Tuesday, 29 November 2011

How does pupil attendance compare to national averages?

Question 5: how does pupil attendance compare to national averages?

In RAISEonline a number of analyses are provided that compare pupils’ overall absence from your school with:

• The national average for all primary schools; and

• A derived average for “similar” schools based on levels of free school meal eligibility.

This data can be viewed from the School Level Absence and Exclusions report in RAISEonline.

The report also shows the proportion of pupils classified as “persistent absentees”. 

Historically they have been defined as missing at least 20% of possible sessions (half 
days) during the course of the academic year. In some cases this may be due to a prolonged bout of illness. However, in other cases it arises as a result of frequent, short bouts of absence or truancy.

For 2011 a second, more stringent, measure of persistent absence has been introduced 
based on missing 15% of sessions.

Taken from


Monday, 28 November 2011

Are we relatively stronger or weaker in English compared to mathematics?

Question 4: Are we relatively stronger or weaker in English compared to mathematics?

Just as the attainment of different groups of pupils can vary within a school, so too can attainment in different subjects. 

Up to now we have focused on “threshold” measures of attainment, which quantify how many pupils “jumped the hurdle”, such as achieving at least level 4 at Key Stage 2,but provides no further information about the extent to which they either cleared it or missed it.

Average point scores are another method of summarising attainment data that take account of the full range of pupil outcomes at a School. 

Levels achieved in National Curriculum Tests or Teacher Assessments can be converted into “points” using a table.

A pupil is expected to progress by one level every 2 academic years. In terms of points, the difference between one level and the next is 6 points. As there are 6 terms in 2 academic years, then one point approximates to one term’s progress. This is a useful rule of thumb when interpreting points scores.

Taken from 


Sunday, 27 November 2011

How might the context of our school affect our performance?

Question 3 - how might the context of our school affect our performance?

Decades of research into school effectiveness have shown that some groups of pupils, particularly those from less advantaged backgrounds, tend to achieve less well than other groups. 

This has led to a range of Government interventions to raise attainment, including City Challenge under the Labour Government or the Pupil Premium under the current Coalition Government. 

Economic disadvantage should not excuse low attainment. However, it should be recognised that apparent variations in levels of attainment between schools are influenced by variations in intakes. Such variations are often caricatured by descriptions of the areas served by schools such as “tough inner-cities” and “leafy suburbs”

Moreover, even within a school, there may be significant variation (especially in 
attainment and prevalence of special educational needs) between one year group and 
the next.

Simply comparing a school’s attainment to the national average will not necessarily identify those schools which are performing extraordinarily well in challenging circumstances. Nor will it identify those schools in more advantaged circumstances which could be doing better.

Such a situation arises when the composition of the school cohort is substantially different to the “average” school. For example if 60% were eligible for free school meals. This compares to a national average of 18%. 

Taken from


Saturday, 26 November 2011

Do we have any under-performing groups of pupils, or are there wide gaps in attainment?

Question 2: do we have any under-performing groups of pupils, or are there wide gaps in attainment between some groups of pupils?

There are a number of reports in RAISEonline which show attainment, progress and absence for different groups of pupils. Even in schools with above average levels of attainment there can be “gaps” in attainment between some groups of pupils. For example, the Government’s White Paper The Importance of Teaching sets out to narrow the “gap” between pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) and their peers.

Other examples of pupil groups whose attainment you may wish to look at include:

• Boys and girls, particularly in English

• Pupils whose first language is not English

• Minority ethnic pupils

• Pupils with special educational needs (SEN), particularly comparing such pupils at your schools to pupils with SEN nationally

• At Key Stage 2, pupils of different ability levels as measured by attainment at the 
end of Key Stage 1

Comparing the attainment of pupil groups is only worthwhile - and valid - if you have a sufficient number of pupils in each group. Fewer than 10 pupils in a single year would be insufficient, and any comparisons based on 10-20 pupils should be interpreted with caution. However, examination of data over a number of years may reveal a persistent pattern of atypical attainment for small pupil groups.

Taken from


Friday, 25 November 2011

How does attainment at my school compare to national averages & the Government’s floor target?

Question 1:  How does attainment at my school compare to national averages and the Government’s floor target?

There are a number of different measures of pupil attainment and progress in RAISEonline. 

For a school with Key Stage 2 pupils, the three key measures are:

• The percentage of pupils who achieved level 4 or above in both English and mathematics;

• The percentage of pupils who made expected progress in English between Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2; and

• The percentage of pupils who made expected progress in mathematics between Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2.

The majority of pupils are expected to achieve level 4 by the end of Key Stage 2 (Year 6). A small proportion of pupils do not achieve level 4 in either English or mathematics, while around a third nationally achieve level 5 or higher.   

Similarly, level 2 is the expected level for the end of Key Stage 1 (Year 2). 

It is expected that pupils make at least 2 levels progress between the end of Key Stage 1 and the end of Key Stage 2. So, a pupil who achieved level 1 at Key Stage 1 will be considered to have made expected progress if s/he achieved level 3 (or higher) at Key Stage 2. However, a pupil who achieved level 3 at Key Stage 1 is not considered to have achieved expected progress if s/he only achieves level 4 at Key Stage 2.

The Government’s “floor target” for primary schools is that at least 60% of pupils at the end of Key Stage 2 should have achieved level 4 or above in both English and mathematics. 
However, a school will only be considered to be below the floor target (and therefore be targeted for intervention) if rates of expected progress are below the national average as well.

It should be noted that the “official list” of schools below the floor target will be produced from validated data later in the Autumn term. However, in the Autumn term you may wish to consider how close your school is to the floor target.

Firstly, check the proportion of pupils who achieved level 4 or higher in English and mathematics

In 2011, 74% of pupils reached this standard nationally according to unvalidated data.

Secondly, check the percentages of pupils who achieved expected progress in each of English and mathematics. These can be found in the Expected Progress Summary Report

Always check the number of pupils on which percentages are based. Remember that in a year group of 20 pupils, one pupil is equivalent to 5%

Taken from 


Thursday, 24 November 2011

RAISEonline for Governors of Primary Schools

An effective governing body:

• Has the right people around the table (a diverse set of people with a range of skills, experience and knowledge);

• Understands its role and responsibilities, remaining strategic and providing leadership;

• Has both a good Chair and a professional Clerk who ensure the governing body is well-informed and prioritises its business effectively;

• Has good relationships, particularly with the Headteacher built on trust, honesty and respect; 

• Knows the school, and

• Is committed to asking challenging questions and making courageous decisions in the interests of the children and young people in their school and community.

Many governing bodies, even good ones, fail to challenge school leaders effectively.

This series of notes aims to make governors more aware of the data that is at their disposal and how best to make use of it, and will also cover how to gather information from parents, staff and students.

Key questions you should ask of Raise Online data

The analyses in RAISEonline are provided to inform and support discussion about 
school improvement rather than to make absolute judgments about the effectiveness of 
any school. The questions you can ask of the wide range of data available in your school 
are almost inexhaustible. However, we limit ourselves to five key questions for this 
introductory briefing note:

1. How does attainment and progress at my school compare to national averages and the Government’s floor target?

2. Are we relatively stronger or weaker in English compared to mathematics?

3. Do we have any under-performing groups of pupils, or are there wide gaps in attainment between some groups of pupils?

4. How might the context of our school affect our performance?

5. How does pupil attendance compare to national averages?

The full document is available for free from the NGA at


I will cover the the five key questions over the next five days on this blog

Wednesday, 23 November 2011

Gap between the best and worst schools

Last week in the Daily Telegraph the Prime Minister says there is a “shocking gap” between the best and worst schools and their teachers as many “coast” and “muddle through”.
He says the “secret failure” of comprehensive schools in wealthy shires and market towns is as significant as the problems facing schools in deprived, inner-city areas.
The shortcoming has been hidden from parents because league tables identify only problem schools rather than institutions achieving average results when their pupils have the potential to be top achievers.
In the article, David Cameron discloses that tackling the “coasting comprehensives” will be a top priority for the Government. Sir Michael Wilshaw, the new chief inspector of schools, is said to have them “in his sights”.
Mr Cameron writes: “Why should we put up with a school content to let a child sit at the back of the class, swapping Facebook updates? Or one where pupils and staff count down the hours to the end of term without ever asking why B grades can’t be turned into As. Britain can’t let weak schools smother children’s potential.”
“It is just as important to tackle those all over the country content to muddle through — places where respectable results and a decent local reputation mask a failure to meet potential,” he writes.
“Children who did well in primary school but who lose momentum. Early promise fades. This is the hidden crisis in our schools — in prosperous shires and market towns just as much as in the inner cities.”
In January, new league tables will be published that will show how low-, middle- and high-achieving children are performing in their schools.
In June, a new national pupil database will be introduced to show how pupils have progressed during their time in school. The data will not disclose any names but should allow parents to identify schools that are better at pushing certain pupils in different subjects.
Mr Cameron writes: “This challenge is one for all parts of the country — places where governors, parents and teachers might never guess things might be wrong. That’s why it is vital to shine a spotlight on secret failure by giving people the information they need to fight for change.
“The last government shied away from the problem. It kept huge amounts of data under wraps — focusing only on league tables which seemed to show things were getting better every year. It set a narrow definition of coasting schools which allowed many to slip through the net undetected. By contrast, this Government is going to widen it so that more average schools are pressed to do better.”
The Prime Minister says Mossbourne Academy in Hackney, one of the most deprived areas in Britain, is now achieving far higher marks than comprehensives in middle-class areas across the Home Counties.
“The point of education is to change lives — it’s not good enough for teachers in shire counties to be satisfied with half of children getting five good GCSEs, when Mossbourne Academy achieves 82 per cent in Hackney,” writes Mr Cameron.
“When people involved in education can see what needs to be done to get out of a rut — and are given the freedom to make their own choices rather than orders from above — dramatic improvement is possible. Goffs School in Cheshunt, for instance, went from barely half its pupils achieving five good GCSEs including English and maths, to almost three quarters in a single year.”
It is understood that the Government has decided against sending “hit squads” into comprehensives identified as “coasting”. Ministers instead hope that by publicly identifying failing schools, parents and governors will put staff under intense pressure to improve standards.
Sir Michael Wilshaw, the incoming head of Ofsted, previously warned that the watchdog needed to do more to tackle teachers who were coasting.
He said extra effort was needed to identify “the teacher … who year in, year out just comes up to the mark, but only just, and does the bare minimum”.
The Government is also giving permission for dozens of new free schools, effectively independent schools paid for by taxpayers within the state system, across the country. Mr Cameron says he wants these schools to be the “shock troops of innovation” who will “smash through complacency”.
The Coalition is also relaxing admissions and expansion rules for successful schools, which is expected to lead to an increase in grammar school places.
Yesterday, it emerged that some grammar schools are planning to take over schools in neighbouring towns — effectively leading to the creation of the first new grammar schools since the 1960s.
Graham Brady, chairman of the Conservatives’ backbench 1922 Committee, said it was a “small but important step”
Taken from Daily Telegraph Artilce at 
Reply from Brian Lightman on ACSL Blog here
The appalling comments by the Prime Minister in the Telegraph on Monday are evidence of one of two things: either they show how out of touch Number 10 is with what is happening on a day to day basis in schools, or they demonstrate that the Prime Minister is willing to sacrifice hardworking teachers and schools leaders to score political points. The cynic in me thinks that it’s easier to justify stripping pensions when the message is that teachers and support staff don’t deserve them in the first place.
The Government does not have a monopoly over high aspirations for our education service. School leaders are at the forefront of driving up standards and strive tirelessly to build upon the improvements that have been achieved to date. 

Don’t get me wrong, we know there are examples of ‘coasting’ schools where the catchment is less challenging, where students have more advantages, yet they do not make the progress that they could or should. But these schools are hardly endemic, and to assume the problem stems from complacent and uncaring teachers is frankly an insult.

Of course there is more to do, but that work requires the support, not the denigration, of our political leaders. It also requires an understanding of the fact that not only inner city schools face challenges – some of the most entrenched deprivation is in rural and coastal areas.

The coalition government proudly states that it believes in a high status teaching profession. Assertions by the Prime Minister, of all people, that schools are content to ‘muddle through’ and accept mediocrity make a mockery of teachers’ commitment and demoralises a hardworking profession which is battling to continue the trajectory of improvement in the context of falling budgets, worsening pay and conditions and stinging cuts in front line services.

The Prime Minister and his government need to work with, not against the profession

Brian Lightman

Tuesday, 22 November 2011

Section 38 of the Education Act 2011

Last Week, the Education Bill became the Education Act 2011. 

Section 38 of the Act is relevant to School governors as it refers to the constitution of the governing body.  Section 38 has undergone a number of changes since the original Bill was published and staff governors and local authority governors have now been reinstated.  Although in the latter case Regulations may allow governing bodies to have more say over local authority governors.  

The Full Education Act 2011 can be found here


This is section 38

38 Constitution of governing bodies: maintained schools in England

(1) Section 19 of EA 2002 (governing bodies) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) Regulations must provide for a governing body of a maintained school in England to consist of—

(a) persons elected or appointed as parent governors,

(b) the head teacher of the school,

(c) a person elected as a staff governor,

(d) a person appointed as a local authority governor,

(e) in the case of a foundation school, a foundation special school or a voluntary school, persons appointed as foundation governors or partnership governors, and

(f) such other persons as may be prescribed.”

(3) In subsection (2), after “governing  body” insert “of a maintained school in Wales”.

(4) After subsection (4) insert—

“(4A)  Regulations  made  by  virtue  of  subsection (3)(c) in relation to a maintained school in England may include provision for eligibility criteria for the school’s local authority governor to be such as may be specified by the school’s governing body.

(4B) Regulations made by  virtue of subsection (3)(e) in relation to a maintained school in England may include provision allowing the head teacher of the school to resign from office as a governor (and to withdraw any such resignation).”

Monday, 21 November 2011

The Rise of the Professional Parent

While the focus on ‘problem parents’ has received renewed intensity in the wake of the riots, it is also an expression of a steady trend towards ever-greater scrutiny of parenting. Parenting has become one of the most charged political and cultural subjects of our age. As the evidence about the decisive impact that the quality of parenting has on children’s outcomes continues to grow, parents have come to be seen not just as the cause of many society’s ills but also the key to unlocking positive change such as improved social mobility.

This scrutiny of parenting has led to the idea of a parenting ‘deficit’ and the view that there are a growing number of parents who are incapable. Yet, this focus on parenting skills is not matched by conclusive evidence about a decline in our standards of parenting. It also acts as a distraction it risks diverting our attention away from the mounting pressures which modern society creates for parents. The challenge for policy now is to find the right balance between supporting parents in developing their skills and capabilities and working to lessen the pressures parents face. To do this successfully, a positive framework for supporting parents needs to be created and concrete steps taken towards creating a more family friendly society.

Full report from Family and Parenting Institute can be found here


Sunday, 20 November 2011

The protection of children online

The protection of children online: a brief scoping review to identify vulnerable groups

Ninety-nine percent of children aged 12-15 use the internet, as do 93% of 8-11 year olds and 75% of 5-7 year olds. New media technology means that the ways in which children are accessing online content are changing and ever evolving. Policy makers need research evidence to inform policies that articulate children’s online risks, safeguard them from harm and promote their welfare.

The Child Wellbeing Research Centre was commissioned by the Department for Education, working closely with the UK Council for Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS) to explore what is currently known about children’s vulnerability to harm from online activity or interactions.
The scoping review explores levels of intended and unintended exposure to specific risks, the impact of harm suffered by children, and the characteristics of children who may be at highest risk.
The scoping review document can be downloaded from

Saturday, 19 November 2011

Ofsted publish the results of assessments into Local Authority services for children

Ofsted published the results of assessments into Local Authority services for children.  28 Local Authorities (LAs) provided excellent services, an increase of 40% on the previous year. 25 LAs have improved, 11 of these from adequate to performing well

You find the result of your Local Authority here


My Local Authority Surrey was graded 3 which means it performs well


Friday, 18 November 2011

Voluntary and community organisations to play a key role in helping children with special educational needs and disabilities

Voluntary and community organisations will help deliver key reforms to support children with special educational needs (SEN) and disabilities, and their parents.
The Children's Minister Sarah Teather  announced contracts involving voluntary and community organisations which will deliver the support, including the Council for Disabled Children and I CAN, the children's communication charity.
The Department for Education is providing funding of around £6 million a year for two years to deliver the support.
The organisations will support the delivery of short breaks, provide greater information and help to parents, and help disabled young people and those with SEN prepare for employment, training and independent living after they leave school.
The successful contractors will provide knowledge and support on the delivery and improvement of local services and help the 20 SEN Green Paper pathfinder areas test some of the Government's key reforms.
The organisations and contracts are:
  • The IMPACT consortium (SERCO in partnership with the Short Breaks Network): to help local authorities deliver their legal obligations to provide short breaks and involve parents in how short breaks are provided.
  • The Council for Disabled Children: to support local parent partnership services across England that provide parents with clear information about their rights and responsibilities under SEN legislation, along with local information about options and choices to meet their child's SEN.
  • A consortium led by the National Development Team for Inclusion: to improve outcomes for young people with SEN and disabilities. The consortium will work with local authorities, schools, young people and their femployment, training and independent living after they leave school.
  • The ES Trust with the National Children's Bureau: to extend the successful Early Support programme to improve the quality, consistency and coordination of services for disabled children over five years old (the programme is currently designed from birth to five years old) and help develop key worker training.
  • The Early Language Consortium, led by I CAN, the children's communication charity: to introduce Early Language Development Training for people working with children up to five years old. The training amilies to raise aspirations in secondary school and plan for will focus on the importance of early language development to improve communication and language skills for all children, particularly those with SEN.

Thursday, 17 November 2011

Shortage in pupil places

The DfE have announced an allocation of extra £500 million to address the shortage in pupil places

The Department for Education plans to address the shortage in pupil places being experienced by some local authorities, and reduce the level of prescription and unnecessary guidance which are a feature of the school premises regulations and hamper the deve.
In July 2011, Michael Gove announced that an extra £500 million would be made available, this year, to local authorities experiencing the greatest need in managing shortfalls in providing pupil places. This additional funding has been made available from efficiencies and savings identified in BSF projects that are continuing.
Over one hundred local authorities will receive a share of the funding. The allocations have been calculated using figures provided to the Department for Education by local authorities through the 2011 School Capacity and Forecast Information returns. By using the most up-to-date information available we are making sure the savings identified are being targeted to local authorities experiencing the most severe need.
DfE claims the funding means that in 2011-12, a total of £1.3 billion will have been allocated to fund additional school places. The Government already announced an allocation of £800 million funding in December 2010. 
DfE say they would like reassure those local authorities whose needs were not as severe as others - and which, therefore, did not receive a share of this extra £500 million - that future capital allocations for basic need and maintenance pressures will be announced later in the year.

They are also launching a twelve week consultation on the revision of school premises regulations. The consultation document sets out how the Government intends to deregulate and end the confusion and unnecessary bureaucracy surrounding the current requirements. 

Wednesday, 16 November 2011



The National Governors Association has published guidance for School Governors on Teachers' Pension Strikes scheduled for 30th November 2011

The guidance can access from the NGA Website from the link below


Tuesday, 15 November 2011

Directly employing individuals during Industrial Action in Schools

Directly employing individuals

Whilst the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations 2003, prevent a supply agency from supplying teachers employed by the agency to cover absence during industrial action - an employer can directly employ individuals to cover employees on strike.
An employment agency can supply these workers, as long as the employer - such as a school or local authority (LA) - directly employs them.
In employing someone for a day, a school or LA would need to consider:
  • Employment contract - the moment an applicant unconditionally accepts an offer of a job, a contract of employment comes into existence.
    The terms can be oral, written, implied, or a mixture. If no written contract is issued there is a legal obligation to provide the employee with a written statement of employment within two months of the start of their employment.
    In the event of employing someone for one day, it would be advisable to issue a fixed term contract clearly setting out the length of the employment.
  • Pay - the employer needs to tell anyone they employ the day/date they would be paid, and how they will receive payments.
    The employer may need to check with their payroll provider on how to do this.
  • Insurance - Employers Liability Insurance will already be in place, so employers would not need to do anything further.

  • Under the terms of the Teachers Pension Scheme, a teacher employed for only one day would be entitled to the same pension benefits as other employees.
General employment rights would apply.

Monday, 14 November 2011

Using volunteers during Industrial Action in Schools

Using volunteers during Industrial Action in Schools

The arrangements set out in Safeguarding Children and Safer Recruitment in Education allow schools to:
  • Use existing members of the school volunteer workforce - for example, parents who regularly come in to help with reading - the school will have already carried out CRB and other checks.
  • These volunteers could work unsupervised with children during a strike day, just as they may already do if a school allows them to do so.
  • Use volunteers who have a CRB disclosure from another walk of life - for example, as a sports coach or scout group helper.
  • These volunteers could work unsupervised with children, subject to the head teacher or principal carrying out a risk assessment.
    The risk assessment should include factors such as, how recent the CRB disclosure is, the nature and duration of the contact with children, the ages of the children, what other checks can be carried out and what further information is available in assessing suitability. 

Sunday, 13 November 2011

What to do if Head teacher goes on strike

Head teachers taking strike action should delegate their duties to another member of the senior management team.

If the whole senior management team is on strike, the governing body can approach another person to carry out their duties - for example a senior teacher, or a known trusted retired head teacher.
For Academies - the governors or directors of the Academy Trust will decide how, and through whom, it wishes to run the Academy.


Saturday, 12 November 2011

Staff Deployment during Industrial Action in Schools

Staff deployment

Where teachers are employed under the School Teachers Pay and Conditions document, they cannot be compelled to provide cover for other teachers - unless the circumstances are unforeseen.
Provisions within teachers’ terms and conditions, such as ‘rarely cover’, do not, however, prevent head teachers from asking other teachers to cover the classes of those taking industrial action.
Cover supervisors - or teachers who are employed wholly or mainly to provide cover and are not taking industrial action themselves - can be directed to provide cover during industrial action.
The Specified Work Regulations ensure teaching in maintained schools is only provided by those qualified to do so.
However, the Regulations;
  • do not prevent schools from using support staff to provide cover supervision, or oversee alternative activities
  • allow for some teaching assistants - in certain circumstances - to carry out teaching roles
  • apply to Academies through their Funding Agreements - but not to Free Schools.

Friday, 11 November 2011

Advice for handling industrial action in schools

Advice on Industrial Action in Schools


Maintained schools - whilst the governing body has general responsibility for conduct of the school, the decision to open, partially open or to close a school is an operational one, and therefore falls to the head teacher.
Academies - the Academy Trust has overall responsibility for running the school, but in practice the decision to open, partially open or to close a school may be delegated to the head teacher.
It is best practice for head teachers to consult parents and governors before making a decision.
Head teachers normally ask staff in advance, if they intend to strike. This enables them to make an informed decision and plan how to manage the strike.

Recording attendance when schools are closed

Where a school is forced to partially close due to industrial action, sessions for those pupils unable to attend should be marked in the register using the Y code - this will mean it is not counted as a possible attendance.

Health and safety

Under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, the employer in a school must take reasonable steps to ensure staff and pupils are not exposed to risks to their health and safety. This applies to activities on or off school premises.
The Department has recently issued simplified and clearer guidance about health and safety which is available on the Health and safety pages in this section of the website.
Head teachers and Academy Trusts should take account of this guidance in considering how to manage any risks in the arrangements they make to keep schools open.

Thursday, 10 November 2011

Teachers to Strike on 30th November

Teachers, lecturers and leaders in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and non-academic and support staff in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, balloted by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), have voted to strike over plans to cut their pensions. 

1,554 members in Northern Ireland were eligible to vote. Of those in the Northern Ireland Teachers' Superannuation Scheme (NITSS), 43% voted, and of these 69% voted to strike, and 31% voted against. 

Of those in the Northern Ireland Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS), 31% voted, and of these 68% voted to strike, and 32% voted against. 

Of the 416 teachers, lecturers and leaders balloted in Scotland in the Scottish Teachers' Superannuation Scheme (STSS), 23% voted, and of these 71% voted to strike, and 29% voted against. 

Of the 13,032 non-academic and support staff balloted in England and Wales in the Local Government Pensions Scheme, 26% voted, and of these 73% voted to strike, and 27% voted against. 

78,342 teacher, lecturer and leader members of ATL in England and Wales were balloted on the government's plans to change the Teachers' Pension Scheme (TPS) in May and June. Eighty-three per cent of those who returned their ballot papers voted for industrial action, and they took part in the first national strike in ATL's 127-year history on 30 June. 

Despite being encouraged by the government's revised pensions offer last week and its move towards real negotiations, ATL still has major concerns about the proposals. On Saturday (Nov 5), the ATL executive committee voted unanimously for members to go on strike on 30 November on the Trades Union Congress organised day of action. 

The ballot results mean that ATL members from around the UK will be joining colleagues from up to 13 other education unions and other unions taking industrial action on 30 November.