E-Learning

This includes the internal sharing of information and good practice, staff development and better use of e-government to assist service transformation (i.e. not mainstream education/schools).

This includes using e-government in ways that help services to reach those socially excluded and in particular addressing the concern that e-government might lead to some people being further isolated from the support and services they need.

Innovative use of information and communications technologies (ICT) to improve services.

Better use of ICT to improve internal business processes in councils, including service planning and performance management.

A full list of the councils receiving funding is tabled below:

www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/comResults.cfm? consultationld=1226.

Upper Pay Scale

The STRB have recommended the following:

The content of Annexes A and B need to be reflected in pay legislation;

Annexes A and B are further clarified, strengthened and communicated in the way set out above;

The upper pay scale should now cease at UPS3;

(a) that a new excellent teacher scheme is established;

(b) that the scheme should be open only to classroom teachers who have reached UPS3 and who demonstrate that they have distinguished themselves at that level;

(c) that the period before a UPS3 teacher become eligible to attain the status of an excellent teacher should normally be three years and that the first awards under the scheme should be made in September 2007;

(d) that the scheme as developed should take into account the following considerations:

it should include a process for application and assessment as rigorous as the AST process, using the same concepts of national criteria and a national assessment model;

it should include an element of external assessment;

the criteria should ensure that only the very best teachers can achieve the new status provided by the scheme and should include a programme of study leading to an appropriate qualification;

the salary should reflect the quality of improvement in teaching and learning intended to result from the scheme.

I welcome the positive and helpful way the STRB have responded to the issues around the upper pay scale. The depth of their response indicates the seriousness with which they undertook this additional remit and I am grateful for this thoroughness.

The Rewards and Incentives Agreement I signed with our pay partners on 9 January affirmed two important principles. The first was that good classroom teachers should be able to aspire to a salary which reflects their important achievements in raising standards. The second was that the highest rewards for classroom teachers should be awarded for excellence.

I am particularly pleased that, through their recommendations that the upper pay scale should cease at UPS3 and that a new excellent teacher scheme be established, the STRB too recognise the importance of these principles, I therefore endorse these two proposals.

The STRB has made further recommendations concerning amplifying and clarifying the criteria for progression on the upper pay scale and putting them in the Pay Document; and further defining the detail of an excellent teacher scheme. I would welcome comments from all statutory consultees on these additional proposals.

Main Pay Scale and Threshold Assessment

The STRB recommend the following:

(a) on the basis of a teacher's performance and professional development over the past year the head teacher should decide and record in writing whether or not he or she has achieved at least the standard required to merit an increment on the main scale;

(b) where performance is judged to be outstanding and continues at that level for two years it should merit a double increment;

(c) where performance falls below the standard required, the increment should be deferred and an improvement plan should be put in place, with the appropriate support. The decision to defer should be reviewed in mid-year after which the increment would he backdated to the previous September, provided that the necessary progress had been made. A continuing unsatisfactory performance would result in the withholding of the increment.

During discussions on ways of ensuring appropriate rigour in performance management and related pay decisions, the parties give careful consideration to the development of a common system, building on the practices which already exist and taking into account the model employed in certain schools.

I am pleased that the STRB share my strong belief that,

a rigorous performance management system, robustly applied by school leaders should be the hub of all progression.

I further share their concerns that heads have difficulty distinguishing between the performance of individual teachers and agree that a more explicit linkage between performance, professional development and progression might go some way to address this issue. These STRB recommendations are a helpful step forward and I propose to press ahead with proposals to ensure that progression on the main pay scale is treated in this way from September 2005.

I too believe that these decisions about pay progression can best be made within a consistent framework for performance management in schools. Part of the rationale for my proposal, put forward jointly with the co-signatories to the Rewards and Incentives Agreement was the need to encourage fair and objective decisions on pay progression. I therefore also endorse the STRB's recommendation to consider carefully with parties the need to develop a common system.

Threshold Assessment

The STRB recommend the following: that, over the next 18 months:

(a) the Department and, where appropriate, the Welsh Assembly Government, take action to ensure that:

a. all heads have received appropriate training on linking pay and performance; and

b. a satisfactory appeal route for disputes over pay decisions, which includes an independent element,

(b) the Department and, where appropriate, the Welsh Assembly Government, work with the statutory consultees:

a. to maintain existing standards of decision-making on threshold applications; and

b. to establish a quality assurance system as envisaged in paragraph 12 of the joint proposal.

from September 2005, threshold assessments are made at school level in the context of the school's developed performance management system; and external validation of the threshold assessment decisions of the teacher is discontinued.

The STRB have made a number of strong recommendations about the future of threshold assessment arrangements, which I accept in principle. I note the STRB cites evidence from the PwC study, which shows that threshold assessment has largely bedded in and the important role external assessment is likely to have played in that process. I welcome their statement that subject to improvements to the performance management system and the maintenance of threshold standards, they,

"see no absolute need to retain the external assessment system."

I too am keen to ensure that we continue to maintain appropriate mechanisms for ensuring continued fairness and equity in threshold decisions and I am grateful for the Review Body's suggestions for securing that this is the case. As recommended by the STRB I propose to consult on the arrangements for the light touch validation of performance management systems and the best way to maintain threshold standards. As teacher appraisal is devolved, proposals regarding performance management systems in Wales are a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government. On the narrow issue of the timing of the ending of the current threshold assessment scheme, I can see considerable gains—including significant financial savings—from maintaining the end date of August 2004, but would welcome views from all statutory consultees.

I am pleased to endorse the STRB recommendation that heads should be trained on linking pay to performance. Work is already in hand to expand the existing range of flexible training materials for head teachers and governors to include a further element focusing on the links between performance and pay decisions. The recommendations of the Review Body are helpful to the development of this package which we hope to progress with the help of the other pay partners.

Local Approaches to Pay

The STRB have recommended the following (in bold):

The parties consider the proposal we have described and present us with their evidence and views by September 2004.

I welcome the rigorous and methodical way the STRB have approached the issues around local and regional pay. They have clearly set out a range of difficult issues which need to be looked at when considering how best one should tackle any residual barriers to recruitment and retention that may still exist within our current pay system of geographical banding. Whilst noting the importance of each school tackling any other barriers to their success—including clear leadership and management structures, appropriate and available CPD and other measures designed to promote a positive environment for staff—they have offered interesting proposals for resolving many of those hard core recruitment and retention issues which might remain.

I welcome the STRB's recommendation to consult with other parties on this proposal and provide evidence from the Department by September.

Additionally, I am clear that the implications of this proposal will need to be considered alongside recommendations forthcoming from the Adrian Smith review on mathematics post 14 where, here too, there were interesting proposals about how to tackle subject recruitment difficulties in specific schools and areas.

Teachers' Pay System and Career Structure

The STRB have recommended the following:

the AST spine is reduced to 18 points with values parallel to points 1 to 18 of the leadership group spine not later than September 2006;

clear record is made of their annual review and subsequent decision on salary progression.

I welcome the STRB's recognition of the importance and distinctiveness of the AST role. L

Leading excellent curriculum and teaching practice in schools and institutions beyond their own school…'

I agree that we must ensure that they are afforded the necessary status within the school structure as befits the very important role they play in so many schools. Therefore, I endorse their recommendation to reduce the AST spine to 18 points with values equivalent to the first 18 points of the leadership group spine.

Furthermore I believe, all teachers, irrespective of their role, should expect to have clear records from their annual review which would set out amongst other important issues such as objectives and professional development needs, any decisions made about salary progression. I therefore also endorse the STRB's proposals that ASTs be entitled to a clear record of their annual review and any subsequent pay decision.

I am grateful to the STRB for their consideration of the issues regarding Chartered London Teacher Status and I propose that an appropriate amendment is made to the STPCD in September 2004 to cover this.

Special Pay Arrangements

The STRB have recommended the following:

LEAs review their procedures during 2004 to ensure that unattached teachers are not at a disadvantage compared to attached teachers, and the National Employers' Organisation oversees the review and published the results so that they are available to the ether parties.

the Department sets up a comprehensive database on unattached teachers, covering numbers, location and roles.

the Department draws up guidance, in consultation with the interested parties, including BATOD, on how the payment of SEN allowance 2 might take account of the enhancement of the teaching of SEN children brought about by such specialist qualifications.

the safeguarding of the social priority allowance and the inner London area supplement is removed with effect from 1 September 2004.

the Department considers the following navigation aids when revising the Document:

Adding a comprehensive index, with cross-references to other useful linked documents such as explanatory notes for heads, governors and LEAs and model school teachers pay policy;

Including a 3–4 summary at the beginning describing the teachers' career options and pay system using diagrams or; and

Consulting on areas for pay simplification, including the balance between guidance and formal provisions.

We also recommend the provision of more training for governors in the understanding of the teachers' pay system, the navigation around the document and its use in considering the school pay policy

I am grateful to the STRB for their consideration of a range of further issues around the smooth and appropriate operation of the structures of the teacher's pay system.

The STRB is right to draw our attention to concerns about the position of unattached teachers. I too think it is important for all teachers, whether they are attached to a school or not, to be treated fairly and equitably and I welcome their recommendations.

I support the idea of a review of LEA procedures related to unattached teachers and I look to NEOST to take this forward as they see fit. On the further recommendation about the establishment of a comprehensive database on unattached teachers, it would not be practicable, for a number of reasons, to seek to develop a new database at this point. The best mechanism for delivering this will be through the adult common basic data set, which, from 2006, I anticipate being the key and most comprehensive source for information about the school workforce, including unattached teachers. I therefore accept this recommendation in the context of the developments on the adult common basic data set.

I am content to discuss with relevant parties how the payment of SEN allowance 2 might take into account of the enhancement of the teaching of SEN children brought about by specialist qualifications. The outcome of this exercise should be without prejudice to consideration of the wider allowance framework.

I appreciate the attention given by the STRB to the matter of safeguarding, particularly their exposition of the balance needed between the need to protect teachers salary and the potentially inhibitory effect safeguarding can have on necessary and desirable changes in school organisation. They remind us that their thinking on both management allowances and recruitment and retention allowances in part one to this report took into account their desire to avoid long term payments of increasing value for purposes which might no longer apply. I welcome their recognition that paragraph 48 to the STPCD contains sufficient flexibility to render the need to offer separate specific payments for both social priority allowance and the Inner London area supplement unnecessary. I hope this will be a welcome flexibility and simplification for schools. I am also grateful for their steer on the issues they believe should be discussed in our conversations with key parties on the issue of safeguarding. I am minded therefore to press ahead with the abolition of safeguarding for both the social priority allowance and the inner London area supplement from September 2004.

I also welcome the STRB's further comments on simplification of the existing pay system through looking at how we might better position the content of the document to make it accessible to the range of audiences that are required to use it. This is something of an iterative process for us but one which it is important that we press on with, a key part of which is making the pay system itself more streamlined. I therefore accept the STRB's recommendations around simplifying the document including the further need to consult on more substantive simplification of the pay systems. I wholeheartedly endorse the need to ensure governors are clear on the operation of the pay system and the flexibilities within it. As I have already mentioned, work has already begun on devising a toolkit for trainers on teachers' pay and pay policies, I propose that this training be disseminated to governors and head teachers together.