WHAT'S ALL THIS ABOUT NEW MANAGEMENT
ALLOWANCES?
Who is making these proposals?
The Rewards & Incentives Group (RIG)
Who are they?
The DƒES, NASUWT, ATL, SHA, NAHT, PAT
That list doesn’t include the NUT - is that right?
Yes. The NUT is not part of RIG and would not want to be associated with these proposals.
So what are these proposals?
To scrap the existing Management Allowance structure so that ALL existing Management Allowances would disappear. Instead there would be two Teaching and Learning Responsibility Payments (TLRs):
· TLR 2 would be worth between £2,250 and £5,500
· TLR 1 would be worth between £6,500 and £11,000
How would those TLR ranges work?
Teachers would be paid a spot salary somewhere on the range but there is no incremental progression: TLRs are not pay scales. The RIG suggests that each range should be sub-divided with at least £1500 between each spot salary - so presumably you would have TLR 1a, 1b etc. It is not clear if these subdivisions would be decided nationally (by the review body) or at a school level.
TLRs seem higher than existing Management Allowances. Isn’t this good news?
The RIG states that the cost of all TLRs will be no more than the total cost of the existing Management Allowance structure, and probably less. The Government has already said that too many teachers are on Management Allowances. The proposals anticipate far fewer teachers having TLRs.
What could you be awarded a TLR for?The following are quotes from the RIG proposals:
· “A TLR payment may only be made to a teacher who is accountable for a significant, specified responsibility focused on teaching and learning, that is not required of all classroom teachers ... [but]... requiring teachers’ professional skills and judgement”
· “for a sustained responsibility in the context of the school’s staffing structure needed to ensure continued delivery of high-quality teaching and learning.”
· “having line management responsibility for a significant number of people” (possibly just TLR1)
Does this mean some existing roles could not attract a TLR?
Yes. Admin. type roles such as Exams Officer, and Cover Organiser could not attract TLRs; neither could roles such as Careers or Work Experience.
Pastoral work would also be excluded.
The key question would be "Does this role absolutely need the professional expertise of a teacher?” Unless the answer is an unequivocal Yes then a TLR should not be awarded.
What happens if the grade of my new post means that I would be paid less than now?
See Safeguarding below.
What happens if I don't get a TLR in the new structure?
See Safeguarding below.
Safeguarding of Salaries - what happens now?
Currently, when re-organisation takes place, salary levels are safeguarded for as long as the individual remains in their new post. So, in Bradford's recent school re-organisation, a teacher on MA2, who got a job in a new school on MA1, was still paid at MA2. Their substantive post was now MA1 but they had one further safeguarded management point.
What does RIG propose? Safeguarding, for whatever purpose, would be limited to three years and would be on a cash basis. This means that in the example above, the individual would initially be paid at their current MA2 salary, but would receive no increases until the cash value of their new substantive salary had caught up with their safeguarded salary. There would be no further safeguarding; i.e. the cash value of the safeguarding reduces with every pay rise.
After three years on a safeguarded salary the individual would lose any remaining safeguarding.
Under the proposed timetable, all safeguarding brought about by the new TLRs would end by 31 December 2008.
What would happen, for example, to teachers with current pastoral responsibilities?
A teacher who is a currently a Head of Year is unlikely to find an equivalent post in the new structure. If they were unsuccessful in obtaining another type of post in the new structure they would become a mainscale teacher on a protected salary. After three years they would lose any remaining protection.
Could this new system effect pensions?
Very definitely YES. The amount of your pension is based on your best year’s salary in the three years before retirement. Those on safeguarded salaries could lose out if their salary drops prior to retirement.
The NUT calculates that some teachers would be better off retiring early on an actuarially reduced pension, rather than continuing in employment on a lower salary.
So ask yourself - “What affect will this have on me and my colleagues? What can we do?"
The NUT has made its case to the Government and to the School Teachers' Review Body but we have some difficulty since all other unions have agreed to the proposals.Talk to your colleagues in other unions - let's see if we can change their minds.
MPs LOBBIED ON GOVERNMENT'S
PENSION ROBBERY
As most people will know by now, the Government is proposing to raise the age at which teachers are able to gain access to their full pension from 60 to 65. The proposal for different areas of the public sector differ in detail, but the thing which unites all of the unions is anger over the Government’s proposals to reduce the value of their pensions.
The Bradford NUT delegates were able to meet local MPs Chris Leslie and Marsha Singh. The delegates concentrated on the teachers’ case, arguing that teaching is not a profession in which people can be expected to work until 65, and that consequently teachers stand to lose a large amount of the value of their pension.
Chris Leslie and Marsha Singh agreed to represent our views with the appropriate ministers.
The NUT will continue to fight these proposals.