1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Clarification of Change Of "Holidays"and Supply Pay

Discussion in 'Scotland - education news' started by GuessWho, Apr 4, 2011.

  1. GuessWho

    GuessWho Occasional commenter

    I emailed EIS requesting clarification of what the change in holidays could mean and also what the pay rate would actually be for the initial 5 days of supply teaching.
    In both cases the clarification only makes it more clear why these proposals need to be rejected.
    Here is the reply I received.
    The working year will remain at 195 days. The school closure days are not for an employer to decide. This is solely for the SNCT to decide. There is no lifetime guarantee. However, if the SNCT collapses then I suspect the working year is more vulnerable to attempts by Councils to impose change. To be fair, however, to the employers on this issue their sole intention is to bring the accrual of maternity leave into line with other Council employees.

    Supply teachers will be paid for 25 hours at scale point 1 for the first 5 days of engagement. COSLA has made it clear that in the absence of agreement this will be imposed and may indeed be imposed for a longer period. Regrettably, while supply teachers accept work there is no contract and it is open to employers to offer work on whatever basis for whatever time as they choose. It is for the supply teacher to take it or leave it. As long as duties are constrained then any equal pay claim or claim under the part time or fixed term employees regulations is likely to be defeated.

    What really amazes me is that the EIS is being economical with the truth especially regarding supply. In effect, for the first 5 days (and really most supply is likely to fall into this category) will be paid at an annual rate of 25/35ths of Point 1 - this would be £18,367.
  2. catmother

    catmother Star commenter

    It's staggering how far removed the tone of the answer is from what one expect from a union. Anybody else missing good old fashioned trade unionists?
  3. Mr Smith is far removed from the majority of the members of the EIS because he earns £92,000 per year - a far cry from the many supply teachers (including me) who will be seriously disadvantaged if this deal goes through.
    He is basically agreeing with the LAs that we are nothing more than babysitters. I would love him to attempt the kind of day-to-day supply that I often do. Rarely, am I left any form of plan to follow, the behaviour of the children is likely to be dire, resources are unavailable to me because I am a supply teacher, I can't use the photocopier because I am a supply teacher, I can't log into the computer because I am a supply teacher. I must stress that this not always the case. However, am I worth anything less than a permanent member of staff?
    According to Mr Smith and his cronies in the EIS hierarchy - it would seem that I am!
  4. GuessWho

    GuessWho Occasional commenter

    According to the EIS website

    • Improvements on the proposed pay arrangements for short-term supply teachers. Short-term supply teachers will now be paid at point 1 of the pay scale for only the first five days of any deployment rather than the first eight days as had been previously proposed. This will significantly lessen the financial impact of the proposed changes for many supply teachers.
    No mention of the rate being 25/35ths of Point 1.

    I have emailed EIS to request the offending paragraph be ammened to reflect the actual truth and not the spin (such as it is)
  5. amysdad

    amysdad Established commenter

    EIS, in my view, has a point though when it says it is recommending this offer because it's the best one likely. I know for a fact that some local authorities - SNP ones in particular - would love to smash the central negotiating system and have actually come up with proposals which are even more scary and unacceptable than COSLA's. Labour are just as bad though - they'd reduce the terms and conditions for teachers and then say "look what SNP / Tories / Lib Dems (delete as appropriate) made us do!"
    Some suggestions which I've seen - remove all McCrone time, end the probationers scheme (note that the negotiations only guarantee this for 2011/12), only pay supply teachers at point 1 all the time, end the preserved salaries immediately, increase class sizes.....
    This offer really isn't much good, but (for once) the EIS is spot on when it says that it's the best likely to be offered.
  6. JPM1967

    JPM1967 New commenter

    That's an interesting view on this - a local EIS rep of my acquantance went so far as to suggest that COSLA was deliberately trying to force a collapse so that the LAs could all go their own way for the reasons you set out. In effect, the EIS called their bluff by unexpectedly accepting the revised terms and thereby retained the (albeit limited) 'security' of a central agreement.
    However, I still think the deal is too harsh on vulnerable colleagues and I will vote to reject and take my chances. We can always focus industrial action on particular LAs who lead the 'race to the bottom'. As was demonstrated in Renfrewshire recently, the councilors and Education department officials don't like the specific publicity and parent power.
  7. ryeland

    ryeland New commenter

    The EIS negotiated an even worse deal for us and want it accepted. 25 hours now, if lucky.
  8. Stepping aside from discussions on the disastrous effect on supply teachers' income, can anyone explain how the '5 hour day' offer is actually workable?
    Most primary schools I know of have a working day - ie class contact time - of 51/4 hours. Assuming the 'generous' 15 minutes before for preparation and after for marking is factored in - how is it proposed that classes be covered for the 45 minutes that the supply teacher won't be there?
    Or have I missed something?
  9. vforvendetta

    vforvendetta New commenter

    It will be interesting to see how it works out in scondary schools. My experience of supply is that we are doing far more than we should. In 33 period (50 minute period) week, we are regulary expected to do more than 28 periods (which is a period more than the 22.5 hours of class contact time). 28 periods assumes one period off in a day. However, when you move from school to school, and LA , from day to day, they expect full days of up to seven period contact. Four and a half hours a day represents five period only of class contact, not six or seven, and we need to stick to our guns on this (those of us who may still be teaching next year).
  10. I am a primary supply teacher and cover mainly odd days and half days. I seldom get non-contact time. If it is timetabled for the teacher I am covering eg by Music or PE specialist, I am sent else where. If it is covered by non-contact teacher, they are sent elsewhere. EIS rep was no help. Gave up saying I was entitled to it (as is stated in supply handbook) after one head took me off her supply list after I pointed this out. Therefore I am teaching for the full 5 hours and will have NO time for prep or marking. Am def all for work-to-rule (if I stay in teaching) but will this mean heads not asking me back if I don't mark work?!?
  11. If you're on good terms with the depute in charge of cover, mention it. What LAs are you with anyway? I never experienced this regularly as a supply teacher. Schools were usually very reasonable and fair.

Share This Page