The Community Cover Proposal in various Cheshire East Schools

The local representatives from both the NASUWT and its’ sister teaching union, the NEU have recently written to all the headteachers’ in Cheshire East to express their concerns about the  proposals in some secondary schools to introduce a ‘Community Cover’ scheme.

Copy of the letter

We appreciate the intention behind this scheme might be to create a more flexible working environment and improve staff wellbeing. Yet, the current proposal raises a number of concerns that need to be addressed. It suggests that teaching staff voluntarily opt out of their statutory rights not to cover and undertake a cover lesson in exchange for credits that can be redeemed for a day off in lieu (at the discretion of their employer). We believe it is imperative to revisit and reconsider this proposal for the following reasons: 

1.    Erosion of Statutory Rights: This proposal fundamentally undermines our statutory rights not to cover. By encouraging staff to volunteer for cover, it sets a precedent that erodes established contractual protections and statutory rights. The requirement to opt out of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document provisions affects terms and conditions. The STPCD is integral to our contracts and we should avoid opting out even voluntarily.

2.    Potential for Pressure: Although the scheme is presented as voluntary, there is a potential for staff to feel pressured to participate in order to be seen as team players or to avoid negative perceptions. This could create an unequal and stressful working environment. 

3.    Increased Workload: The additional workload associated with covering lessons is a significant concern. It may lead to increased stress and burnout, undermining the very wellbeing the proposal claims to support. 

4.    Impact on Work-Life Balance: While the scheme aims to provide flexibility, it may inadvertently lead to increased workload and stress. Covering additional lessons can disrupt planning, preparation, and non-contact time, particularly during peak workload periods. 

5.    Indirect Sex Discrimination: We are concerned that this scheme may amount to indirect sex discrimination. Women, who are more likely to be unable to take on additional work and maintain a work-life balance, have fewer options for when to take accrued time off, making them more likely to miss out on these supposed benefits. 

6.    Operational Challenges: Implementing such a system may present practical and logistical challenges, particularly on high-demand days such as Fridays and Mondays. The proposal acknowledges the need to manage these days carefully, but the specifics remain unclear. 

7.    Displacement of Supply Staff: This strategy reduces the need for supply staff, who play a crucial role in maintaining continuity and quality of education. By marginalising this important segment of our educational workforce, we risk compromising the overall educational experience. 

8.    Alternative Solutions: There are other models that can address cover needs without compromising staff rights or wellbeing. For example, setting up a supply pool within trusts (and across trusts) can provide a sustainable and supportive solution, ensuring that cover needs are met without overburdening regular teaching staff. 

9.    Lack of Union Consultation: These localised proposals have not been agreed upon by the recognised teaching unions. The lack of formal consultation undermines our collaborative efforts to ensure fair and equitable working conditions and disregards the importance of union input in such critical decisions. 

In light of these concerns, we urge our members to carefully consider how they respond to the Community Cover scheme. It is essential to uphold all our statutory rights and ensure any new strategies genuinely enhance all our working conditions without compromising our legal protections. We welcome that the majority of schools' and academies across the county engage fully with facilities agreements that allow us to work constructively and address these challenges. We have asked the headteachers’ who are considering this scheme to work with us to address these issues.