Cover
Download a briefing document on cover here
From September 2009, the latest change to the school teachers’ contract says that “Teachers should be required to cover only rarely, and only in circumstances that are not foreseeable”. In practice, this should mean NO COVER.
The ‘cover’ issue is going to be most pressing in secondary schools, but the legislation covers all schools. The National NUT guidance stresses that ‘splitting classes’ to take in pupils from another class when a colleague is absent also counts as cover. So splitting classes should also occur ‘only rarely’.
The change will be an important gain for secondary teachers who have had enough of losing precious non-contact time through being called on to cover absences.
But, as with all the changes brought in through the ‘remodelling agreement’, schools have been left to implement the change without clear additional funding. That means that schools may try to pay for ‘no cover’ by worsening conditions for staff and students in other ways. For example, they may seek to increase staff timetable loadings, increase pressure on staff that are off sick or reject requests for time-off for leave.
The changes are meant to be about improving overall workload, so we must oppose trading off improvements on cover with worsening of other conditions.
‘EDUCATION ON THE CHEAP’
Some schools are looking to withdraw TAs from lessons for cover or to replace supply teachers with lower-paid cover supervisors who, by definition, are not allowed to ‘teach’. We are opposed to any such damaging measures, and will ballot NUT members for action where requested.
As the pressure on public spending increases, the pace of ‘remodelling’ schools - i.e. replacing teachers by cheaper alternative staffing - will increase if we do not stand firm.
We must oppose the following:
û Withdrawing TAs from classes to provide cover
Taking existing TAs out of classes to cover for teacher absence means removing staff from carrying out the duties they have been employed for and reducing vital in-class support for teachers and pupils alike.
û Employing HLTAs for carrying out for covering absences
‘Higher Level Teaching Assistants’ are legally allowed to carry out ‘specified work’ (teaching in effect) if ‘under the supervision of a teacher’. However, HLTAs are not trained, nor paid, as teachers. HLTAs should be properly paid for supporting teachers, but not to replace them.
û Employing cover supervisors for covering absences
Cover Supervisors are staff employed specifically not to ‘actively teach’ but to supervise pre-prepared exercises. But the implication that anyone can ‘manage’ a class without actively teaching flies in the face of good educational practice. In short, the skills of a qualified teacher are needed, and that’s what we call for.
Schools may argue that having a regular ‘cover supervisor’ provides more continuity than a supply teacher coming new to the school that day who does not know the pupils or school routines. But then why don’t schools employ teaching cover staff directly or through groups of schools instead? This would help ensure proper pay and conditions for staff, along with the continuity and familiarity with school routines needed to step in to a class at short notice.
We have a responsibility to protect the employment of supply teachers – a route that many teachers choose to take at some stage in their career. We also have to liaise with support staff and their unions too. While some support staff may feel that taking on cover posts is in their interest, we have to point out that they are being used as ‘cheap labour’ rather than being given proper opportunities to train as a qualified teacher. If they are being asked to do a teachers’ job, why aren’t they being paid at a teachers’ rate of pay?
Of course, the issue may boil down to money - this has to be part of a national campaign on funding too.