All policies had been added to the portal. Directors were asked for comments of substance that needed discussion and clarification, it was agreed that typos etc would be sent through via email.
Draft pay policy 19/20
Q: How are we differentiating between lower experienced staff and more senior or experienced staff? Is there an expectation that more experienced should perform better, and if so, how do we measure it?
A discussion took place on the process, and that BD monitors staff performance regularly. Targets are set, and these are relevant for the experience and seniority of staff.
Q: Are we getting value for money from higher paid staff?
A discussion took place on the role of the Pay Committee, and how non-educationalists find it difficult to question and challenge what is being recommended.
BD explained the process and that she RAG rates staff throughout the year. She offered to provide an anonymised RAG rated version for Directors to see.
Action: BD to provide anonymised RAG ratings of PM.
Action: To ensure that future Pay Committees has at least one educationalist Director on it. DS to amend the Pay Committee constitution to reflect this.
Chairs of Academy Committees are now involved in the HOS performance management - and this should be reflected within the policy.
Action: Add in the role of the AC chairs
A discussion took place on the ranges of the EHT and HOS. It was acknowledged that these were established before there were national benchmarks. It is recognised that HOS have less responsibilities due to a EHT being in post.
Salary bands and ranges for the EHT and HOS are determined on the pupil numbers and school size. The EHT does not set the range for that role. This was set by a Pay Committee.
Q: Do we need to state this in the policy?
Action: to add in to the policy that they ranges are set using benchmarks and pupil numbers
It was agreed that the EHT should have a role in setting the range for HOS. Concern was raised that there is a big gap between the top of HOS and the EHT - this means that there is no career progression.
It was noted that the policy says that the range for HOS should be consistent across the whole trust.
Q: Is this right? Surely different size schools have different ranges? What if a large school joins?
Outcome: The Board did not approve the policy, and asked that more work be done to research the ranges for HOS using benchmarks from similar MATs
Q: On page 2 what is the connections between safeguarding and pay?
R: Safeguarding in this policy means protected salary, so should say TUPE - will change to reflect this
Action: Research will be undertaken and policy re-drafted to reflect this, and brought back to a future meeting of the Board.
SEN policy 19/20
This was a new policy that had been created by the SENCO. As Directors had not had a great deal of time to read and digest this policy, they were asked to email comments through by the end of the first week back (10th January). The policy will then be changed and brought back to the February meeting. It will also be aligned with the RLLAT policy headings.
Accessibility policy and plan 19/20
Again Directors were asked to send their comments through by the 10th January
A couple of comments were made that need clarification:
- Wording on page 2 - mental health conditions that are ‘clinically well recognised’ should this say diagnosed?
- Annual report to parents, does this mean the AGM
- Some dates refer back and are not consistent
Action: BD to double check, and include any further comments received by the 10th January.