workers benefit from extensive heath and safety provisions in law and in regulations. Thus, in a school, all employees, both teaching and non-teaching, have rights and responsibilities with regard to health and safety because they are “at work”. These provisions will then apply to around 10% of the people who operate daily within a school, but as pupils make up the remaining 90% they are not covered by law. The only references to those using a building but not working there is that “suitable regard” should be had to them when considering health and safety issues.

It has always been agreed that non-employees could not be catered for because they are essentially a transient population. For example, shoppers in a store will change by the minute, railway passengers will only use the trains perhaps twice a day. The situation for school pupils is entirely different, however, as they will spend almost 30 hours per week in the one building and very infrequently do they move to another school. From age 5-16 they are required by law to be in attendance at school.

“It is high time that pupils are given the same status as teachers and other staff in schools. It is no longer sufficient for them to be given secondary consideration when planning buildings and determining proper facilities” said David Eaglesham, General Secretary.

“Experiences in many PFI funded projects shows clearly that pupils are not given sufficient consideration in respect of health and safety. If mandatory standards were established mirroring those which apply to adults then the situation would be much more satisfactory.”The issue was highlighted at a recent conference of school estates by the two SSTA delegates who emphasised current building deficiencies and noted that experience taught us that pupil behaviour in schools improved significantly where well appointed and well designed buildings gave pupils a sense of pride and responsibility.

“The Association will, as a first step, raise the issue with the Scottish Executive with a view to developing parallel standards to mirror legislative Health & Safety provision”.

Further information from

DAVID EAGLESHAM

General Secretary

SSTA WARNS OF IMPACT OF FALLING TEACHER NUMBERS

The Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association today warned of the short term impact of the increasing age profile of the teaching profession.

“It is well documented that the age profile of teachers is hugely skewed to the top end and that the “bulge” is moving close to the point when significant drops in teacher numbers will occur. Whilst there has been some coverage of the need to replace those retiring teachers and the problems associated with this, much less has been said about the short-term impact as this generation moves towards retirement” said David Eaglesham, General Secretary.

“Increasing levels of age-related illness amongst older teachers will change the balance of supply needs in schools over the coming year. Demand for cover will increase at a time when available supply is already at a low ebb. Already many schools find severe difficulty in obtaining replacement staff for short and medium term absences, with consequent disruption for schools. Steps must be put in place now to address this problem before it becomes a crisis.”

The Association is reiterating its existing advice to members that they must not cover the classes of absent colleagues beyond the limits of their local or national agreements. A revised and updated information leaflet will be issued to schools early in 2005.

“All of our members will act professionally as always and ensure the best interest of young people are always paramount. This will not include, however, interminable additional cover of classes to the detriment of provision for a teacher's existing workload. No rational person would ask airline pilots or train drivers to continue to do additional hours beyond the contractual limits for fear of the consequences. Teachers should be treated likewise.”

Further information fromDAVID EAGLESHAM

General Secretary

The attached press release was issued on 26 March 2003 regarding the possibility of the Association balloting members in Argyll and Bute on industrial action over the authority's proposal for Secondary Schools

The SSTA will today hand to Peter Peacock, Minister of Education, a petition from secondary teachers in Scotland who are outraged at the downgrading of over 2/3rds of promoted posts in secondary schools in Scotland. The handing over of the petition, collected under the banner of “Mail the Minister” will take place at Victoria Quay at 1pm on Wednesday 9 July 2003.

The petition comes as a consequence of the “Job Sizing” process imposed on schools under the McCrone Agreement. Following this process, which cost well over £1m, over two thirds of promoted teachers in secondary schools will see their posts downgraded despite increased rather than decreased levels of work being demanded in schools. The set of criteria used are, in the view of the SSTA, arbitrary, and bring about a vastly greater element and downgrading than was ever contemplated when teachers voted for the Agreement in 2001.(outline details of the effects are appended)

“Teachers are outraged that they are having to endure such an arbitrary slur on their commitment and dedication to pupils” said David Eaglesham, General Secretary. “The work demanded has never been greater and has increased since signing the Agreement. However, by the use of statistical sophistry, to job sizing process has managed to alienate and enrage teachers in secondary schools.”

The petition, signed by over 1300 teachers calls on the Minister to refer back the outcome of the process to ensure the result is fairer and more equitable.

The petition will be handed over by Alan McKenzie, SSTA President and David Eaglesham, General Secretary on behalf on the Association and the signatories.

“The whole process of giving out the details of job sizing so late in the term, and later than had been planned, has only increased cynicism about the exercise. Already we are seeing instances where the process led to increases actually leading to local authorities reducing scores at will. This gives the lie to any suggestion that the process was fair or transparent.”

Further information fromDAVID EAGLESHAM

General Secretary

KIDS -V- CASHA RESPONSE TO RE-STRUCTURING IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS What is the biggest challenge facing Scottish education today? Raising pupil attainment? Improving the quality of teaching? Introducing new, more appropriate courses and qualifications? Monitoring and improving pupil behaviour? Perhaps all of these?

Given the much publicised “21st Century Agreement” between teachers, local authorities and the Scottish Executive, the general public might be forgiven for assuming that Scotland is well placed to take on these challenges. Unfortunately this is not the case in secondary schools. Why? The 21st Century Agreement was certainly intended to usher in a new era in Scottish education. Teachers were given a 21% “catch up” pay rise over three years. Schools were given increased resources to pay for additional support for teachers. A new programme, the Chartered Teacher programme, was brought in to allow teachers to improve their classroom skills and augment their salaries. Plans were put in place to improve the management structures of primary schools.

These measures may ultimately improve teacher morale and pupil achievement and attainment but all that will be set at nought if proposals being implemented by many local authorities are progressed. These local authorities intend to cut a swathe through Principal Teacher posts in secondary schools. These are the posts which are responsible for delivering effective teaching and learning, monitoring pupil behaviour within departments and implementing new courses. In short, Principal Teachers are at the “sharp end” of all the issues mentioned at the beginning of this piece. The layman might be forgiven for expressing incredulity that these posts should be axed at such a time. It is as if Neville Chamberlain had returned from Munich and promptly cancelled Britain's re-armament programme.As if it was not bad enough that these posts are to be done away with, local authorities are heading in this direction via 32 different routes. West Lothian Council for example, is appointing new “Principal Teachers - Curriculum” as current postholders retire or are promoted. The consequence of this policy is that the new “Super PT” may be responsible for a bizarre combination of subjects. There are also huge variations in responsibilities between different “Super PTs” in different schools. One is responsible only for Mathematics and Business Education. Another for PE, Music, CDT and Art. Yet, pending job sizing, both are currently paid the same salary. Will the job sizing tool kit be able to accommodate both posts on the PT scale without significant changes to their responsibilities? If the answer is “Yes”, who will take on any responsibilities which may have to be shed by the weightier post? Certainly not unpromoted teachers. If a responsibility may be rewarded by points in the tool kit, no sane classroom teacher will touch it.

Other authorities have taken a less pragmatic but perhaps more honest approach. In, Falkirk, only a few miles from West Lothian, all current PTs will apply for a pre-determined raft of “Super PT” posts and those who are unsuccessful will effectively revert to classroom teachers. How the new breed of “Super PT” will cope with developing the curriculum, ensuring pupil discipline and monitoring teaching standards in a wide range of subject areas is anyone's guess. We are told that one school is forming one faculty by simply combining the group of subjects taught in the same corridor. This probably has the merit of convenience, if not of educational soundness. We will know for sure in August 2004 when unsuccessful applicants will demit their responsibilities. At least the pupils and parents of Falkirk will know fairly quickly. It may take several years until their counterparts in West Lothian are similarly enlightened.

A number of issues have clearly never been considered by the architects of these schemes. If Principal Teachers subject are no longer around, who will take on the task of mentoring probationer teachers? While it is true that many of the Probationer's needs are generic, they are ultimately subject specialists. Since the new Probationer Training scheme permits qualification in only one secondary subject, there will be even greater demands for subject specialist support during Induction. If Probationers are placed in schools where there is no subject Principal Teacher and other subject teachers are also inexperienced, how can the school meet its contractual responsibility for support and development of newly qualified teachers?

What of Health and Safety issues? Will a super PT in charge of, say CDT, be aware of all the HASAW implications of the various procedures carried out in a CDT department. The only advice which might be given to a teacher in such a department is not to undertake any such activity where there is the remotest doubt concerning the Health and Safety of staff and pupils. Science labs, Home Economics rooms and PE may become “ghost subjects” in such schools. They might appear on the timetable but there may be little practical content to the curriculum.

Reducing the overall number of PTs in a school has significant implications for Guidance and pastoral care. Whatever managers and other teachers may think of Guidance (and PSE), it is clear that students value the service of dedicated guidance teachers, who have undertaken appropriate professional development. Brian Boyd's survey for Inverclyde – the only authority which has consulted its students – established unequivocally that students prefer to talk to promoted guidance staff. The suggestion that each or any teacher in a school is equally able to undertake guidance roles, with no specific training, is simply ludicrous. Alternative models of pastoral care, such as some First Line Guidance proposals, will not meet the needs of pupils and parents.

And what of the teacher unions? The Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association has already threatened industrial action over re-structuring proposals in Argyll and Bute which would have had the effect of demoting existing postholders.

Changes in management structures need to be based on sound educational principles and must deliver the curriculum effectively. There is little evidence of this in the varied proposals being advanced. There is a case to be made for introducing a more flexible remit for some Principal Teacher posts. The secondary curriculum is arguably over specialised. For years, school managers have complained that the system of calculating promoted postholders' salaries in secondary schools by pupil roll alone was far too blunt an instrument. For all its flaws, the job sizing tool kit offers the possibility of a far more flexible structure which would allow the creation of new posts while still protecting subject teaching by appointing PTs at lower points on the PT scale with an appropriate, job sized remit.

The question that needs to be asked is, ‘What is a school's primary function?' Answer: “providing effective and appropriate education for Scotland's children.” Sadly, this does not seem to be evident to many local authorities, for whom protecting the secondary curriculum takes a lower priority than saving cash. In addition, the whole idea of re-structuring management posts is the ideological imperative of educational administrators who wish to create a structure which is responsive to their “vision”. They may be successful in achieving this. Whether they will be successful in meeting the needs of Scotland's children and the expectations of their parents is another matter entirely.

Further details available from: Barbara Clark

Assistant General Secretary20 October 2003