From MAs to TLRs TEACHERS’ PAY IN THE MELTING POT

From MAs to TLRsTEACHERS’ PAYIN 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 OFTHE 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

From MAs to TLRs TEACHERS’ PAY IN THE MELTING POT