Capability - NASUWT

Teacher capability/competence
A review of the evidence
NASUWT
The Teachers’ Union
The largest teachers’ union in the UK

Background
In 2010, the issue of capability/competence procedures being used
inappropriately in schools and colleges was highlighted as a major issue by the
NASUWT at its national Annual Conference, based on feedback from members
and representatives. The NASUWT National Executive commissioned research into
the problem to examine the number and type of capability cases and the factors
surrounding the use of capability/competence procedures in schools. 1
Aims and methodology
The research examined:
• the extent to which capability/competence procedures are used;
• the reasons for their use;
• the experiences of teachers in relation to the use of capability/competence
procedures.
This report is based upon a review of evidence regarding the use of
capability/competence procedures in UK schools drawing on the following
datasets:
• cases referred to the General Teaching Councils in England, Northern Ireland,
Scotland and Wales;
• data from local authorities in England;
• data from the NASUWT statistical database.
Additionally, the research also explored the perceptions and experiences of almost
100 teachers who had experience of capability/competence procedures in
schools. This aspect of the research allowed for a consideration of how the
experience of capability/competence procedures was mediated by gender, ethnic
and disability status characteristics.
Teacher capability/competence in context
The problem of capability/competence in schools has been the subject of a great
deal of heated debate, often based on scant empirical evidence. Public interest
in the issue of teacher competence came to prominence in 1995 when Her
Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools, Chris Woodhead, claimed that there were
1 Annex 1: Resolution of NASUWT Annual Conference 2010: Capability Proceedings.
3

around 15,000 incompetent teachers, or around 5% of the teacher workforce,
working in schools. In 2008, Keith Bartley, Chief Executive of the General
Teaching Council for England (GTCE) claimed there were around 17,000
‘substandard’ teachers in classrooms. However, neither claim was backed up by
robust empirical data.
The BBC One Panorama programme 2 broadcast in 2010, using data that
confirmed that 18 teachers had been ‘struck off’ the UK teaching registers in the
last 40 years on grounds of incompetence, 3 argued that this statistic proved that
incompetent teachers are an endemic feature of the UK school system.
The BBC claimed that ‘some bad teachers are moved between schools, rather than
having their competency challenged…they are being given good references in
exchange for agreeing to look for work in alternative schools.’ 4
The BBC went further and argued:
‘Some believe part of the problem lies with headteachers’ unwillingness
to subject those suspected of incompetence to proper competence tests,
referring those found wanting to the GTC.’
However, a report for the GTCE argues strongly that the problem surrounding the
nature and extent of capability issues in schools is rooted in inconsistent
management practices at school level, which deny teachers access to the support
and development they might benefit from and which makes it difficult to reach
hard and fast conclusions about the problem:
‘The study findings strongly suggest that there are a number of
inconsistencies in the way these procedures are interpreted and applied
that may influence whether or not a case reaches the point at which a
referral to the GTC is appropriate and therefore affect the patterns of
referrals to the GTC...At the earliest stage where a concern about a
teacher’s or headteacher’s performance may first be recognised, there are
identified barriers. These are rooted in inconsistencies in schools’ overall
approaches to managing performance…as well as uncertainty about what
constitutes a performance issue, the quality of information used to assess
performance, and the influence of the relationship between the teacher
or headteacher about whose performance there are concerns and senior
2
Panorama, ‘Can I Sack Teacher?’ BBC One, Monday, 5 July 2010 at 2030BST.
3
The BBC data indicate that teachers ‘struck off’ on incompetence grounds by nation were: England – 13;
Wales – 3; Scotland – 2; Northern Ireland – 0. (www.bbc.co.uk/news/10464617 Accessed March 2010).
4
www.bbc.co.uk/news/10464617 Accessed March 2010.
4

staff/governors. Where performance issues are identified, there is variation
in the types of supportive interventions offered by schools and in how
these are received by individuals and differences in the outcomes of these
interventions, specifically, whether or not the performance issue is
successfully addressed and therefore whether or not local capability
procedures are considered.’ 5
The research for the GTCE confirmed that the profile of incompetence case
referrals to the GTCE is not consistent geographically:
Levels of referrals to the GTCE for incompetence 6
(June 2001 to September 2008)
Number of referrals made
Number of local authorities
(N = 150)
Ever referred for incompetence 61
1 35
2 13
3 4
4 3
5 or more 6
Never referred for incompetence 89
Total 150
The NatCen research concludes:
‘The study has…demonstrated that there is considerable variation in the way capability
procedures are interpreted and applied. There are differences in their interpretation
as primarily supportive or disciplinary procedures and in judgements about the extent
to which they are repetitious of action undertaken through the performance
management system. In turn, these interpretations influence the application of the
procedures, which differ in their formality, the information supplied to teachers
throughout, and their overall duration and the length of particular stages.’ 7
5
NatCen (2010) Factors contributing to the referral and non-referral of incompetence cases to the GTC, GTCE,
p70.
6
NatCen (2010) ibid, p79.
7
NatCen (2010) ibid, p71.
5

Understanding teacher competence and capability
Capability and competence procedures exist to provide intensive support and
development for teachers and headteachers/principals who are exhibiting signs
of poor performance. However, there has been a long-standing professional
concern that capability and competence procedures are used inappropriately by
schools, that there is a lack of consistency of practice across all schools and that
the process is loaded against the teacher and used by schools as a means of
getting rid of teachers. Indeed, delegates representing UK teachers at the
NASUWT Annual Conference in 2010 identified an ‘apparent increase in the use
of capability procedures in schools and colleges’ and agreed that ‘external
pressures’ operated as ‘the key drivers’ of this increase. The Union’s Conference
confirmed its view that capability procedures ‘appear to be used as a tool to bully
some teachers, particularly those in the latter stages of their teaching careers.’ 8
Research undertaken on behalf of the Department for Education and Skills (DfES)
in 2002 found that ‘There were divergent views about what constituted a capable
teacher and some concern that differential standards might be operating.’ 9 A
decade later, concerns remain about how well managers in schools recognise,
understand and address capability/competence matters. 10
Employers/governing bodies in England and Wales are required in law 11 to have
procedures to deal with teacher capability and competence issues. Schools in
England must also comply with the Capability procedures for teachers guidance. 12
The statutory guidance provides a model procedure and time limits for the
management of capability procedures, which allow for an upper limit of two terms
for the formal assessment of staff capability. In particularly serious cases,
capability proceedings may be completed in as little as four weeks.
For teachers in England and Wales, a framework of professional standards,
underpinned by statutory provisions in the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions
Document (STPCD), also exists.
8
NASUWT (2010) Conference Resolution: ‘Capability Proceedings’.
9
Manchester School of Management, Research Report No. 312, Best Practice in Undertaking Teacher
Capability Procedures, DfES, London, 2002. www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/
publicationdetail/page1/RR312.
10 NatCen (2010) op cit.
11 The School Staffing (England) Regulations 2009 and the Staffing of Maintained Schools (Wales) Regulations
2006.
12 DfE, Capability procedures for teachers, DfEE, London, 2000.
6

In addition, the four UK General Teaching Councils each have their own codes of
conduct that cover teacher professional competence. 13 Whilst each of the GTC
codes articulates teacher competence and capability in their own way, 14 each
definition centres on the need for:
• quality of teaching practice;
• pupil wellbeing, equality and diversity;
• professionalism and teamwork;
• honesty and integrity;
• upholding public trust and confidence in the teaching profession.
The array of definitions and descriptors of teacher capability makes navigating
this area difficult. For example, in England, 64 professional conduct descriptors
are included in the GTCE Code, notwithstanding the plethora of professional
standards described in the STPCD. This can be a source of considerable confusion
in terms of the debate and management of competence/capability practice.
The use of capability/competence proceedings in schools
(i) GTC data
In England, Scotland and Wales, employers of teachers have a legal obligation to
refer serious cases of teacher incompetence to the relevant GTC where an employer
has ceased to use a teacher’s services on grounds relating to their professional
incompetence or where they might have ceased to use a teacher’s services on such
a ground had the teacher not ceased to provide those services. 15 There is no similar
requirement in Northern Ireland for employers to report cases to the GTCNI.
13 General Teaching Council for England (GTCE), Code of Conduct and Practice for Registered Teachers, GTCE,
Birmingham, 2010. www.gtce.org.uk/documents/publicationpdfs/code_of_conduct_1009.pdf.
General Teaching Council for Wales (GTCW) Code of Professional Conduct and Practice for Registered
Teachers, GTCW, Cardiff, 2010. www.gtcw.org.uk/gtcw/index.php/en/professional-standards/revisedprofessional-code.
General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland (GTCNI), Code of Values and Professional Practice, GTCNI,
Belfast, 2004. www.gtcni.org.uk//index.cfm/area/information/page/codeofvaluesandprofessionalpractice
General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS), Code of Professionalism and Conduct, GTCS, Edinburgh,
2008. www.gtcs.org.uk/copac.
GTCS, Code of Practice on Teacher Competence, Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers (SNCT)
Handbook of Conditions of Service, October 2009. www.snct.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Appendix_2.12
14 See Annex 2 for summary of provisions of UK GTC Codes.
15 The General Teaching Council for England (Disciplinary Functions) Regulations 2001 (as amended).
www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/1268/made.
The General Teaching Council for Wales (Disciplinary Functions) (Amendment) Regulations 2001 (as
amended). www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2001/1424/contents/made.
Teaching Council (Scotland) Act 1965 (as amended). www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1965/19/contents.
7

Data published by the GTCE in September 2010 reveals that, since it began hearing
cases in June 2001, 201 cases have been referred by employers to them for alleged
incompetence, out of which 75 (37%) merited further consideration. Where serious
professional incompetence has been found, the GTCE has issued 13 prohibition orders,
one suspension order, 11 suspension orders with conditions, 26 conditional
registration orders, and six reprimands. The GTCE found in favour of the teacher in
18 (24%) cases, in which there was no finding of serious professional incompetence. 16
Legislation has not yet been brought forward to enable the GTCNI to take
disciplinary action in cases where it is alleged that a registered teacher is guilty of
unacceptable professional conduct or serious professional incompetence. Therefore,
there are no official national-level data on teacher capability/competence.
The General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS) has removed five teachers from
the register on grounds of serious professional incompetence since it began hearing
competence cases in 2007. In 2010, one teacher was removed from the register,
which represents 0.4% of the total of 265 cases referred in that year for all reasons.
The General Teaching Council for Wales (GTCW) has investigated three employerreferred
allegations of serious professional incompetence since it was created in
2000. Cases of professional incompetence represent one per cent of the total
241 cases received for all reasons by the GTCW between summer 2000, when it
started hearing cases, and summer 2010. Two thirds of the total cases received
have led to no action being taken against the registered teacher. However, in over
50 instances, a disciplinary order, ranging from a reprimand to removal from the
teaching register, has been imposed. 17
(ii) Data from employers
In November 2010, the Times Educational Supplement (TES) published articles 18
based on data from the results of Freedom of Information (FOI) Act disclosures
from local authorities in England. 19 The TES data covers 123 of England’s 152
16 GTCE, Joint research on competence referrals: Updated, GTCE, Birmingham, 20 Sep 2010.
www.gtce.org.uk/media_parliament/news_comment/competence_refer250210.
17 GTCW, Teaching Wales, Edition 22, Ten years on: regulating the teaching profession, GTCW, Cardiff, Summer
2010. www.gtcw.org.uk/gtcw/index.php/en/publications/teaching-wales.
18 Maddern, K. TES, TES Investigation, 12 November 2010. www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6063018
Maddern, K. TES, Failing teachers left in post by half LAs, 12 November 2010.
www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6062985.
Wiliam, Prof. D. TES, Bad teachers are not a big problem – but fire the stubborn non-improvers, 12 November
2010. www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6063019.
19 Maddern, K. TES Freedom of Information Act database of capability cases reported by local authorities in
England, provided to the NASUWT on 29 November 2010.
8

local authorities (or 81% of the total), and provides a highly informative picture
of the extent to which employers have identified teacher competence/capability
issues. It is interesting to note, however, that one in five local authorities failed
to provide data in response to the FOI request.
The FOI disclosures made to the TES revealed that 3,633 teachers had been
subject to capability/competence proceedings over a five-year period between
2005 and 2010. Of these:
• 273 (7.5%) had been dismissed or had left the school by mutual consent;
• 151 (4%) had been referred to the GTC;
• 557 (15%) had resigned their posts;
• 19 (0.5%) had moved to a new school; and
• 369 (10%) had improved their performance following competency
proceedings.
The TES evidence confirmed the conclusions reached by the NatCen (2010) report
for the GTCE cited above – namely, there are significant geographical variations
in the use of teacher capability/competence proceedings. The TES results show
that West Sussex launched the highest number of cases, with 409 over the past
five years. However, the TES data indicate that only six of the competency
proceedings initiated by West Sussex resulted in a dismissal and only one case
was referred to the GTCE.
The local authorities recording the lowest number of capability/competence cases
according to the TES evidence were Hampshire, Middlesbrough, Rotherham,
Somerset and Telford, which all reported that just one teacher went through
official proceedings in the last five years. According to the TES evidence, in 59%
of those local authorities responding to the TES FOI request, no teachers had
been dismissed.
The TES research examined the reasons given by local authorities for invoking
competency procedures. The main reasons cited by local authorities were:
• lack of pupil progress;
• unsatisfactory Ofsted inspections (in the case of headteachers);
• poor relationships with children;
• conduct at meetings;
• teachers being unwilling to ‘move with the times’.
9

According to the TES data, the average age of teachers who were dealt with under
capability or competence procedures was 46 years.
A table indicating the number of capability cases disclosed by individual local
authorities who responded to the TES FOI request is presented in Annex 3 of this
report.
(iii)Trade union data
Between 2008 and 2010, the NASUWT provided professional casework support
to 773 teachers in the UK in relation to capability and competence issues. The
Union’s casework database provides further confirmation of the geographical
variability in the use of capability/competence proceedings.
Profile of capability/competence casework
Country No. of cases Percentage (%) of cases
England 533 68.9%
Northern Ireland 1 0.1%
Scotland 234 30.3%
Wales 5 0.7%
The NASUWT database suggests that capability/competence proceedings are
initiated disproportionately with teachers aged over 50 years, who represented
46% of all capability/competence cases dealt with by the Union. Such teachers
comprise around 32% of the UK teacher workforce and only 19% of the NASUWT
membership. 20 10
20 All UK teacher workforce data in this report is based upon the following sources:
GTCE, Annual Digest of Statistics 2009-10 Profiles of Registered Teachers in England August 2010, GTCE,
Birmingham, 2010. www.gtce.org.uk.
GTCNI, Digest of Statistics 2009, GTCNI, Belfast, 2009. www.gtcni.org.uk.
GTCS, Statistical Digest: Autumn 2010, GTCS, Edinburgh, 2010. www.gtcs.org.uk.
GTCW, Annual Statistics Digest March 2010, GTCW, Cardiff, 2010.
www.gtcw.org.uk/gtcw/index.php/en/publications/teacher-statistics.
DfE: School Workforce in England (Table D4: Full-time regular qualified teachers in local authority maintained
schools by sector, grade, age and gender: March 2009), January 2010.
www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000927/index.shtml.

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Capability/competence cases by age group (2008-2010)
46%
32%
28% 26%
22%
22%
18%
6%
30 or under 31 to 40 41 to 50 Over 50
n % of capability/competence case n % of teacher workforce
A disproportionately high number of male teachers in the UK required casework
support from the NASUWT in comparison to women, with two fifths (42%) of
the teachers provided with casework support in capability/competence cases
being male. Men comprise around 34% of the UK teacher workforce 21 and only
28% of the NASUWT membership.
The proportion of capability/competence proceedings initiated for black and
minority ethnic (BME) teachers was 6.5%, broadly in line with the estimated
representation of BME teachers in the UK teacher workforce. 22
The proportion of capability/competence cases involving disabled teachers was
9%, massively disproportionate to the representation of disabled teachers within
the UK teacher workforce (0.3%). 23
Teachers’ experiences of capability/competence procedures
The NASUWT sought the views of teachers who had been subject to
capability/competence proceedings in order to shed light on their perceptions
and experiences. Whilst the sample of teachers who provided feedback was not
intended to be statistically representative, it does raise a number of important
issues for schools’ use of capability/competence processes.
Around half of the teacher sample (47%) felt that they had been threatened with
being placed on capability/competence procedures during their teaching career.
‘The senior management wanted to force me out of the job in order to cut costs.’
Teacher and head of department
21 GTCE, op cit.
22 GTCE, op cit.
23 GTCE, op cit.
11

‘Two long-serving colleagues in my school have been forced out of teaching
in their late 50s by the use of capability procedures leading to long-term
sickness absence leading to dismissal.’
Secondary school teacher
‘The capability procedure was initiated without any formal consultation or
warning. It was effectively management bullying…The Union was very supportive
but in the end I had to resign from my role. The whole process was traumatic.’
Primary school teacher
‘Capability initiated while awaiting surgery for disability-related illness.
Having successfully achieved all targets set (100%), [I] was subjected to
further formal monitoring…However, all further observations/monitoring were
completely successful.’
Disabled teacher
According to teachers themselves, the most common reasons cited by employers
for initiating capability/competence proceedings were:
• performance management outcomes;
• sickness absence;
• professional performance/competence;
• behaviour/class management;
• long or short-term health issues (physical and mental), e.g. menopause, stress,
pregnancy;
• examination results; and
• disability-related (physical or mental).
However, teachers saw the experience of capability/competence proceedings very
differently; they interpreted the actions of their employers as being driven by:
• bullying/harassment;
• staff restructuring/financial imperatives;
• victimisation (following grievances against the school leadership);
• discrimination (particularly on grounds of age, disability and ethnicity).
‘…I had been severely and repeatedly bullied before I was threatened with
capability procedures by external and internal senior managers. It affected
my health detrimentally and my career although I had and have since the
awful experience maintained an impeccable and outstanding track record. I
will never regain that year of my life...’
Secondary school teacher
12

‘Despite successfully achieving 100% of the targets set and maintaining the
achieved standard, I was still subjected to subsequent formal monitoring. This
was contrary to the Performance Monitoring Policy agreed by the LEA and
Union.’
Secondary school teacher
CONCLUSION
The issue of teacher competence has and is likely to remain an issue of continued
interest and debate. However, the veracity of the evidence around the issue has
been limited and there remains a real concern that estimates of the number of
‘incompetent’ teachers remain massively wide of the mark.
The available evidence from a range of sources explored in this Report confirms
that the use of capability/competence proceedings varies between different
geographical areas. The reasons for these statistical variations merits further
examination.
The disproportionate application of capability/competence proceedings in
relation to older teachers, male teachers and disabled teachers is identified
strongly in this review of evidence. The reasons for these differences need to be
better understood. Furthermore, there is some concern that capability/
competence proceedings may be used in some schools to target, victimise or
discriminate against individuals on the grounds of the teacher’s personal
characteristics. This clearly suggests that how school managers understand and
interpret teacher capability/competence may be strongly affected by factors
outside the individual teacher’s control.
Teachers’ perceptions of the negative and inappropriate use of
capability/competence procedures appear to be borne out by this report and this
should raise some concern about how school managers are equipped to manage
and support the performance and competence of employees. The issue of how
school managers are held to account, therefore, for their actions in relation to
the management of capability/competence is likely to be a growing issue for the
future, particularly as more schools seek to acquire greater levels of independence
and autonomy.
13

Annex 1
Resolution of NASUWT Annual Conference 2010
CAPABILITY PROCEEDINGS
Conference notes with alarm the apparent increase in the use of capability
procedures in schools and colleges.
Conference believes that external pressures on schools and colleges are the key
drivers of such an increase.
Conference is concerned that these procedures appear to be used as a tool to
bully some teachers, particularly those in the latter stages of their teaching
careers.
Conference instructs the National Executive to:
i. conduct urgent national research into the number and type of capability
cases;
ii. provide training courses specifically to support casework officers who assist
members undergoing capability procedures;
iii. take appropriate action to support members so affected and the caseworker
officers who advise them and
iv. report the findings to Conference 2011.
14

Annex 2
Summary of UK GTC definitions of teacher competence
England
The General Teaching Council for England (GTCE) Code of Conduct and Practice
for Registered Teachers contains nine core values and 64 conduct descriptors of
the following eight principles for teachers to adhere to:
1. Put the wellbeing, development and progress of children and young people first.
2. Take responsibility for maintaining the quality of their teaching practice.
3. Help children and young people to become confident and successful learners.
4. Demonstrate respect for diversity and promote equality.
5. Strive to establish productive partnerships with parents and carers.
6. Work as part of a whole-school team.
7. Co-operate with other professional colleagues.
8. Demonstrate honesty and integrity and uphold public trust and confidence
in the teaching profession.
Northern Ireland
The General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland (GTCNI) Code of Values and
Professional Practice sets out nine core values which underpin ten dimensions of
professional behaviour which require registered teachers to:
1. maintain professional relationships with pupils/learners;
2. acknowledge and respect the uniqueness, individuality and specific needs of
pupils;
3. aim to motivate and inspire pupils with a view to helping each realise his/her
potential;
4. work with colleagues and others to create a professional community that
supports the social, intellectual, spiritual/moral, emotional and physical
development of pupils;
5. promote collegiality among colleagues;
6. co-operate, where appropriate, with professionals from other agencies in the
interests of pupils;
15

7. ensure that relationships with the parents, guardians or carers of pupils;
8. respect confidential information relating to pupils or colleagues;
9. as reflective practitioners, contribute to the review and revision of policies
and practices; and
10. in keeping with the concept of professional integrity, assume responsibility
for their ongoing professional development.
Scotland
The General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS) Code of Professionalism and
Conduct has 23 conduct descriptors aligned to the following four principles and
values required of all registered teachers in Scotland:
1. Professionalism and maintaining trust in the profession.
2. Professional responsibilities towards pupils.
3. Professional competence – requiring teachers to maintain and develop their
professional knowledge, skills and practice to ensure they continue to meet
the requirements of the Standard for Full Registration.
4. Professionalism towards colleagues and parents.
Wales
The General Teaching Council for Wales (GTCW) Code of Professional Conduct
and Practice for Registered Teachers sets out the key principles of good conduct
and practice for registered teachers in Wales. The Code contains 33 conduct
descriptors aligned to seven key principles of professional conduct and practice
which require registered teachers to:
1. base their relationship with pupils on trust and respect;
2. have regard to the safety and wellbeing of pupils in their care;
3. work in a collaborative manner with teachers and other professionals and
develop and maintain good relationships with parents, guardians and carers;
4. act with honesty and integrity;
5. be sensitive to the need, where appropriate, for confidentiality;
6. take responsibility for maintaining the quality of their professional practice;
and
7. uphold public trust and confidence in the teaching profession.
16

Annex 3
Capability cases by local authority (Source: TES 2010)
LA All cases Referred to
GTCE
West Sussex 409 1
Oldham 393 4
Enfield 153 1
Wiltshire 102 10
Nottinghamshire 89 14
Staffordshire 89 4
East Sussex 87 1
Kent 82 4
Derbyshire 80
Worcestershire 80 4
Bucks 79
Bradford 78 1
Birmingham 72 1
Haringey 66
Cornwall 59 1
Suffolk 59
Bolton 58 1
Leicestershire 56 1
Leicester 56
Blackburn 54 0
Sheffield 52 1
Warrington 51 2
West Berkshire 46 4
Stoke 42 4
Lewisham 41 2
Hertfordshire 38
Doncaster 34 1
Lincolnshire 34 2
Southampton 34 2
Hackney 32
NE Lincolnshire 31 6
Cumbria 29 1
Darlington 29
Leicester * 29 1
Kingston 28
Manchester 28
Northumberland 28
Sandwell 28
Surrey 28 1
North Yorkshire 24 2
Devon 22 4
Halton 22
North Lincolnshire 22 1
Solihull 22
Dudley 21
Medway 20
Coventry 19
Shropshire 19 1
Essex 18 8
Tower Hamlets 18
Cheshire East 17
Gloucestershire 17
Merton 17
Tameside 17 2
Herefordshire 16
Windsor 16 1
Peterborough 15
Redbridge 15 1
South Gloucestershire 15 1
Wakefield 15
Westminster 15
Calderdale 14
Barnet 13 0
Lambeth 13
17

Warwickshire 13 3
Leeds 12 1
North Somerset 12
Bury 11
Harrow 11
Havering 11 1
Blackpool 10
Lancashire 10 2
Plymouth 10
Newcastle 10 1
Rochdale 10
Stockton 10
Wirral 10
East Riding 9 2
Liverpool 9
Ealing 8
Hartlepool 8
Bracknell 7 1
Greenwich 7 1
Bath 6 4
Bristol 6 2
Cheshire West 6
Nottingham 6 1
Bedford 5 0
Berkshire 5
Central Bedfordshire 5
Derby 5 1
Kensington 5
Salford 5
Sefton 5
Stockport 5
Barnsley 4 0
Kirklees 4 2
Milton Keynes 4
Norfolk 4 1
Portsmouth 4 3
North Tyneside 4 1
Swindon 4 1
Torbay 4
York 4 8
Bournemouth 3
Brighton 3
Camden 3
Dorset 3 1
Dorset * 3
Gateshead 3
Islington 3
Redcar 3
Wandsworth 3 1
Bexley 2
Hounslow 2
Knowsley 2 1
Wokingham 2 2
Hampshire 1 6
Middlesbrough 1 1
Rotherham 1
Somerset 1
Telford 1
Durham 2
Hillingdon
Luton 1
Oxfordshire 1
Northamptonshire 3
Southend 2
Total 3,633 151
* Denotes where there was a second entry under the same local authority
18

NASUWT
The Teachers’ Union
Hillscourt Education Centre, Rose Hill,
Rednal, Birmingham B45 8RS.
Tel: 0121 453 6150
Fax: 0121 457 6208
E-mail: nasuwt@mail.nasuwt.org.uk
Website: www.nasuwt.org.uk
The largest teachers’ union in the UK
11/04049 (UK-wide)