We need to get rid of performance-related pay for teachers

I think AP is a much smaller setting though - so your model probably works in a scaled down approach where people genuinely talk to each other. Ina huge institution everything will become impersonal . And outside APs, student context often becomes a stick to whip us with : anyone who set a (numerical) target based on achievements of PP students for example would be taking a huge risk!

I think it all depends on the culture of your school, sure my? If any teacher has an understanding of the effects off factors other than their own teaching on student outcomes it is those of us in AP. Of my year 11s, a third have arrived this term. They have not been in a classroom for at least a term before they arrived. Their attendance is poor and their lives outside school often chaotic. Doesn't mean they, and I, shouldn't have targets. It's the conversation I have with my leadership team about them that matters. I would resent the time spent in appraisal meetings that counted for nothing, whether they met union guidelines or not. I really have no problem with a system that is genuinely focused on my development.

We have 3 appraisal meetings in a year. One in September where we review last year's numerical targets and set this year's targets, one in Feb as a mid-year review of how things are going, then one in July to review the non-numeric targets.

I think our PM system is pretty ok atm, but I don't really know if it will continue to be so fair as the financial situation gets worse. Performance related progression only came in after I had already reached ups3, so it hasn't affected me at all. My school is resisting implementing it as the SMT think it's unfair, so they want to stick to automatic progression unless something has gone terribly wrong. That could easily change if we have a change of head, or if there just isn't the money for pay progression (we've already got redundancies happening, some last year, more this year).

I have numeric targets for each exam class, then 3 non-numeric targets. 2 of the non-numeric targets are common with the rest of the department and reflect the school development plan, the third is a personal target. I wanted to go on an external CPD course which was approved, but by the time it was approved there were no spaces left on the course, so I couldn't go. I haven't actually been on any external CPD since I started at this school 12 years ago, although we have had some interesting external speakers at some inset days (one or two interesting ones over 12 years)

Isabella what an interesting point you raise there about disparity with colleagues. exactly why PRP is such a bad idea...

Sorry, our targets have the same heading as admission minus the shared whole school one. One id CPD type related , one is related to department development and one is focused on attainment and progress. This year a fourth one was added. Not sure how that snuck in.

fallen - no, I think we are all fairly happy with our light touch system. In theory, it would be nice to have more regular meetings to adjust targets but I think people feel overworked enough as it is. My appraiser is actually the head and he is impossible to pin down as it is. My HOF appraises 6 people. It would be an awful workload for her to do one hour meetings once a term!

To my knowledge, there are no consequences for those who don't meet their targets. It is simplya figure that is logged.

I worry about people being encouraged to set targets like ALPs 4. Often we are at the mercy of students' falling attendance, illness and a range of other factors that make ALPs a particularly volatile measure. Being able to change the targets termly does rather make the whole thing a pointless act.

Our targets have the same headings as yours though!

Of course staff get development support outside the appraisal system : what a terrible school it would be if development was only offered through a formalised, pay linked appraisal structure! Surely no one ever admits fault, failure or shortcomings under that system?

PRP and targets in my last school were set up well, but implemented badly. For example, one of my targets was "ALPS grade 4". I had specific, measurable "reviewee responsibilities" which were agreed with my line manager who had "reviewer responsibilities". These were specifically planned so as to support the ultimate aim of meeting the target. Outcomes would be simple:

• target met = pay progression
• target not met, reviewee responsibilities met = pay progression
• target not met, reviewer responsibilities not met = pay progression
• target not met, reviewer responsibilities met, reviewee responsibilities not met = no pay progression

As a physics teacher this worked well. I met all targets for the four years I was there, bar one where they failed their responsibilities. But the school weren't daft, they knew if I didn't get pay progression I would just walk away. However, when my humanities colleague was told in a written determination after a pay appeal "while the governors recognise that you did everything within your control to achieve your target we are unable to award pay progression due to exam results" I walked away. It was too unfair.

All 16 teachers in the school I am a governor at have three objectives, one is a common one for all teachers, usually around the school development plan, the second is a performance related objective which is specific and the third is connected to CPD needs of the teacher. Head teacher has the same types of objectives for their PM. There is a meeting with line manager every term, for approximately an hour, at which progress is recorded on each of the objectives. If necessary adjustments are made, so as an example last year there was an objective around one member of staff going on the highest level training on safeguarding leading onto a specific project which was school wide.It had to be altered when the training was not available till nearly Easter. That was not the fault of the teacher abut at the other end of the scale if a teacher is not meeting objectives then they are taken to task over it.
All teachers are observed by SLT at least termly and it is quite usual for the head teacher to pop into a classroom for 10 minutes and take full lessons when staff are doing CPD. It is also quite common for teachers to be observing each other in the school and also at other schools. Nobody learns anything working in a vacuum.
I would hope this is what happens in most schools but too many of the posts tell a different story, which is very worrying.

Would you like it to be different? Do staff get development support outside the appraisal system?

I wouldn't say we do PM well at all but we do most of it in line with union guidelines. termly meetings? Good God, no! One on Sept training day and one in November. Two half hour observations.
Most of us have forgotten our targets by September...

I have targets in three areas. One is about outcomes, and reflect the school's targets. I met 2/3 last year and was appraised as "excellent" for that area, so targets are just that - something to aim for. The second area is classroom practice and/or subject development, and I have picked an area where I am relatively unskilled as someone fairly new to AP. I am working on a particular classroom strategy with a more experienced colleague. She and I will discuss how successful I have been, and my line manager will look for evidence in obs and learning walks. And when he is in my room to support because it is all kicking off! My last target is my UP3, and will be judged by the feedback I get for the CPD I deliver and my mentoring of a trainee. We review mid year, but I see my line manager every fortnight, so any issues can be brought up then.
I have completed one full cycle and gave set a second set of targets. I think it is well done and genuinely geared to staff development. Sadly, there is no progression for me, because we do not in fact get PRP (have I mentioned that??) and I have no where to progress. However, it is still worth doing. Maybe moving sectors has given me a different perspective, as although I am very experienced and skilled in some areas, I very clearly need to develop other parts of my practice.

In FE there are student retention targets, staff retention targets make sense. Same with completion and attainment.

I have thought of a way of solving the problem.

Head teachers should have an annual target that says "Ensure X% of teaching staff are supported to achieve the standards necessary to be eligible for pay progression".

X could be set at a fair and realistic figure of, say, 95.

That way you could be guaranteed that teachers would be set realistic targets.

One of my targets has to be related to the performance of a exam class. Last year it was a Post 16 retake group. For the whole year I didn't have an accurate register so didnt know who should have been in group therefore was unable to provide invention to ensure success. Unsurprisingly I failed that target. As I am on UP3, I don't get a pay rise but could have been put on "capability" if I hadn't passed my other targets.

How do you judge a teacher's performance?
“Abundant research evidence (ASA, 2014) indicates only about 1 to 14% offer educational outcome can be attributed to schools.”

For example, teacher effect, but there are still many other factors, such as class sizes, resources and school budgets can influence a teacher’s impact. “The remaining 86 to 99% out-of-school factors are outside the control of teachers and schools.” (Coleman et al, 1966)

Lesson observation scores rated approximately half of the teachers (48% in English; 54% in Maths) in the top two performance quintiles if assigned the highest performing students, whilst a lowly 37% of English and 18% of Maths teachers who were assigned the lowest performing students were highly rated in classroom observations. (US based research)

The biggest indicator of student outcome is the parents

Sad, but true. The sad fact is that the schools which really need the best teachers are those that are most unlikely to be able to recruit them.

PRP-progression is not going to help these schools recruit or retain good teachers. Regardless of what people may believe, teachers are not stupid.

It's actually not accurate about topsets. If they have indicator grades of 8s and 9s they may be more difficult to achieve...it's not just about the raw results, generally. if you are allowed to set as a target 'get 15 grade 9s' and no one checks and discovers that 25 of them are 'meant' to get that level....

However, I still come back to the idea that indicator grades etc are based on statistical likely outcomes so any target that says they should ALL meet them is mathematically flawed.

I had a target a few years back which I couldn't achieve because I needed some specific training.

But that is where I would also say that because that target is based on someone or something else determining if you achieve it or not, it is not an example of what I was talking about.
In an ideal world, training would not be dependent on a PM target but something ongoing anyway (I laugh as I have not been on any external CPD in 5 years including for the new exams either)

noble I would love for all the good things that we do, to be acknowledged but it also sits uneasy with me that that should be directly related to pay. Music teachers spending hours on long concerts outside of school hours vs. a core subject teaching 6 times as many children or a department of two members of staff (mine) vs. a department of 11 (English).

I’d like objectives to be more personalised, if we have to have them

I am in Alternative Provision. Our students often arrive during year 11, having been in isolation for a term or more. Or not in school at all. Their targets are based on Att8 estimates from their KS2 fine level. If you use appropriate targets, it shouldn't matter if you have top or bottom sets.

FFS nearly choked at the governorsplaining SMART targets.

Noble had it in the OP Top set teachers are laughing, bottom set teachers crying.

The biggest indicator of student outcome is the parents, their socioeconomic status, education levels and expectation. Asian education is often seen as better, because the parents expect their DC to do better.

I feel the same about my Head in fact. And I have quantifiable targets.