January 2010

last updated:August 2010

Meeting of Executive Committee, 12 January 2010

Summary of work report back from other Committees   
The Chair of the Registration and Regulation Committee referring to a recommendation to improve fee collection, questioned whether it would be worth writing to the teachers school in respect of any deregistration for non payment, where such an address existed; this would be examined.

The Chair of the Policy and Research Committee highlighted the key areas of his paper and the rationale for the recommended change to the terms of reference.

The report back from the Committees was noted.

The recommendation from the Policy and Research Committee regarding revisions to its Terms of Reference were agreed subject to minor textual amendments
 
Interim Proposals for Separation of Functions: 'Who Adjudicates'
The Council Solicitor summarised the key areas of the paper and the appendix, highlighting the proposal to achieve a separation of function and for this to be undertaken in three tranches, the first to take effect from September 2010. Tranche 1 proposed that Executive Committee and Registration and Regulation Committee Members cease undertaking regulatory work by 1 September 2010. The interim proposals were based upon the following assumptions and requirements.  

• Professionally led regulation is a requirement of any change. Judges have acknowledged that disciplinary bodies are in general better able than the courts to assess evidence of professional practice in their respective fields. The courts should afford these bodies a measure of respect. However, they are also ready in appropriate cases and, if necessary, to substitute their own view for that of disciplinary bodies.
• A combination of practising teachers and lay persons are required as Additional Committee Members (ACM). This pool should consist of a majority of practising registered teachers.
• Panel members should be recruited against a set of competencies and skills which demonstrate impartiality and ensure sound and effective decision-making in the interest of the public.
• Recruitment of panel members will ensure credibility and transparency of GTC decision-making in regulatory cases and therefore enable it to evidence its independence.
• In order to effectively formulate regulatory policy a specialist advisory group of Members who adjudicate is required.

To enable the interim proposals within the current governance structure to be achieved there is an existing Council policy decision passed in July 2006 regarding the use of ACM which requires amendment.

Andrew Baxter the Lead Member for this project stated there is an issue concerning  Member perception. The transition to a final model at this stage does not appear to be aligned with the Corporate Governance 2012 programme. He suggested that the Committee support the timing and make up of tranche one for separation for September 2010 but there should be a review of this tranche rather than automatically implementing tranche 2.

There followed a full discussion that can be summarised as follows, including reference to detailed concerns with the interim measures from the Vice Chair of the Committee:-

• Committee reconfirmed their agreement to the principle of separation of the adjudication function from the other work of the Council as approved in October. An example in local government in respect of planning decisions was cited as an argument against separation. The Registrar outlined the likely route for a legal challenge to the current structure. In respect of references to local authorities it was stated that they operate differently from professional regulatory bodies and are mainly governed by councillors elected upon party political lines. These councillors are accountable to constituents. The GTC should be comparing itself to other professional regulators.
• Members expressed the view that Council Members may not fully understand the rationale for proposing this separation of function and noted that there was likely to be a Council motion reviewing the October decision
• There should be  clearer alignment  to the Corporate Governance programme
• Tranche 1 should be reviewed with a view to putting back the timescale for it to be implemented and this should be expressed as a pilot. The suggested date for tranche  one being September 2011 which is the beginning of the next 2 year Committee cycle
• Tranche 2 (Other Service Committee Members ceasing to undertake regulatory work by 1 September 2011 ) and Tranche 3 (complete separation between Council as Governors and Regulators) to be achieved by 1 September 2012 should not be set out at this stage
• Members went through an election process to sit on various Committees in summer 2009.  It would be unfair for some of these Members now to be required to cease sitting as panellists from September 2010. Similarly, members might chose to resign from Committees to focus on regulatory work which may be of risk to the organisation.
• Questions were raised regarding the skills and competencies, training and use of ACM’s.
• The Chair of R&R Committee stated that consideration could be given now to reversing the Council Resolution made in July 2006 limiting the use of ACM’s.

The Committee also discussed proposals for the forthcoming recruitment of Additional Committee Members required to hear the increased number of cases , possible conflicts of interest in the current structure which will need to be addressed and  the importance of the  public interest. Andrew Baxter in conclusion summarised the importance of the Committee reconfirming their support to the principle of separation in order that the Corporate Governance Programme Board can progress its work.

Committee:

• reconfirmed their agreement to the principle of separation of the adjudication function from the other work of the Council as approved by Council in principle in October.
• agreed that in the light of the discussion further work be undertaken on the proposals, including the time scale involved and that the proposals be aligned with the work of the Corporate Governance 2012 programme and reported back to Committee in March 2010.
• asked that an independent review into the value, quality and contribution of the Additional Committee Members to the regulatory role of Council be reported to the next meeting of the Registration and Regulation Committee.

Teacher Learning Academy – Update
Committee received a paper which updated Members regarding progress of the Teacher Learning Academy Gateway Review assessing the current status and direction of the programme and the contract for the delivery of logistics. It provided Members with background information ahead of the Special Governance Group (SGG) meeting on 25th January.

The Committee noted the progress on the Gateway Review, noted the risk management of the current position and the logistics partner contract and that SGG will receive recommendations as to next steps for the TLA on 25 January 2010.In agreeing the recommendations in the paper the Committee also endorsed the Director of Policy’s proposal as regards to any urgent Member level decision that may be required as set out below.

Committee noted

• the progress on the Gateway Review
• the risk management of the current position and the logistics partner contract
• that SGG will receive recommendations as to the future of the TLA on 25 January 2010.

Committee agreed that if any urgent decisions are required that exceed the SGG’s delegated authority,these be taken by the Director of Policy/Chief Executive in consultation with the Chair in accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Corporate Governance

Licence to Practise
The Director of Policy introduced the paper which updated the Committee on progress against the Government’s commitment to introduce a Licence to Practise (LtP) and asked Committee to affirm the Council’s continual commitment to provided independent advice to the department concerning the technical feasibility of this policy. The Director updated the paper following a recent meeting with Senior DCSF Officials (since the paper had been written) from which it appeared that there was a policy move towards a more risk based system. She provided some clarification in terms of the relationship between LtP and the School Teachers Pay and Condition process. 

The Committee were apprised of the possible relationship between LtP and the process for referring cases of serious professional incompetence, the appeals process, the role of moderation, standards for revalidation and noted that the GTCE is shortly to complete its commentary on the DCSF Equalities Impact Assessment, where there were perceived weaknesses.  The Committee received an update on the relationship of LtP to the GTCE register and the particular position regarding newly qualified teachers provisionally completing their induction period.

The Executive Committee affirmed the GTC’s continued commitment to provide independent technical advice to the DCSF and that this advice continues to have regard to the principles for licensing previously affirmed by the Committee. The DCSF commitment to fund the cost of the advice it sought was noted.  Committee also noted a paper entitled, ‘Amended first technical feasibility paper 4/12/09’ which has been sent to the DCSF and subsequent developments and noted the development of the working relationship between the GTC and the DCSF to focus on the technical feasibility of LtP via the establishment of a joint sponsoring group to co-ordinate the DCSF and GTC project teams.

The Director of Communications updated Committee on progress with the second reading of the Children Schools and Families Bill and that the Chief Executive had been called to give evidence to the Children, Schools and Families Bill. Committee noted that a Council Member engagement session on Licence to Practise had been arranged for the afternoon of Council where Council will receive an introduction as to progress, and the Council’s current position. 

Committee:

• affirmed the GTC’s continued commitment to provide independent technical advice to the DCSF and that this advice continues to have regard to the principles for licensing previously affirmed by the Committee
• noted the paper, Amended first technical feasibility paper 4/12/09 which has been sent to the DCSF and subsequent developments
• noted the development of the working relationship between the GTC and the DCSF to focus on the technical feasibility of LtP via the establishment of a sponsoring group and project team.

Corporate Governance 2012 
The Committee received a paper which provided an update on the Corporate Governance 2012 programme following the Council discussion in October, the Executive Committee workshop in November, and the first two meetings of the Corporate Governance Programme Board. Committee were informed that the Programme Board are of the view that it cannot satisfactorily progress its work programme, as mandated by Council, until it has been given a clear decision in principle regarding where the responsibility for the Corporate Governance of the GTCE should lie. John Adams Co Lead Member for Corporate Governance updated the Committee on the work of the Board and the rationale for the recommendation in the paper.

The Committee received an appendix setting out a chronology of Governance Reform for information.  The Executive Committee were asked to consider recommending to Council the decision in principle that from 1 September 2012 a governing body of 12-15 Members be put in place, that is accountable to Parliament and holds sovereignty for the Council’s functions in place of the existing constitutional arrangements.

 The Committee were unwilling to prepare a recommendation to Council in January regarding the principle of sovereignty in the absence of any defined models but recognised that the Programme board had to be given a steer. Some concerns were expressed at the messages emerging from the October Council Stakeholder session where it was clear that further education on governance issues was required.  In response the Chief Executive reminded Members of previous discussions around Governance reform within the Council as set out in the appendix. Committee noted that a definition of the fiduciary role of the governing body had been the subject of discussion by the Board as well as the Committee and a definitive version is being prepared for the Board meeting in February.

A Member identified the following key components in determining sovereignty: Accountability /Fiduciary duty / representative nature / public confidence / effective exercise of power through delegation / scrutiny of the executive and strategic direction in terms of teaching and learning.

The Committee asked the Programme board to report back to the March meeting with a series of models recognising that the Council could be vulnerable if not seen to progress Governance reform.  An amendment was made to the Committee recommendations in terms of the Committee agreeing that the principle of sovereignty should be tested and this is set out below.
 
Committee:

• affirmed that, to meet its principal aims and to discharge its functions, the GTCE believes that its status as a public corporation should not be changed
• agreed that in order to test the principle that the sovereignty and decision making of the Council from 1 September 2012 is vested in a single governing body of between 12 and 15 members, accountable through the Accounting Officer to Parliament for the affairs of the GTCE and operating in the public interest to govern the GTCE’s functions (as set out in the 1998 Teaching and Higher Education Act (THEA) and subsequently amended by the Education Act 2002)

The Corporate Governance Programme Board are asked to report back to the Committee’s March meeting with a series of options and relative merits for consideration at March Council,  in order to explore how the Council might establish a range of advisory and consultative means to engage the profession, stakeholders and the public; to commission professionally-led regulatory / adjudication functions, and to meet its duty to advise the Secretary of State and public bodies on matters relating to improving standards of teaching and learning in England.

Annual Business Plan 2010-11
This paper presented by the Director of Communications provided a corporate level business plan setting out major areas of planned activity for the 2010/11 financial year and was considered in conjunction with the draft budget.

Executive Committee approved the business plan for 2010 – 2011.

ICT 2015 Procurement and Implementation of ICT Managed Services for GTC
The Director of Corporate Services introduced the paper on the developments with this project since the November meeting and highlighted the rationale for the paper’s recommendations summarising the advantages and the disadvantages.  Committee noted that a three year break clause would be installed in the contract.

Committee:

• agreed in principle a five year contract with SCC for the provision of managed ICT services to the GTC to run from 1st April 2010 (para 4.7 refers); this to be subject to further negotiations
• agreed to delegate final approval to the Chair, on recommendation from the Director, prior to the next Executive Meeting on 16th March 2010; enabling contractual documentation to be completed prior to current contract expiry on March 31st 2010.