Agenda item

The Chair invited Emerson Sutton, a Young Advisor, to address the committee. Emerson made the following points and observations in respect of the report.

1.    Teachers should be and feel valued

2.    Job satisfaction and good working conditions are as important as pay

3.    Teachers need support Senior Leadership Team

4.    Teachers need breaks and down time in the school holidays

5.    Better discipline in the classroom would benefit both teachers and pupils

6.    Better manners should be expected, such as greeting each other in the morning

7.    Teachers should do more to help families to support home learning as not all families are able to support their child’s learning at home

8.    Less time should be spent on paperwork

9.    Continuity of teaching staff should be a priority

10.More should be done on mindset so that children “yearn to learn”

11.Teaching is an international profession and therefore there should be lessons learned from other countries

12.Support for children with SEN should be properly resourced

13.Teachers should inspire ambition and equip their students to achieve their ambitions.

The Chair thanked Emerson for his input, and commented on the thoughtful and mature nature of his remarks which went far beyond what would be expected of a primary school pupil.

The Chair shared draft recommendations with the Committee. These had been circulated by email in advance of the meeting.

Officers were concerned that they had not had prior sight of the draft recommendations to advise on what was feasible in a school context. The Scrutiny Manager explained that the formulation of recommendations was a Member-led process that should not be unduly influenced by officers. The Scrutiny Manager had sought legal advice in respect of two of the recommendations, and provided this to the Committee.

The following points were noted in discussion:

·         Some Members were concerned that the Committee would appear to be challenging the autonomy of schools. The Chair was satisfied that the recommendations were not phrased as instructions, but as suggestions.

·         There was concern that some recommendations could increase the workload of schools.

·         The practicability of paying responsibility allowances in a redundancy climate was raised. However, it was noted that this recommendation came directly from a head teacher’s suggestion.

·         Some Members questioned the council’s influence regarding the recommendations for the dioceses. The faith schools recommendations came directly from 2 faith schools and therefore the Chair was keen to keep them in.

·         The recommendations were all supported by evidence and echoed what was said by schools. They were clearly worded as recommendations and not directions.

·         Giving priority to staff members could lead to problems in a single form entry school and could make it harder to attract teachers over a 2/3 form entry school. It was agreed that the following be added to this recommendation “consideration should be given to possible disadvantage of such priority in one form entry schools”

·         The feasibility of the schools’ recommendations was not for the committee to decide, but for schools.

The recommendations were put to the vote, with 6 in favour and 4 against (no abstentions).

One Member voted against the recommendations because felt they had not had sufficient time to consider the recommendations. The Committee heard that the Chair had prepared an initial draft set of recommendations which had been shared with the Committee via email by the Scrutiny Manager. Over a period of several weeks, Members had provided comments on the draft recommendations and these comments had served to refine the recommendations.

Those Members that voted against the recommendations said that they would have preferred to have had advice from CYP officers on what was feasible. The Scrutiny Manager explained that the correct and usual process had been followed, and that it was not standard practice to consult officers prior to recommendations being agreed.

It was RESOLVED:

1)    That the comments made by Emerson Sutton be shared with the Mayor and the Executive Director for Children and Young People

2)    That the report be noted

3)    That the recommendations be approved subject to the addition of the following wording “consideration should be given to possible disadvantages of such priority in one form entry schools” to the recommendation regarding priority admission for children of staff members

4)    That the report and recommendations be agreed and submitted to Mayor and Cabinet for consideration and response.