Coronavirus - Message From The General Secretary - EIS Teachers Union

17th March 2020

Message from the General Secretary

Colleagues,

Firstly, apologies as this may be a slightly longer message than normal for an e-bulletin but I am keen to give you some background on the discussions around the impact of the Coronavirus and an update as to where we are now.

Clearly the Institute seeks to prioritise the welfare of our members and of the children, young people and students whom we teach, but as a major voice in civic society we are mindful of the importance of being part of a communal approach to addressing the significant challenge that Scotland faces at the moment.

This time last week, the advice being offered was for self-isolation for colds and coughs and any suspected coronavirus symptoms, but beyond that much of daily life was to continue as normal. Following the UK Government's COBRA meeting on Thursday, and in the context of international reports, the level of concern and pace of response have risen rapidly and we now have major events being cancelled and a degree of panic emerging as evidenced by empty supermarket shelves.

Throughout the course of last week, we were engaged in a number of discussions about likely scenarios. Our starting point has been to support the Health guidance being issued, to be guided by the scientific evidence, and to work cooperatively with other partners.

To this end we worked within the SNCT to update a previous agreement on coping with the swine flu pandemic, to ensure that it could be applied to dealing with the coronavirus in situations where schools remained open.

We had hoped to issue notice of this on Friday of last week, alongside the rest of this bulletin, but we were awaiting sign off from COSLA which unfortunately didn't come. The apparent reason for COSLA refusing to confirm the agreement it had been party to drawing up was that the COSLA Leaders' group thought it was too restrictive and that they wanted its workforce to be more "nimble".

COSLA's position was a late shock which delayed the planned email to members. I am able to report that the situation has been rectified and the agreement has now been published and is available here. See http://www.snct.org.uk/library/2711/SNCT%2020-74.pdf

To be clear the terms of the agreement are based on contractual obligations and are designed to clarify responsibilities and duties where a school remains open (they do not include closure scenarios, which I refer to below).

For example, normally you would not be allowed to put two register groups together where the total number of pupils on the both registers exceeds the maxima. In a pandemic crisis situation an emergency and temporary arrangement would allow two groups to be together as long as the total number of pupils actually present did not exceed the class size maxima for that stage. This was part of the previous pandemic advice - agreed by all unions and both SG and COSLA.

The agreement also covers the situation where if a teacher is redeployed to another school because their base school is closed (something that the employer is legally able to do) then additional travel costs and time require to be added in.

What is also clear in the agreement is that anything over and above normal duties, e.g. preparing home packs, is voluntary in nature and teachers cannot be instructed to prepare these at the whim of the employer or without time being identified to do so.

We also explicitly rejected the notion of teachers being required to run extra classes - twilight and weekend – to support continuity of learning.

You will perhaps pick up from these examples, that contrary what you may have read in the media, these measures are designed to protect teachers.

With regard to school closures, there are two different scenarios.

The EIS is clear that where pupils, students, or staff have been identified as carrying the Covid 19 virus, the school, or college or University, should be closed and a deep clean enacted. In our view the closure should not be simply to accommodate the deep clean but should factor in the necessary period for self-isolation to happen e.g. a minimum of seven days.

There may be a need to advise particular pupils, students, or staff to self-isolate for longer than that if close contact with a carrier is evident.

On the broader issue of general school closures, the existing advice from Scottish Government, based on their scientific evidence, is that closing schools at the moment would have little impact as we are still in the early stages of the pandemic. It may be required, however, post Easter, or even sooner, depending on the rapidity of the spread or possibly, more critically, the availability of staff.

I am aware that members may have different views on the efficacy of this position, especially as other countries such as Ireland have taken a different view. Frankly, the Institute does not have the scientific expertise to contradict the view of Scottish Government but I have written to the Deputy First Minister to ask that Scottish Government make public the nature of the scientific advice they have received, so that there is full transparency about the approach being taken.

I suspect that general closures will be required as the pandemic reaches its peak. Prior to that there are key issues to be planned for e.g. how will pupils who rely on school meals be able to access such a critical lifeline?

This is the type of issue that the EIS continues to be involved in discussing.

For example, we have had discussions with the GTCS to ensure that in the event of students and probationers being impacted by closure decisions, steps will be taken to ensure that they are not disadvantaged in relation to completing their courses.

We are seeking, also, through the SNCT, school sector agreement around a number of employment issues which have arisen to avoid variation from one council to another (we are in the process of developing an FAQ section on the website which can be found here.).

One question which has been raised, for example, is around members with underlying health conditions or dependent family members with the same. Pending an agreement on this, we are advising members in this situation that they should ask for a risk assessment to be carried out at school level and for appropriate adjustments to then be put in place. This may involve remote working, but at the moment there is no guarantee that if members choose to self-isolate as a precaution rather than as a result of displaying symptoms, that the employer will treat that as valid self-certification.

The general principles of the above apply across all sectors but both higher and further education have specific contexts, also.

Most universities have ended face to face teaching and moved to online platforms. This is perhaps more straight forward in this sector as such a platform is already employed by most institutions but the ULA Executive will be looking at a range of other contractual issues that need to be addressed with each University as they are all unique employers.

In the College sector we have been pursuing headline agreements with the Employers' body, although each college is also a stand-alone employer, and we hope to be able to issue sector specific advice later this week.

I began by stating the importance of looking after the interests and welfare of members and I hope this communication has reassured you that whilst we do not necessarily have all the answers as yet the Institute is certainly asking the questions and seeking to ensure that best practice is the norm.

May I end by saying that EIS staff at all levels are facing many of the same uncertainties and worries as members. I trust that members will understand that if it is impossible to resolve a query it is because of the uncertainty of the situation, not through any lack of effort on the part of staff.

Finally, a reminder that the latest advice is available on the EIS website, which is updated regularly. Further e-bulletins will be issued as required.