Rt Hon Ed Balls MP
Secretary of State
Department for Children, Schools and Families
Sanctuary Buildings
Great Smith Street
London
Sw1P 3BT
Dear Ed
IMPLEMENTATION OF RARELY COVER IN SPECIAL SCHOOLS
NAHT has recently submitted our response to the consultation on guidance which will appear as Sections 3 and 4 of the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document 2009. We indicated in that response we would be writing to you directly regarding our concerns over the implementation of the new provisions on cover (rarely cover) in special schools, pupil referral units (PRUs) and hospital schools. We have raised these matters in various meetings of the Social Partnership but, it would be fair to say, our concerns were not discussed. We indicated that we intended to raise them in the consultation response and have done so.
We have been contacted by a considerable number of members who feel strongly that there is little appreciation of the impact the implementation of rarely cover will have, particularly in settings which cater for pupils on the autistic spectrum and those with social emotional behavioural difficulties. These pupils require continuity of teaching staff, differentiated teaching and pupil/teacher interaction to maintain quality provision. The availability of appropriate short term supply cover is limited by the very nature and needs of the children. Inappropriate short term strategies undermine standards and increase workload because of the detrimental effect on the behaviour and stability of pupils. Accordingly, these schools use their own staff – teaching and support – to deal with short term absences through flexible timetabling which may change from week to week.
We have had a helpful bi-lateral discussion with Sarah Conboy but it is evident that the practices in special schools, while within the spirit of rarely cover, run the risk of being considered non-compliant with the letter of the Document and associated guidance thus falling foul of the compliance duty. Our members and their staff believe that their current practice does, however, comply with the national agreement’s twin aims of raising standards and tackling workload.
Additionally, the Lamb Inquiry’s Interim Report (August 3 2009) suggested that a specific duty be placed on Ofsted to report on the quality of the education provided for disabled children and children with special educational needs. We note that there is soon to be a specific requirement for Ofsted’s Chief Inspector to report on provision for children with SEN and disabilities within all schools to underpin. The aim being to underpin the new Ofsted Framework for Inspection and to provide reassurance to parents. We suggest that implementation of rarely cover without recognition of the need for greater flexibility would have an adverse effect in special schools and pupil referral units.
We also understand that inspection of special schools and other SEN provision will happen more frequently than inspections of other schools. The likelihood is that compliance issues will arise sooner in special schools than in others.
We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this more fully with you.
Yours sincerely
Mick Brookes
General Secretary
