I refer to William Stewart's article "Workload checks loom"( TES, June 4).
Certainly the National Bursars Association has found that many headteachers are not implementing the agreement fully, and it is difficult to understand why.
There is ample evidence to show that schools which have entered into the spirit of the agreement have made improvements for both teaching and support staff, and this has led to improvements in curriculum delivery within their schools. Why should a minority of heads see the agreement as a threat to their status or their schools?
The association is now receiving many calls from heads seeking advice on appointing a bursar. These schools want to reduce the head's workload and see no threat to such an appointment, only benefits. There are numerous case studies on the National Remodelling Team website showing examples of what can be achieved.
The comment regarding funding may be relevant, depending on the planned reforms, but how have most schools carried out their plans for school workforce reform without additional funding?
National Bursars Association
140 Wood Street