To think that 14-16 year olds are going to come under a huge amount of pressure once teachers' PRP kicks in?

[JenniferYellowHat1980]

I've just started a new job. My understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that I will take a real terms pay cut if my year 11 group don't make their aspirational targets. I won't be eligible for a 1% cost of living increase if they're not within an average half a grade of that target. Am I right?

I have inherited a challenging group, some of whom are three grades below target and aren't showing me any signs of caring about it. So I will have to harangue them and their parents for the next eight months, knowing that I'm not going to get my pay increase anyway as there's to much ground to cover.

So next year I'm £30/mth down on where I would otherwise be. Ok, well year 10 will all have to meet their aspirational targets (not that I know what they are yet) and the haranguing (ok, mentoring, intervention, inspiration if we're going to be positive about it) will have to begin straight away. Only they're testing the boundaries, resisting the expectation that they give their best efforts and of course no amount of expectation can mitigate for the effects of family problems, substance misuse, mental health issues and everything that comes with the package of 30 14 year olds.

The tone of this post might suggest that all I care about is money and that I couldn't otherwise be arsed to try to get the best out the kids I teach, but that's not the case. However I can't afford to continue teaching for the love of the job and it's hugely frustrating that indifference of some pupils and the disruptive element prevents me from getting there anyway.

There are no winners in this, are there?

too much ground

Who'd be a teacher eh?

No one, if things carry on like this.

Pay has always been linked to performance to a certain extent.

And thanks to the introduction of academies and free schools, there are 100000 different pay policies out there with the basic tenet that schools can do what they bloody well like.

This is the first time I won't get a cost of living increase because my class won't reach their targets.

It just means I will be applying the pressure more than ever in subsequent years. I can still only do my best though. I can't mitigate for attitude, behaviour etc.

Yep.

And not just older children... It goes right down to Reception as well...

I get your frustration op; I have year 11s with targets higher than Maths and English (for some reason SLT seem to think that no other subject needs these skills ) and there is no way they will achieve them, despite everything I can do - extra lessons outside of school etc as they do not have the ability to achieve these levels.

But; what I have learnt is to ensure I have all the data/evidence to aid the performance management meetings. Therefore I suggest the following

1. if you are given a PM target that is truly unachievable - do not agree with it outline the reasons why with clear evidence/data

2. document every intervention, request etc that you do for the students to take into the PM meeting to show that you have tried everything

3. get hold of the results for each student who did not meet the target in your subject so you can show a clear comparison (9.9 times out of 10 they have failed significantly across the board)

4. get hold of the behavioural records for the students who failed to meet their targets

In terms of your thread title; whilst this age group have been subject to undue pressures in years gone by, it will get worse - especially given the raising of grade boundaries, knowledge and expectations compounding the PRP which is in itself ridiculous given we are only human and see these students for a limited time so obviously we can not control their lives, home lives etc

Holy shit! I had no idea that that was the case. Surely a cost of living increase is just that? How can it possibly be linked to performance?

I was a pain in the arse as a teenager and the best teachers in the world could not have made me give the tiniest fuck about learning a subject I didn't want to.

It is beyond stupid. It seems the the fact that the kids actually have to do some work to achieve their grades is null and void. It makes me so angry.

Your thread title points to a real problem I think. 'Aspirational' pupil targets linked to teachers' pay increases the likelihood of unreasonable pressure being applied to young people. And I say this as a teacher who - shamefully - has resorted to some rather bullying tactics because of management demands to produce the expected results. It's small wonder that CAMHS is overwhelmed.

Has already been happening in my school for the past two years. To be fair the students are under so much pressure at my place due to league tables more than my pay progression.

I agree having a target to achieve based on others performance is illogical but so much in education is these days.

cricketballs, your advice on documenting the steps taken echoes what my subject leader has said to me. Will it stand up to scrutiny though? I remember the HT in my old school saying that it didn't matter whether or not I thought the targets were realistic or what the child's circumstances were. At the end of the day, the school would be measured on its performance against those targets because that is what pupils in similar schools could achieve.

I will definitely make sure I cross reference their performance in my subject with others, and their behaviour record.

Teachers of top sets are going to be in a difficult position - kids won't be able to perform better than A*/9, so there will be no way of pulling the average up to compensate for underachievers. FFT data rarely predicts very low grades for the weakest kids. Really you want to be teaching upper-middle ability kids only to stand the best chance of hitting your target.

And what about primary? How can externally assessed outcles of a Y6 teacher compare with internally moderated Y4 folders? That's hardly a like for like situation.

And not only is my new class underperforming; it's also twice as big as last year.

Outcles? Outcomes!

Whereas I have a much smaller class than last year which has affected my targets. 85% of my year groups have to achieve age related expectations. In one year group ( I teach several) there are only 7 children so each child is worth 14%. One child is statemented because of low levels of achievement, two others are EAL and recent additions to the class. The probability of achieving 85% is so remote as to be invisible. So there goes my pay!

We have an excellent head who understands this very issue. As long as we can show what intervention we put in place and our predicted data roughly matches their actual data, they will not refuse the pay rise. I know of very many less reasonable heads.

It's all just a blunt management tool to try to compensate for crap management.

Let's face it, teachers know who the crap teachers in a school are. Seriiously, it's normally pretty obvious. Why are managers unwilling to deal with them?

The worst of it is that some classes do very well despite utterly shit teaching.

Sigh

So the pay increase is still at the head's discretion?

Pretty much, they set the targets, they say how they will be measured, they assess the evidence and they decide the outcome!

Our head goes with the recommendation of the line manager (in most cases). Performance objectives are linked to FFT and Yellis or MidYs and we write an impact statement in Bluesky giving the extent to which objectives have been met. Line manager either agrees or disagrees.

It's fairly prescriptive but there is wriggle-room. I have an excellent head and work in an Outstanding school. It's much harder if the school is RI and under lots of pressure from HMI etc.

You get your cost of living anyway, not linked to performance. You don't get your increment if they decide you haven't met your targets. HOWEVER they cannot link your targets all to exam grades, if you meet the all the rest but not your exam grades they should shift you up. No one would be moving up in my school if the "aspirational target" of 85 % at minimum expected grade was enforced.

PRP has already put pressure on students, teachers and parents. There are too many variables with grades to link them to the performance of the teacher (mostly).

I know each school now has their own pay policy and you must be fully aware of what it contains. But, I thought the general process of PRP was that you could be stopped from moving up the pay scale if you 'failed' to meet targets. I thought the general percentage to cover inflation (really?) was applied across the payscale and wasn't dependent on performance.

I echo what cricketballs says.

However, if you have inherited a year 11 class that is significantly behind target you can not be expected to correct this in one year. The reason they are behind target is not your fault - it is because of other reasons, in previous years that you have had no control over.
I have argued against targets for 2 reasons:

1. aspiration targets completely inflated (for OFSTED) and unachievable.
2. inherited a class in year 11 way behind target due to staffing issues.

I got them changed but only by producing a detailed argument backed by supporting data and in case 2, refusing to sign PM and involving my union. You must not agree to anything that you feel is unachievable.

We've been told by HT that as of next year, the cost of icing increase is performance related. I'm already at the top of UPS.

Oh ffs. Cost of icing?!

Enjoying the bake off?