NAHT
Call us: 0300 30 30 333
Home Menu

Frequently asked questions

 
FAQs icon.jpg

Find the answers to the questions we get asked the most by our members on popular advice topics. 

 

Minimum service levels in education survey – guide answers

Below we have provided some bullet point answers to the government’s survey on minimum service levels (MSLs) in education.

Please note that this wording is suggested. We would encourage members to use this as a guide but to adapt answers for their own specific circumstances. If the government receives a high volume of duplicate responses, it may discount individual submissions. To ensure we have a strong diverse response base, please do adapt the answers as you see fit.

The introduction of MSLs in education is a hostile act and an attack on the basic democratic freedoms of school leaders and teachers, we are asking all members to respond robustly to the survey, which can be accessed at this link: https://consult.education.gov.uk/industrial-action/minimum-service-levels-mls-in-education/.

The numbers below match the questions in the survey.

 

1. Do you agree or disagree that an education MSL should apply consistently across England, Scotland, and Wales?

Disagree.

  • MSLs should not apply at all as they are draconian, unnecessary and unworkable.
  • As education is devolved across Wales and Scotland, a one-size-fits-all approach to the application of any policy affecting education workers across Great Britain will not work. 
  • For Wales: legislation that cuts across the devolved mechanisms would undermine social partnership legislation in Wales, thereby undermining existing negotiating mechanisms and union recognition agreements.
  • For Wales: the Welsh government has publicly stated its strong dissent to the MSL proposals and the Welsh Local Government Association executive board has committed to making every effort to avoid work notices being issued, this position must be adhered to.

2. Do you agree with the settings proposed to be in and out of scope?

Disagree.

  • The consultation claims: ‘This legislation is intended to provide new tools to reduce any disproportionate impacts during strikes, not to prevent unions or individuals from taking industrial action.’ However, the proposals do precisely that, as 100% of school settings would be required to remain open with the majority of pupils in attendance, therefore preventing most school staff from taking strike action.
  • The right to strike is a fundamental internationally recognised democratic liberty that is vital for the balance of power in the workplace. The proposal effectively removes this right from the vast majority of workers therefore removing their ability to challenge unfair and devaluing terms of employment.

Back to top.

3. Do you agree with the design principles for the MSL?

Disagree.

  • The list of those ‘who could be named in a work notice’ includes virtually all school staff completely undermining strike action. The government claims it has tried to balance the right to strike with children’s right to an education. There appear to be no such attempts to achieve any balance whatsoever. It is absurd to describe this as a ‘minimum’ service level.
  • The consultation suggests that those named in a work notice could include head teachers or principals, given that most schools only have one such post – this effectively removes the head teacher’s right to strike.
  • In reality, the profession already observes its own voluntary minimum service levels – as we have seen ambulance drivers, nurses and doctors do, too.
  • Giving the responsibility of who should determine appropriate staffing levels to deliver an MSL to head teachers will undermine workplace relations and put school leaders in an impossible position. Equally, giving the responsibility to employers of deciding which and how many workers are identified in a work notice to deliver the MSL undermines employer-employee relations.
  • The more significant disruption to education is in the underfunding of our schools and the chronic devaluing of the profession as we have seen from the current government.
  • This purposefully shifts blame away from government and into the workplace, when it is the government's devaluing of the profession that has led to the dispute.
  • There is no mention of how to appeal workplace notices or any means of independently overseeing any disputes that may arise.

Back to top.

4. Do you agree with the approach to remote education?

Disagree.

  • Given the percentage of children the government is proposing should be in school, it would be simply impossible to also provide remote education.
  • The planning, preparation and effective delivery of remote education is as time consuming and as resource intensive as classroom teaching,
  • Once again, it is clear that the government is effectively aiming to prevent almost all school staff being able to take strike action.

Back to top.

5. What are the challenges around delivering remote education on strike days? Please outline any challenges of delivering remote education on strike days.

  • Remote education cannot be delivered on strike days; running remote education, ie uploading lessons, giving feedback, etc, requires teachers to be working – something they would not be doing if taking strike action.
  • Back to top.

6. Are you responding with an interest in...

Complete as appropriate.

Back to top.

7. Do you agree with the vulnerable children and young people groups identified?

Disagree.

  • The groups of pupils that have been identified are reasonably seen as being vulnerable. However, it is not helpful to look at this list in isolation, the impact of having all vulnerable, critical worker and exam groups in school must be considered.
  • Schools would already maintain safeguarding commitments and work with local social care providers to ensure that these needs are covered as has been done during previous industrial action.
  • What the government should be considering is why so many more pupils are now classified as vulnerable than previously. The underinvestment in education and the teaching profession and SEN support will have a far greater and long-lasting impact that strike days.

Back to top.

8. What impacts on a) their welfare and wellbeing and b) attainment does missing a day or more of school or college due to strike action have on vulnerable children and young people?

  • This leading question is clearly deliberately designed to illicit answers so the government can justify this draconian legislation. Nobody wants pupils missing school. However, the bigger impact on a vulnerable child’s well-being and attainment is the chronic underfunding of education and support services for vulnerable children and the devaluing of the education profession.
  • The underinvestment in social care and chronic rates of poverty perpetuated by the current government will have a far greater impact on pupil attendance than strikes.

Back to top.

9. What impacts have strikes had on exam delivery and/or students’ preparation for exams and assessments?

  • Please describe the impacts strikes had on exam delivery and/or students' preparation for exams and assessments.
  • There is no evidence that strikes have had any impact on exam delivery and/or students’ preparation for exams and assessments to date.
  • The underinvestment in education and teaching professionals will have a far greater and long-lasting impact on exam delivery and/or students’ preparation than any strike days.

Back to top.

10. Do you agree with the proposal for exam groups?

Disagree.

  • While no one wants disruption for cohorts with exams timetabled on a strike day or facing imminent exams, schools already make informed and careful decisions about supporting such cohorts during strike days. We see no strong evidence that MSLs will help school leaders in this situation.
  • We disagree with the example that a pupil who has an exam in May should be automatically exempt from a strike day in October.

Back to top.

11. Which exam year students should be prioritised for attendance on strike days (please tick all that apply)?

Other.

  • See above.

Back to top.

12. Do you agree with the proposed list of critical workers?

No preference.

  • This is unnecessary; education unions have taken a responsible approach to strikes and have not facilitated jeopardy of critical services, we would advise members to state they are abstaining from this question.

Back to top.

13. Do you agree that, in two-parent households, both parents should be critical workers in order for a child to be in scope?

No preference.

  • We would advise members to state that they are abstaining from this question in the text box, citing the above response to question 12.

Back to top.

14. Do you agree that children of critical workers up to, and including, year 7 only should be in scope? (Required; agree/disagree - please provide detail to support your response).

No preference.

  • We would advise members to state that they are abstaining from this question in the text box, citing the above response to question 12.

Back to top.

15. (For critical worker respondents only) How easy is it to arrange alternative childcare on school strike days?

Not applicable.

  • This is another highly leading question, designed to elicit a desired response.
  • Schools of course recognise the challenges critical workers face arranging childcare on any day of the year (school staff themselves are critical workers and so know the challenges from first-hand experience). However, there is no sense in singling out strike days here – for example, what is the government proposing to do to help parents arrange childcare when their children are too unwell to attend school?
  • Furthermore, there is no evidence that critical services were disrupted due to recent industrial action in school.

Back to top.

16. Do you agree with the three priority cohorts proposed?

Disagree.

  • People should not feel obliged to indicate a preference for either option or to comment on the appropriateness of cohorts. Instead, this is an opportunity to say that this whole consultation represents an attack on workers’ rights to take strike action.

Back to top.

17. What would need to be in place to deliver this proposal? Please consider the number of pupils and students that would be covered by this MSL proposal, how many members of staff you would need and any other delivery considerations when answering this question.

  • This question demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how schools operate. Given that in many schools, this list could well constitute over 50% of the school population, schools would almost certainly require a large number of staff to attend. Once again, this demonstrates that this is really designed to prevent staff taking strike action. The proposals are completely unworkable and ill-thought through.

Back to top.

18. What is your experience of the impacts of strikes on children aged 4-7 (KS1)? If not applicable, please specify 'not applicable' in the box. Your experience of the impacts of strikes on children aged 4-11 (required)

  • There has been no clear evidence of detriment to children aged four to seven due to strike action. This is an opportunity to reiterate that cuts to education and chronic underfunding are the things that have had a really negative impact.

Back to top.

19. What is your experience of the impacts of strikes on children aged 7-11 (KS2)? If not applicable, please specify 'not applicable' in the box. (Experience of impact on KS2, required)

  • Members may wish to use this box as an opportunity to point out the absurdity of a minimum service level where 100% of primary pupils attend school and the impact this would have on primary school staff’s ability to take strike action.
  • There has been no clear evidence of detriment to children aged seven to 11 due to strike action. This is a further opportunity to reiterate that cuts to education and chronic underfunding are the things that have had a really negative impact.

Back to top.

20. What would need to be in place to deliver this proposal? (Please consider the number of pupils that would be covered by this MSL proposal, how many members of staff you would need, and any other delivery considerations when answering this question). If you answered yes, please expand. (Required).

  • Members may wish to raise that it is deeply worrying that the government doesn’t know what proportion of staff would need to be available if 100% of pupils in a primary school attended.
  • Members may also wish to reiterate the impact this proposal would have on the government’s claim that they are looking to balance the right to strike with children’s rights to attend school.

Back to top.

21. Do you prefer proposal 1 or proposal 2?

Neither.

  • Both are deeply flawed, unnecessary and potentially counter-productive.
  • They have not been developed with educational professionals or unions.

Back to top.

22. Do you agree with the use of rotas in schools and colleges during prolonged strike action?

Disagree.

  • There have been no extended periods of strike action lasting five consecutive school days, nor or any such strikes planned.
  • We would urge the government to halt this consultation and enter negotiations with unions to avert any such scenarios.

Back to top.

23. In relation to the use of rotas, do you think that five consecutive days of strike action is the right period of time at which to implement rotas?

Other.

  • There should not be a prescribed amount of time; this scenario has not happened before, nor is it planned, so a proscribed amount of time cannot be provided.

Back to top.

24. (For employer respondents) What number or proportion of your workforce would be required in your setting to deliver these options? Please provide information on the types of staff and roles required.

  • Given that some schools have a much higher proportion of SEND, vulnerable and critical worker children than others, this approach is effectively discriminating against the staff working in those schools, making it even harder for them to take legitimate strike action. Quite obviously, there cannot be a prescribed number of staff and their roles, each school setting will have a different set of circumstances.
  • The government must ensure negotiations with unions continue and that the situation is closely monitored and informed by education professionals.

Proposal 2:

  • The government knows full well the absurdity of this question – it is frankly ridiculous to ask a primary school leader what proportion of staff would be required in school if 100% of pupils are in attendance.
  • The government must ensure negotiations with unions continue and that the situation is closely monitored and informed by education professionals.

Back to top.

49. Are there groups of people, such as (but not limited to) those with particular protected characteristics, who would particularly benefit from the proposed minimum service levels for education services?

  • No, minimum service levels in the education sector are not beneficial, the proposals are unnecessary and unworkable.

Back to top.

50. Are there particular groups of people, such as those with protected particular characteristics, who would be particularly negatively affected by the proposed minimum service levels for education services?

  • Yes, education workers are disproportionately female and therefore more women than men are likely to be subjected to work notices.
  • School leaders are disproportionately older workers and as workers in positions of leadership and responsibility are disproportionately likely to be selected for work notices there may also be a specific negative impact on older workers.
  • Removing the democratic right of education workers to participate in strike action negatively and disproportionately impacts the ability of women and older people to exercise their democratic rights and bargain for fairer terms and conditions.
  • It is essential that a full equality impact assessment is undertaken and consulted upon in order to assess all negative implications of the proposal.

Back to top.

 

First published 05 December 2023
;