You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I know there are some knowledgeable folk on here who might be able to point us in right direction so ...
Eldest has recently quit her job as TA to move to new school within walking distance, starting in sept. She has just had notice that she has to repay recent training course cost of £850 ! she is understandably gutted. I have been through her original contract no clause about this type of thing, under/overpayment clause doesnt sound suitable. Is this a typical practise. initial thoughts are.
query with HR 'can we see agreement that covers this'( please)
raise grievance as still employed at the trust
request payment plan as a big hit to her. if all else fails
thanks in advance
Union?
It's a very common practice to have to pay for training if you leave within a certain time. That said it would need to be documented and either in the contract or in the training paperwork
Typically, when I've received high value training, I've had to sign an agreement that lays out a sliding scale of time and repayment.
Without that, I don't see what grounds they have.
Did she sign stuff specific to the course and does she have/ can you get a copy.
fyi - every time I did an expensive course I had to sign a 2 year pro rata payback from course date agreement. (*private sector, computing consultancy)
We have a repayment process for expensive courses.
Luckily all of mine have been refresher training and I've never had to sign anything.
The trainees have for their initial training though. Over a few years with a decreasing amount per annum.
Also, is she moving within the same Local Authority Ed Dept, or from one LA to another? If the former, it seems a little harsh, although I do appreciate each school is more responsible for their own budget than formerly was the case.
Edit... Just spotted the line that says she's still at the same trust. Hmm, i stand by my first comment at that rate.
It always astonishes me* how headteachers, as shapers of young minds, can be soooo small minded and petty. She must have upset someone in SLT with her grand ideas and they are sticking it to her
We do have this at work for courses that cost more than £2000. There is a contract, with a sliding scale so all parties know where they stand.
* no it doesn't
I work in teaching but haven’t come across this. If it’s within the same trust then it’s really crazy. I’d be talking to:
Her union. TA and teachers really need a professional body for protection. If she joins now they might still help
HR and or the head at the school she is leaving
HR and or the head at the school she is moving to
Some one at the Trust
Presumably she has given adequate notice and is leaving at the end of the academic year
these quasi privitised schools do not have to follow LA rules IIRC and are notorious for sharp employment practices
There isn't anything in my contract about it, but HR tried to impose it via a letter a couple of years ago. I'd be fine if it were for a college course or something very transferrable, but it was 3 days for some very specific software / equipment where the nearest other company that uses it is 150 miles away. As it was basically for the companies benefit we just refused and they gave in after a short stand off.
So I'd be asking what was in writing before going, and who instigated / benefitted from the course.
I thought there were rules about notifying for deductions from pay, and I don't think saying its in the small print of employment contract etc cuts the mustard, although it isn't something I would be really confident in raising up without further advice/research. I think if not in a union, ACAS used to have quite a lot of decent information on their website, or CAB might be able to advise (if they still exist).
TUC site has info on stuff like this as well
I read the 'as still at the Trust' as being that she's still employed currently, so can still raise a grievance with them, rather than that she was moving to another school in the same trust. I could be wrong. But if the latter, that seems quite petty and maybe the Trust can arrange school 2 to reimburse.
But as for the
It always astonishes me* how headteachers, as shapers of young minds, can be soooo small minded and petty. She must have upset someone in SLT with her grand ideas and they are sticking it to her
We do have this at work for courses that cost more than £2000. There is a contract, with a sliding scale so all parties know where they stand.
My wife works at an academy trust school, and right now finances are so tight that £850 on a course they get no benefit from buys a whole load of stuff they'd have spent it on in preference if they'd known. I still agree it should be clear in the contract that that was what was expected, and if there isn't (as OP said) and there's not some kind of document supplied and agreed to as part of provision of training then I'd be determinedly chasing for it back.
It's shit for someone, school(kids) or her. Training co won't be offering refunds, obvs.
Join the/a union immediately. IME, without exception, HR departments in MATs exist purely so that the trust can stitch people up to the letter of the law - mostly egged on by the Business Manager. Head Teacher/CEO of the trust is probably the best initial point of contact as they are generally more reasonable human beings.
academy trust school, and right now finances are so tight
Bollocks (mostly) . Generally MATs are loaded and the CEOs command £200k+ salaries. The ones with no money are badly managed.
Bollocks to you too.
She'd assure you that at the level of paying for books and consumables they're a long way from loaded. Her hours are looking like being cut at the end of the year. They have just spent a chunk of their PTA money on uniform for kids from disadvantaged families, buying up a job load of trousers from the Sally Army, which had been earmarked for improvements but needs must. The drama department is losing a teacher next week......
Badly managed, overpaid CEOs, maybe....doesn't escape the fact £850 spent on training that they get no benefit from would do quite a lot.
I can see it both ways. Schools often have a training budget that is laughably small by commercial standards - like £20k for the whole staff of a secondary school staff of 200 kind of small. It's quite common to go 10 years between anything being spent on you beyond the beginning of term in house insets. £800 will have meant lots of other people got 'sorry no's to their requests. And I've had (in education) blurb on training course requests proformas that said what percentage I'd be responsible for if I left before x number of months/years in the small print.
But on a TA's pay that is a huge lump to take out. I'd be wanting pointing out where she missed the expectation to pay it back.
One alternative approach......assuming the course made her more attractive an employee to her new school - has she considered approaching them to see if they will take the hit on their training budget. A good TA is hard to find and it's her moving to them that's caused the issue. Shame she didn't clock this was going to be a problem at the accepting the job negotiation stage.
doesn't escape the fact £850 spent on training that they get no benefit from would do quite a lot.
I would also question the legality of a "contract" to pay back work based training costs, it sounds like a barrier to the free movement employment. Companies often pull this kind of shit because they know it probably won't be challenged rather than because it is legal, and they know most people will just begrudgingly accept it and move on with their lives, but IANAL.
Companies often pull this kind of shit because they know it probably won't be challenged rather than because it is legal
Exactly - classic HR department egged on by the Business Manager tactics there.
The drama department is losing a teacher next week......
I'll bet my pension that the CEO hasn't taken a pay cut though...
Perfectly legal as long as agreed to. The bit I find interesting is that even mandatory training can be deducted; if like many on here being sent on 'pointless' training is the bane of your life, to find you then have to pay the cost back is really a kick in the balls
https://www.acas.org.uk/final-pay-when-someone-leaves-a-job/deductions-for-training-courses
However has to be agreed and (interesting reading) does it take her earnings below minimum wage if the training was mandatory?
It is eye watering, but as you and the article says the gap between CEO pay and the day to day school finance situation is two different things.
https://schoolsweek.co.uk/revealed-the-academy-ceo-pay-premium/
I'll bet my pension that the CEO hasn't taken a pay cut though...
9% of CEO's received less pay.... your pension may not be as safe as you think 😉 I'll send you my bank details
It’s critical to establish if this is either in her employment contract or was explicitly agreed to prior to starting the training.
Also worth exploring if the deduction has dropped her below minimum wage, that could be a pretty serious angle to challenge on.
The link to ACAS above is good, and it was them that I spoke to when this happened to me. If she has already left at the time she was paid then, from what I remember, there's actually no contract between them so they can't take money out without it being in the original contract or agreed in advance.
If she is not in a union, I'd speak to ACAS first (they're very helpful) and let her former employer know that's what she's doing as that often gives them a kick to solve the problem without any further intervention.
My wife works at an academy trust school, and right now finances are so tight that £850 on a course they get no benefit from buys a whole load of stuff they'd have spent it on in preference if they'd known.
Yes money is tight in schools. But the state sector is all paid for by the government. So if you get training at one school and then move to another school then the government hasn’t wasted any money. We employe teachers with great skills which they got else where. We also have teachers with great skills who leave and take them with them.
In part this shows how ridiculous the dividing up of schools into seperate entities has been
Had she left the sectuer consider this. Do we ask surgeons to pay back their training costs when they emigrate or go completely private? Trust me the university fees current didn’t touch the sides
I've been teaching since 2004.
I've never heard of anyone being asked to pay back anything when the leave.
If it's not in her contract, I'd be quite militant about it.
The whole academy structure just feels like a pointlessly imposed level of school management that sucks huge amounts of cash from the education sector whilst delivering nothing of benefit to the schools at the coalface.
When I've done expensive training at work before, I've had to sign a thing saying if I leave in a year I have to pay, or it might have been pay 75% and then a bit less if I leave after 18 months or whatever, but there was a written agreement.
So basicaly unless youve explicitly agreed something, it's just free on the job training?
If they are asking it back from you, you're already on the front foot... they say you owe it, you say "according to what contract clause/agreement?" and just leave it at that.
If it's not in her contract, I'd be quite militant about it.
The whole academy structure just feels like a pointlessly imposed level of school management that sucks huge amounts of cash from the education sector whilst delivering nothing of benefit to the schools at the coalface.
correct. also to weaken LA education depts
https://www.tuc.org.uk/guidance/can-my-employer-make-deductions-my-pay
If its not agreed to then its illegal.
I've never heard of anyone being asked to pay back anything when the leave.
I have. Twice. Both quite big ticket items though. One was someone doing a counselling course and the other was someone getting some assistance towards a masters.
OP has not been back for a while. My money is on the OP's daughter having put their squiggle on the application for training funding and either not reading, not appreciating or forgetting there was some blub about paying back in there (or reference to being expected to read the staff handbook where it's fleshed out in full before signing).
As a union member, the "join a union now" comments rankle. It's like taking out insurance after the event and still claiming.