(i) Behaviour Support Service and EAL Service
To note that School Forum representatives of maintained secondary schools have decided not to agree to de-delegation of the budgets for the Behaviour Support or EAL services.
(ii) Trade Union Facility Time
To consider options for meeting the statutory responsibilities relating to paid time off for trade union representatives.
Minutes:
Behaviour Support Service and EAL Service
The Forum noted that School Forum representatives of maintained secondary schools had decided not to agree to de-delegation of the budgets for the Behaviour Support or EAL services.
Trade Union Facility Time
The Forum considered the options for meeting the statutory responsibilities relating to paid time off for trade union representatives.
The Forum noted that COSWOP, the local trade union consultative body had discussed the issue and further discussions were underway with secondary head teachers around their statutory responsibility with respect to facility time. A newsletter from Schools Human Resources had been circulated confirming the statutory responsibility of schools if arrangements for facility time were not to be delegated.
A meeting between unions and secondary head teachers proposed at the previous meeting of the Forum had not taken place. The union had been invited to meet secondary heads and had delivered a presentation and had written a letter clarifying legal responsibilities. Secondary heads who were present at the meeting stated that the presentation by unions had been very helpful. Much had been clarified but it had also raised further questions about transparency about how money was being spent. In particular, there was an issue around carry forward of funds, for example, £200,000 was assigned, but there was no sense of what would happen were there to be an underspend.
Officers clarified that the budget wasn’t precisely £200,000. The money was comprised of equivalent proportion of the salary of a trade union representative. The full time equivalent had been agreed for all unions, an agreement that dated back to 1995 based on the understanding of FTE, which had been adjusted a few times over the years. Therefore, the budget was a proportion of the FTE equivalent representative salary and there was not a carry-forward. If there were to be a change in a representative’s salary then the budget would change. The money was deducted from the Dedicated Schools Grant and was seen as a sufficient amount to reimburse schools.
Members remained concerned about the capacity of the Forum to subject trade union facility time to scrutiny. There was an issue of accountability and a dialogue needed to take place between heads and unions around this issue...Every year, members further stated, there would need to be a review and therefore a structure needed to be in place to facilitate such a review. The structure would then need to be transparent and a process would need to be in place to consider the distribution of funding in proportion of membership of each union.
There was eagerness amongst academy head teachers to make a joint decision. However, a decision was needed immediately as school budgets had to be calculated before Friday’s deadline for submission to the Education Funding Agency.
It was agreed that a decision for academies could be taken later. Primary and maintained secondary school heads made the following decision:
Primary school representatives voted for delegation of trade union facility time by 5 votes to 1.
Maintained school representatives voted for delegation of trade union facility time by 1 vote to 0.