Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to provide members of the Education Select Committee with the National Union of Teache rs’ initial thoughts on ‘The Importance of Teaching’ Schools White Paper, prior to the appearance of the Secretary of State for
Education before the Committee on 14 December.
These notes simply provide a list of issues as they arise through the document rather than provide a critique of the bigger picture that the White Paper represents. The wider implications of these proposals
– and what is missing from them - are, of course, vitally important and further analysis will follow, particularly when the Bill is published early next year.
The Department for Education (DfE) has published three additional documents which require equal scrutiny and further analysis
– these are ‘Schools White Paper Overarching Equality Impact Assessment’ , an ‘ Economic Impact As sessment’ and ‘The Case for
Change’ . These can be found at http://www.education.gov.uk/b0068570/the-importance-of-teaching/
Chapter 2: Teaching and leadership
Proposal
The Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) skills test to be moved to the start of the course. Reduced re-sit options and the tests to be made more difficult
NUT comment
Agree should be moved to start, but concerned about impact on range of applicants accepted to Initial Teacher Training (ITT), especially hard on dyslexics and those who get flustered by rapid onscreen test system.
ITT not funded for people with below 2:2 degree Concern that it will reduce diversity of workforce, particularly teaching
1

Expand Teach First assistants who wish to be teachers
Question mark over whether this can be scaled up from current very small numbers; difficulty of securing sufficient schools to place candidates; capacity of primary schools may be an issue
A new national network of teaching schools for ITT and
Continuous Professional Development (CPD) and university
Need more details, but capacity of teaching schools may be an issue; additional responsibility being placed on teachers without recognition training schools for ITT has already generated casework in current Training Schools
Increase proportion of time trainees spend in the classroom Trainees on PGCE courses already spend over 60 per cent of time in classroom, so misinterpretation of evidence. Will need to change regulations/statutory guidance for ITT providers
ITT to focus on reading, maths and behaviour
Introduce aptitude test as part of ITT interview process
Very reductionalist, no room for theoretical perspective or study of child development. Evidence also shows that ITT graduates not prepared to support English as additional language (EAL) pupils or necessarily work in multicultural classrooms – no mention of these issues.
Will need to see details but psychometric testing has been discredited and disproportionally impacts on black and minority ethnic (BME) people.
Financial incentives for shortage subjects for PGCE, possibility of repayment of student loans.
Targeted support for career changers via Teach Next
Incentives should be equally available to all, regardless of route/phase/subject. Experience has shown that targeted incentives do not address the fundamental causes of teacher supply problems – these are attributable to pay, conditions and status issues.
Concerns about Fast Track into Leadership programme. Need to learn lessons of the previous programme, which was very expensive but unsuccessful
Troops to Teachers programme, a sponsored PGCE course or a condensed BEd course.
Expansion of school-centred initial teacher training
(SCITTs) and Graduate Teacher Programme (GTP)
Unfair financial advantage. Concerns about whether candidates would have suitable qualifications. Contradicts other reforms proposed here
Union surveys and Ofsted have identified concerns about variations in quality of these programmes programmes with central application system.
Undergraduate scholarships available if students commit to Could be useful, need more details
2

teaching for a fixed period
Training and Development Agency (TDA) functions will transfer to DfE
Reduction in bureaucracy and red tape
Schools can still use flexibilities in pay to recruit and retain staff despite pay freeze, including pupil premium funding.
School Te achers’ Review Body (STRB) to look at even greater flexibilities in early 2011
Shortened and simplified competency procedures, remove duplication between performance management and capability
Review professional standards and General Teaching
Council Code of Conduct
New arrangements for professional misconduct and incompetence. DfE to take over from GTC (England). New judgements either ‘barred’ or ‘not barred’.
Remove statutory duties and requirements, for example, cooperation with Children’s Trusts, local authority production of Children and Young People’s Plan. Remove prescription on governing bodies, for example, consultation on changes to the length of the school day, ending centralised target setting.
Make clear no format for written lesson plans required by either DfE or Ofsted. Similarly, no prescription about the
Capacity to oversee all ITT and CPD? Does this mean the TDA will be abolished?
Pay flexibility is part of the problem, not the solution. The national pay structure is essential in a system comprising well over 20,000 separate workplaces: it puts in place a rate for the job and safeguards equal opportunities. Any moves to break up the national pay structure will have serious implications for teachers’ pay – increased pay discretion leads to downward pressure on pay levels and prospects
What duplication? Very concerned that may make support elements of processes less important. Political move to be seen to be tough on poor teachers. Needs equality proofing as black teachers are disproportionately more likely to be put through competency procedures
Welcome reviews. The profession will need to have an input into both. Code is in legislation but will it need to be amended if only the content of the Code changes?
Must be a role for the profession to oversee conduct itself. Two judgement options only may be a very blunt instrument, hard to give either judgement for more complex cases. Will need legislation to transfer function from GTC (England)
While some of these are very important democratic functions which need to be retained, will need to make judgements on case-by-case basis. Some of these are currently legal requirements which would need to be repealed
Welcome. Look forward to receiving a clear statement on this.
3

use of
Assessing Pupils’ Progress (APP).
A culture of CPD will exist
Single designation to include Advanced Skills Teachers,
Excellent Teachers and Leading Teachers.
To look at rolling-out of Chartered London Teacher model nationally.
Competitive National Scholarship Scheme from 2011 to support teachers’ subject knowledge.
Remove three hour limit to classroom observation.
Unclear whether the individual functions of each of these three designations denoted would be retained. Indicates that Professional
Standards Framework will be streamlined. Revisions to the School
Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD) will be needed
Apparent confusion between limits to performance management observation and observation for CPD purposes, e.g. peer observation
Teachers need equal access to CPD if this is to work, also additional funding which is a key part of the London scheme
Need details on how it would work, but should be an entitlement for all teachers not just for a few willing to jump through hoops to be awarded a scholarship
Significant increase in National Leaders of Education
Review of National Professional Qualification for Headship
(NPQH), a new qualification to be offered from
September 2011
National College to have an enhanced role and take on training of governors an d leaders of Children’s Centres
Continued support for Future Leaders and Teaching
Leaders programmes
Double the number of National Leaders of Education and
Local Leaders of Education by 2015
Teaching Schools to take on training and deployment of
National Leaders of Education and Local Leaders of
Education in addition to Middle Leaders programmes and to
Have had concerns about content of NPQH, particularly people management and National College “clones”. Need to see detail.
This is logical. Need to see how ‘arm’s length’ National College will be from Government.
Welcome, but very small scale at the moment. No mention of how lack of underrepresented groups in school leadership will be tackled
Welcome use of serving head teachers to support the system, but have to be issues of capacity and workload for individuals. Also, knock-on effect on their schools when they are out doing this work
Serious concerns about capacity given duties expected in relation to
ITT, CPD and middle management training: they still have to teach children too
4

identify potential heads for the future
Succession planning in areas where need is most will continue to be funded centrally
Chapter 3: Behaviour
Proposal
Extend power to search to include pornography, tobacco and fireworks (already alcohol, knives, and other weapons, controlled drugs and stolen property) Also introduce a more general power for anything that might cause harm
Use of force
Welcome, but should continue funding nationally, rather than just in shortage “hot spots”. Rather short-sighted view
NUT comment
Concerns about teachers having to police students
– we argued for a general power to protect against imminent harm during debate on
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill (2009).
Anonymity for teachers accused
Abolish requirement to give 24 hour notice for detentions
Significantly slim down guidance on bullying
Reform of exclusion appeals process
May welcome clarification of existing legislation – but largely happy with current guidance which already allows physical restraint and for children to be comforted
– critical issue is that teachers will not face any unforeseen consequences as a result of them using such powers. That needs clear guidance and procedures
Welcome but need to see detail, and how will this relate to suspensions? These should be avoided where possible and where there is no immediate risk to children
Should schools be advised to continue to give adequate notice to parents as a matter of good practice?
Is this possible without leaving out important detailed advice?
Welcome emphasis on homophobic bullying
What happens to children who have been permanently excluded?
What recourse do they have if there is no chance that they might be reinstated? Will this mean that parents and children have to resort to the courts? (if so there is very real chance that the courts could become back logged). Taken alongside the cuts in legal aid budgets you are effectively ruling any possibility of appeal out for poorer families
5

Chapter 4: Curriculum, assessment and qualifications
Review of National Curriculum
Proposal
Tighter, more rigorous model of the knowledge every child is expected to master at every key stage, but also will become a rigorous benchmark rather than prescriptive straightjacket acquired
Traditional subjects disciplines
Teachers will be freer to decide how subject knowledge is
NUT comment
This is an extremely contradictory policy position. We need to see the detail, but there appears to be a strong element of prescription here. Fear any references to inclusion, equality and the global dimension may be removed. What could be lost in a core based curriculum is the focus on cultural understanding and diversity across the curriculum. The proposals take no account of the success of the relatively new Secondary Curriculum, which was thoroughly consulted on and welcomed by secondary teachers. Will current
National Curriculum legislation cover these changes?. The NUT supported the opportunities created in the Secondary Curriculum for cross-curricula learning
Strong prejudice against thematic teaching despite evidence that it works. Also contradicts what is said above about prescription
Pedagogy has always officially been the domain of teachers.
However, the Government now intends to prescribe how teachers teach reading via phonics – another contradiction
No surprises. If good for academies and free schools, why not good for all schools?
Academies and free schools will continue to be able to disapply parts of the National Curriculum
Early focus on reading
Phonics is described as the best method for teaching reading
A very selective reading of evidence and contradictory to what has been said about freeing up teachers
6

Support for teaching phonics for every school, funding for training and for classroom teaching resources
Reading and phonics to be a particular focus of Ofsted inspections and ITT
Would welcome more broadly-based funding and resources to support the teaching of reading
Contradicts what is said elsewhere about the Government not meddling or dictating the agenda for Ofsted or for initial teaching training
Real concerns about this, especially as will be linked to accountability. This moves focus away from the diagnostic
Reading check at age 6. Result will be reported via Raise
Online
Assessment of pupils at each transition change
Reading test at age 6, plus Key Stage 2 tests, seen as assessments in primary for this
New testing agency will oversee statutory tests and assessments for children up to age 14
Concerns as above
Why remove this function from Qualifications and Curriculum
Development Agency (QCDA) which already has the expertise and set up another body? Likely to be waste of money.
Review of Key Stage 2 testing
The remit of the Review is described as seeking to retain a strong basis for accountability and information to parents and secondary schools
The Government will ensure that pupils take part in international tests of literacy, maths and science
This implies that there will be little change from the model of testing at the end of Key Stage 2
Welcome, but not explained how they will ensure this. Does it intend to require/legislate for schools to participate and, if so, how does this square with the “freedom” agenda?
Dependent on previous proposal working. Offer good alternative assessment model to SATs.
Ofqual to report on standards at ages 11 and 16, comparing
England with high performing nations
Introduction of English Baccalaureate
The English Baccalaureate to encourage schools to offer a broad set of academic subjects to age 16. This will be given special recognition in performance tables
Concern this will only encourage further competition between schools and exacerbate further academic and vocational education divide as it is likely that vocational qualifications will be recorded separately in
7

performance tables and, therefore, could be seen as ‘second best’.
There is no evidence that such a measure of performance will be a ‘powerful incentive’ to all schools with a diverse intake of pupils
Reform of GCSEs and A levels
Whi te Paper states ‘we are working with Ofqual, awarding bodies & HEIs’
Proposal to move to completely linear qualifications
No mention of consultation with teachers in schools. The development of qualifications such as A levels, should not be the main responsibility of any one body or organisation as there is a danger of ideological bias taking over qualification development.
Concerned about potential loss of modular approach which may be better suited to certain learners
Vocational education
Unhelpful assumptions made about quality of qualifications,
“too many young people are following courses because they are easy for schools or colleges to deliver or because they confer advantages in the accountability system”.
Commitment to increase minimum leaving age
No acknowledgement of a need to build on what has been successful or that courses such as BTechs and City & Guilds awards are popular with learners, pre and post-16
Welcome. No mention of how NEETs will be supported by providing suitable progression routes into education, training or employment.
No mention is made in the White Paper on progression routes in qualification using Foundation Learning or Entry Level qualifications
8

Chapter 5: New Schools System
Academies programme to be expanded
Proposal
Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) to be allowed to become academies
NUT comment
Lowest performing schools, those attaining poorly and those in Ofsted’s categories and not improving will be transformed into academies. This includes primary and special schools
Legislation will be introduced to extend the Secretary of
State’s powers to close schools subject to a notice to improve
Free Schools
Free Schools will be demand-led and their geographical distribution will depend on individuals and organisations coming forward to play a role in improving provision in their community
Government to make it easier to secure land and premises for new schools
Will legislate to strengthen controls on disposal of existing school premises to ensure they can be available for Free
Some of society’s most vulnerable children are educated and supported in PRUs – how will private providers be monitored and made accountable for their actions and decisions in relation to these children?
Shifting the goalposts on floor targets and criteria for Secretary of
State to intervene. This is a way of rapidly expanding Academies programme by force where persuasion has failed. Can already be done via powers in Academies Act. Serious concerns about two tier system and segregation in Academies and Free Schools
Ratcheting up of Secret ary of State’s powers, a way of increasing numbers of academies. Implies these will be run by existing sponsors and/or chains
Emphasis on ‘improving’ provision rather than meeting need for additional places.
Overrides principles of local democratic planning overseen by local authority in interests of the whole community. Concerned about lack of requirement for outdoor play space
May be tensions here between wider needs of the local community and demands of a small group of parents
9

Schools
All Free Schools will be able to access financial support to secure premises
– a commitment to support capital investment in ‘pioneer Free Schools’.
Studio Schools and University Technical Colleges are new types of schools that are likely to be established as Free
Schools
Building Schools for the Future (BSF) money being used for the establishment of Free Schools
Concern that t hese technical academies will lead to ‘selection by the back door’. Students will be channelled into narrow, separate, paths at the age of 14, leading to a two-tier system with technical schools being seen as the poor cousin
New strategic role for local authority
Greater freedom by removing central targets, regulations, ring-fencing
Key roles described as: o Developing own school improvement strategies and an ability to market them to all schools, not just in their area. o Good supply of strong schools, promoting academies and free schools as the first choice for new schools and simplifying the competition process.
o Ensuring fair admissions and ending the requirement for an Admissions Forum. o Championing the interests of parents and children, supporting vulnerable pupils and o Supporting under-performing schools to either improve or convert. Local authorities will be able to raise concerns with an academy or free school informally and then can refer them to Ofsted for an inspection if concerns remain and then ultimately refer them to the Secretary of State
This proposal may sound attractive to some elements of the public, but targeted provision is very important in meeting specific needs.
This has been demonstrated in the recent controversy over school sport funding. Removal of targets and ring-fencing has already resulted in cuts to local authority services essential to schools
This is a very limited view of what local authorities do. There seems very little that is actually strategic in this. It is a very stripped back model of local authorities. Welcome addition of some local authority powers in relation to academies
– will require amending the
Education and Inspections Act 2006? There is a question of how local authorities will fulfil their roles as “champions” of parents, children and vulnerable pupils given the loss of funding to local authorities inherent in the Academies programme
10

The Government intends to legislate to end the
‘bureaucratic requirements’ for local authorities to establish admission forums
Schools adjudicator will now review admissions complaints for all schools including Academies and Free Schools
Chapter 6: Accountability
Concerned about the intention to remove procedures for promoting fair admissions, i.e. ending the requirement on local authorities to report on admissions and the abolition of the school admission forum
Welcome this but want to see role of local authorities strengthened in admissions
Governing bodies
Proposal
Establishment of smaller governing bodies with appointments primarily focused on skills
NUT comment
Legislation will ensure a minimum of two parent governors but there is no guarantee that community and staff governor representation will be protected
Increased information
Data about attainment in specific subjects, trends over time, class size, attendance levels, composition of pupil intake and financial information to be produced in a standard format online for individual schools and for families of schools
Unsure how much of this information is actually needed and will it have to be supplied directly by schools, which could cause significant workload?
Schools required to publish data online, e.g., admissions and over-subscription information, curriculum, phonics and reading schemes, setting policy, behaviour policy, home school agreement, SEN policy, how school uses the Pupil
Premium.
Highly prescriptive and will cause significant workload. Will it need legislation? Real concern about teacher-level information and its potential misuse. Also, how much information do parents really want?
Legislation which established the local government Welcome. Was always a very heavy-handed tool which discouraged
11

ombudsman for parental complaints will be repealed
Reform of Ofsted
Framework to be reduced from 27 inspection headings to 4.
These will be pupil achievement; the quality of teaching; leadership and management; and behaviour and safety of pupils.
New inspection framework to be introduced from
September 2011
Primaries, secondaries and sixth forms judged to be outstanding will be exempt from routine inspections from
September 2011. They will only be re-inspected if there is evidence of decline or widening attainment gaps. The same approach will be developed for special schools and
PRUs
All schools will be able to request an Ofsted inspection.
Ofsted will be able to charge for this
Reform of performance tables
New measure of how well deprived pupils do. This is defined as pupils eligible for the Pupil Premium. The contextual value added (CVA) measure will be removed.
More emphasis on progress resolution at school level
Welcome more focus on what happens in the classroom, however concerns about how this will be implemented in practice, particularly use and length of lesson observations
Very short timescale which will not allow piloting of framework as has been done previously. Likely to be a lot of problems initially
Concerned about how far a school can be judged and monitored purely on its data. Too much differentiation between so-called outstanding schools and the rest. Legislation needed to vary inspection cycles
Unconvinced that many schools would want to pay Ofsted to inspect them
CVA was never perfect, but we have no idea what this new measure will be and how fair it will be to schools with the most deprived communities
However, also more emphasis on raw attainment. This is likely to disadvantage schools in challenging areas despite the rhetoric about the usefulness of progression measures
12

The Government will review performance measures for special schools where intakes perform below National
Curriculum tests or GCSE levels
Standards
A new floor standard is to be introduced, which is higher than the previous one but which will also include attainment and progression. It is defined as 35 per cent 5 A*-C
GCSEs, including English and maths, and for primary schools, 60 per cent Level 4s in both English and maths and expected levels of progress between Key Stages 1 and
2. The Government plans to continue to raise these floor standards over time
An ‘appropriately differentiated approach’ to supporting schools below the floor standards. The approach will depend on the context of the school
Welcome. Criticism has always been that these schools are judged on the same measures as mainstream schools. Needs to be reflected in Ofsted framework too
Ratcheting up of demands on the schools which are under most pressure. Arbitrary raising of the existing floor targets contradicts what was said earlier about not imposing central targets. The words
‘targets’ and ‘standards’ have simply been switched. We do not know yet what the expected levels of progress measure will actually be. As these will continue to rise over time, schools will constantly be under pressure to meet them, therefore, undermining all that the
Government has said about schools not being influenced by tests and tables
Good to see there is some sort of personalisation in the support but need to see the details. Will still result in school being labelled as
“failing”, which is not helpful. Focus has to be on capacity building within school
Chapter 7: School Improvement
School-based, school-led, school-to-school
Proposal
School Improvement Partners (SIPs) and centralised target setting processes to be abolished. Schools to set own targets
NUT comment
Welcome removal of SIPs as they diluted/duplicated local authority school improvement work and were not necessarily as knowledgeable, but, as above, targets are just now being called by
13

Much more use of school-to-school support, particularly via the National Leaders of Education and Local Leaders of
Education
Local authorities free to provide whatever forms of improvement support they choose
Schools to set their own improvement priorities. They will not have to use any specific approaches if they are rated as good or better another name. Think legislation may be needed to remove these.
Uncertainties about capacity and consistency
Welcome in principle, but unsure whether local authorities will have the capacity to do this given the dismantling of school improvement services recently and the pressure on their budgets now
That is excellent news for good schools but it will be more of the same for struggling schools
Double the number of National Leaders of Education and
Local Leaders of Education
– 3,000 over the next four years
A £110m, ten-year new Education Endowment Fund to be
Welcome, but are there enough people in the system to take on these roles?
The fund will be pump started with money previously set aside for an established. Local authorities, academy sponsors and
Heads of outstanding schools can apply to fund innovative extension of free school meals to all primary school children living below the poverty line. Oppose the substitution of philanthropy for state funding of schools projects for school improvement and raise deprived children’s attainment in under-performing schools
Regional ‘families of schools’ data to help schools identify Could be interesting if only used for developmental purposes, not similar schools which are performing differently and from which they can learn accountability
A collaboration incentive to reward schools which support weaker schools to improve their performance whilst also improving their own
Is this a bribe to increase the number of schools who will work with weaker partners? This has been a key barrier to collaborative approaches to school improvement in the past. Will academies be included; will they be required to do this?
Intervention
If schools are below the floor standards and are in either of the Ofsted categories of concern, the DfE will work directly with the school and local authority to produce a plan of action
The DfE will fund local authorities to identify experienced
Very centralised, interfering approach which goes far beyond anything we have ever had before. Will need amendment to
Education and Inspections Act (2006)
Why is this duplicating something the local authority already does?
14

professionals, typically a head teacher, to act as lead advisor and provide support and challenge to the school.
He or she will recommend what level of support is needed
In the ‘most serious cases’, i.e., not making progress, the
DfE will convert those schools to academies. This will apply to all schools, including academies and free schools.
If the school’s sixth form is considered to be failing in this way, it could result in its funding being withdrawn
Chapter 8: School funding
Proposal
Limit LA claw-back of school surpluses
Where are the “good” heads going to come from if they are all being joined up to the National or Local Leaders of Education programme?
Again, ratcheting up of centralised intervention and interference. A cynical way of increasing the number of academies. Think existing legislation may need to be amended to include academies and free schools
NUT comment
Revisions to capital spending
Pupil premium
Parity of funding between colleges and 6th forms
Replace Young People's Learning Agency (YPLA) with
Education Funding Agency (EFA)
Balances need to be justified with reference to the needs of the school, so there should be a role for local authorities in being able to monitor such balances
The BSF programme had major drawbacks, but its removal has caused serious problems for schools – capital spending allocations need to be made on the basis of need. We need to see detail of the review of the capital spending review – what is timetable and how does this fit in with legislative timetable?
Details of how the pupil premium will be distributed are still awaited at the time of writing, but even Michael Gove has admitted that the pupil premium is not new money and will not protect schools from real terms cuts in funding
The disadvantaged position of sixth form colleges is a longstanding
NUT concern, but reports indicate that the Government aims to end the disparity by cutting schools’ post-16 provision by around £280 per pupil
Will require primary legislation. Replacing like with like or will the
EFA have even more powers than YPLA? The YPLA already has
15

Move towards a National Funding Formula
Review of centrally funded services and buy back by academies significant responsibilities, including for academy funding
This would not necessarily require primary legislation. A national formula would represent massive centralisation, further eroding local democracy and resulting in schools having to deal with a remote and overstretched national body. Local factors impacting on schools’ funding needs would be less likely to be taken into account
Not clear how local authorities will provide this funding if significant numbers of local schools become Academies and take their funding out of the local authority
The latter provision contradicts the emphasis elsewhere in the White
Paper on reducing bureaucracy, and could have a significant cost implication for schools
Replace the current Financial Management Standard in
Schools with a simpler standard. Schools may be required to employ the services of a high quality business manager to ensure savings are made
For further information please do not hesitate to contact: Chris Brown or Emily Evans, NUT Parliamentary & Campaigns
Officers, Direct Line: 020 7380 4712; Mobile (Emily) 07736124096 (Chris) 07734537670 E-mail: c.brown@nut.org.uk
or e.evans@nut.org.uk
16