From MAs to TLRs
TEACHERS’ PAY
IN 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 OF
THE 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