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

I actually agree with staff seeing challenging targets for their students. I have worked in a school which set whole school and departmental targets everyone said were unattainable, but which we met within two years. I had what I thought were two unattainable targets set last year, achieved one of them and was congratulated on almost teaching the second. Had I not been at the top of the pauscale I would have progressed. I am though, which is why I need to make the point, again, about the system not being PRP. Much better, IMO, to focus on improving student outcomes, with a realistic appraisal of performance against aspirational targets, than setting targets which are effectively a to do list, like write a SoW, where you don't appraise or reflect on performance, you just tick off a job.

I might go into my school tomorrow and kiss my head!

(Not my actual own head , my headteacher)

I once had to get a child unable to access GCSE in most other subjects a grade C in a subject I taught. He had to have a TA with him in all lessons; bless him, he enjoyed the subject but he was going to get less than a C and he did. The rest of the class hit or exceeded target. I was told I had failed my targets, despite never agreeing to the numerical ones anyway. A colleague was denied pay progression because a member of her class went to prison and therefore did not get a C. I am not even making this shit up. This, among other things, is why I gave up a job I actually enjoyed and was good at.

Noblegiraffe and Penngwn, your posts worry me in that as Chair of Governors of an outstanding school there is no way that the things you describe would go on in the schools I am involved with. Objectives are set for all teachers and TAs and they do include attainment and progress targets where it is appropriate, but they based on realism. Performance management in education was first put in place in 2001 and what you describe are issues that were talked about in the training given then.
Noblegiraffe do you not have meetings every term to discuss progress? If you do then your lack of progress should be being highlighted and a decision made on how to get it back on track or how to change the objective to something that is appropriate and attainable.
Penngwyn, words fail me if objectives are being set that mean so little, until no doubt at the end of the year, they are rolled out as a negative.

fed up of working longer hours than my DH for a third of the pay

Yep, that's me. At Christmas I will be leaving teaching and not returning.

Many teachers, historically, have not had a 2:1 or better. In fact some don’t have degrees at all

Eh? Without researching, I can't tell you the date it became compulsory, but you have certainly had to have a degree since before I started my B.Ed well over 30 years ago. Who are all these teachers (in the state sector) without degrees?

I got out of teaching last summer, I'd had enough, was fed up of working longer hours than my DH for a third of the pay (and having to pay for my own Xmas party, stationary and resources - things he has never had to do). I was a great teacher but can't see myself going back full time. There is a very real recruitment crisis, I've had 3 calls from former colleagues since half term asking me to apply for jobs in their schools. I have worked in one of these schools and a few years ago they would get 100+ applicants for each post.
I saw no increase in standards after performance related pay was introduced. All the heads I worked under had no issues dealing with under performing staff before PRP, if you weren't up to it you were regularly observed and given training and support until improvements were made (or you moved on). After PRP I saw disillusioned young enthusiastic teachers waiting months for their pay rises to go through, nervous that the current financial restraints on schools will mean heads can't move them up even if they want to.
One of the tipping points for me was last year going over my SATs predictions, a clueless SLT member quizzing me why one child was not making expected progress. I pointed out mum had recently died after a long illness and the family were all struggling. I was met with the response 'we've got 2 months to get her back on track, we can run interventions during art and PE'. It didn't happen, I didn't give a toss about her SATs, I did care about the child. I do wonder if a less experienced teacher needing to demonstrate progress would have reacted in the same way.

The trouble with targets like you describe kitty is that they can be blocked (usually unwittingly ) by someone else.

I had a target a few years back which I couldn't achieve because I needed some specific training. The member of staff responsible for releasing me consistently blocked this training (long story).

I had another target which failed simply because any request to deliver the training I said I would deliver didn't interest the person in charge of doing the training calendar. Targets which seemed pretty achievable soon went on the back burner and became forgotten projects. Didn't mean I didn't progress in other ways...

And what about nebulous stuff like workplace bullying? It happens and prevents people from achieving targets.

In addition PRP might make others even more manically focused on performance targets, even if the impact on colleagues because of their new initiative was to increase their workload! that happens all the time and I imagine is even worse if pay is attached!! I don't fancy working even harder to secure someone else a pay rise.

realistically noble our school is not very unionised. We do have numerical targets 9I did bleat about them a bit this year) but out appraisal process in emphatically not linked to pay progression..

I don't think it is to do with being outstanding. We are an academy but have never changed our name and are on good terms with the LA. Our head always has said a school's best and most precious resource is its staff - so I guess he has stood by that. But I genuinely don't know of any local school that has linked targets to pay, other than perhaps by lip service.

noble so, because pupil don’t make linear progress and that has been proven, I’d do away with any objective that is dependent on the pupils themselves. I would like to see a drive towards appraisee targets that a teacher has a much larger control over but that has a positive side effect on improving the experience of the pupils.
For example,

1. Rewrite the Geography scheme of work for year 9.2.
2. Improve questioning skills by introducing a “no hands” policy.(not saying this is perfect but is just an example)
3. Ensure Y10 tracking grids are in place

These take into consideration teachers with no exam classes or teachers who share classes. It also allows for teachers to take more of an active role in driving their own performance management in a way that is more positive for all. This returns to the original A for ‘achievable’ rather than the made up ‘agreed’, which makes a mockery of SMART.

Oh well. The above will never happen across all schools though, due to many SLT’s/Governors/Parents/Government’s desire for stats that make their jobs look better

Under our previous Head, we used to have one annual target based on pupil progress. As a teacher, you could agree with your line manager which class you would use and what data you would use to measure attainment/progress.

Now, appraisal targets are based on the average progress versus targets for every exam class.

Our department really suffers with this. We have historically done fantastically well at GCSE and students perform above expectations (one of my sets this year achieved an average points score higher than their FFT aspirational targets +1). However, this then leads to a lower than average ALPS achievement at A level. Basically, we screw ourselves over by getting really good GCSE grades. If I wasn't already on M6, I wouldn't have progressed.

Interestingly, the physics A level group achieved really well. The teacher 'disappeared' midway through the year and all the parents paid for private tutors. The ALPS score looked brilliant despite non-existent teaching. Also, the weak biology teacher who was never given A level classes because she wasn't considered good enough achieved her progress targets because they were only based on GCSE.

noble-I’d get rid of these god awful targets on children for a start. Children are not a ‘one-size-fits-all’. With numerous different subjects they lose sight of what target is for what anyway and don’t get me started in split grade targets!
I would also do away with forced whole school targets imposed on Staff. They are never agreed despite what some Governers seem to think and always mandatory and don’t take into consideration any internal/external factors.
Appraisal targets agreed between appraiser and appraisee only based on realistic data would be a good start.

As with most things brought over from the private sector, schools always seem to completely mis-interpret them and rarely implement them in the way they were organically intended for.

Oops. Just seen that you do. You have been in an outstanding school haven't you? With good results under the old performance measures? That probably makes a difference. When a school's results need to improve, OFSTED seem to be far more keen to check the link. Both the RI school I was in a few years ago and the good one I was in last had their appraisal records looked at during the inspection.

You get automatic progression Piggy?

The only measures of "success" should be student progress within their capabilities (so top/bottom set should not make a difference) and the happiness and confidence of the pupils (measure that one?!).

The purpose of PRP was to deal with poor teachers, but the means of assessment is flawed - as are the means of assessment of the pupils of course.

I do not know what the answer is - sorry.

Hmmmm... looks like the unions didn't get very involved then!

Piggy here's a screenshot of the paragraph from the report. Leadership and Mangement got RI (as did the whole school). Ironically, the LEA had only published the final model Pay Policy document one month earlier (end of September and too late for annual pay awards for that year to go through). Governors had to approve the school's policy and had chosen (foolishly) to await the final LEA model one before adopting it. Ofsted didn't give a shit though.

Needless to say the policy was firmly in place before the next full inspection (despite us knowing it was a load of shite and likely to cause a high turnover in teachers between M1 and M6).

You should not agree to the inclusion of numerical targets relating to pupil outcomes in your
objectives, as this would present a system of ‘payment by results’ that has no place in the
performance management process.

Union guidelines

MN doesn't half make me realise the grass is not greener...