Agenda item

Slough required additional qualified teachers but was working in the context of a national shortage. In addition, both recruitment and retention were problems although the former was the more urgent at present. Cambridge Education (CE) was working collaboratively to address the situation and also sought help and support from members of the Panel.

The issues involving retention were most pronounced in relation to foreign teachers, who may wish to return to their native countries or encounter visa limitations. However, the main focus had been recruitment with a national campaign being held to draw in candidates from across the country. Schools were acting collectively on this matter, and were also drawing on the experience of other local services with similar recruitment issues (e.g. police, social care). SBC were developing a workforce strategy and headteachers were invited to link in with this initiative. The matter would increase in importance given the additional forms of entry outlined in minute item 6 (school places); Slough was the 3^rd fastest growing local authority in England, and had experienced a 30% increase in pupil numbers since 2010.

Concerns were being raised about the potential impact on attainment for pupils; a high calibre of teacher needed to be attracted to raise standards. The current processes were also expensive, as employing agency staff to fill gaps could be both expensive and short term whilst advertising was costly and did not guarantee suitable applicants. Future cuts in funding (in real terms) also needed consideration. Officers also noted that shortages did not just apply to subjects traditionally affected (e.g. mathematics, sciences) but across all curriculum areas. Another factor with an impact was that of proximity to London Boroughs which offered additional pay under London weighting arrangements. Given the imperative nature of the issue, retention was now discussed at all meetings of local heads of Secondary schools.

The Panel raised the following matters in discussion:

• There was some room for limited joint advertising for teachers to operate across the Slough area (rather than in relation to a specific vacancy at one school). The Schools Forum would discuss a report on this matter in September 2015; however, the domination of the Times Educational Supplement in the advertising market for teaching vacancies did limit the potential for significant cost cutting.
• Teachers had been shared between different schools in Slough on an informal basis. Consideration may be given in the future for formalising and codifying these arrangements.
• The ‘Proud To Be Slough’ campaign had been an example of improving the area’s reputation, upon which CE could build. Whether this would take the form of an autonomous campaign (e.g. ‘Proud To Be Education In Slough’) would be one consideration in future efforts.
• CE had worked with Higher Education providers through the Teaching School Alliance to attract newly qualified teachers. However, Universities were losing some control of teacher training, which (whilst offering some benefits) did lead to a more fragmented system.
• Teachers in Slough tended to identify some key issues which negatively affected their views of the role. These frequently focused on workload, a lack of classroom support, pressures created by Ofsted and pay levels. The Panel requested that the Chair write a letter to the local MP reflecting these concerns. The fact that new teachers were often given less desirable responsibilities (e.g. classes containing students with lower attainment levels) was also raised as a concern.
• The progression of teaching assistants to teachers was already happening; however, methods could be used to increase the attractiveness of this to potential applicants. In addition, work had been undertaken with SBC to identigy those who applied for social work positions and, whilst not being ideally suited to those roles, may be appropriate for employment in schools.
• Key worker housing was expensive. However, other alternatives (e.g. relaxation of the 5 year requirement for the letting policy for key workers, allocating a percentage of housing stock to those in education and social work) may prove feasible and effective alternatives.

Resolved:

1)  That the Cabinet consider the implications of relaxing the lettings policy and allocating a certain percentage of housing stock to those employed in education and social work to increase recruitment to the local area.

2)  That the proposed actions in section 5.9.2 in the report be undertaken, namely:

·  Members request that Cabinet consider this matter with recommendations for action

·  For the challenges and possible solutions to be brought to the attention of the Wellbeing Board which can consider the matter in the broader context of all statutory and non-statutory services and provision, including Police, Fire, Health, Social Care, and the private and voluntary sector

·  For the Local Authority to consider the re-introduction of Key Worker Housing or subsidised accommodation

·  For politicians (Elected Members; Lead Member for Education and Children; Lead Member of the Council; Member of Parliament) to bring to the attention of national government the magnitude of the problem facing Slough and its impact on standards and the success of children: for lobbying to achieve prompt action to alleviate the challenges

·  Promoting the attraction of Slough

·  Promoting the educational success and high standards of Slough pupils (Slough being 7^th nationally for GCSE results, sustained year on year)

·  Promoting the good and outstanding schools across Slough

·  Promoting a strong and supportive Slough community of schools

3)  That the Chair of the Education and Children’s Services Scrutiny Panel write to Fiona McTaggart MP concerning the issues raised by teachers in relation to their work.