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

[noblegiraffe]

We need to get rid of performance-related pay for teachers and reinstate automatic pay progression up the pay scale don't we?

1. Any attempts to measure teacher perfomance are flawed. Payment by results? Top set teachers are laughing, bottom set teachers crying. Payment by observation outcomes? We know these are subjective nonsense to the point that Ofsted have scrapped them. So what could be realistically used that would be fair?

2. In times of extreme budget restraint such as now, schools will be more likely to hold people on lower pay points for spurious reasons

3. Potential lack of pay progression could put off new entrants to teaching in a time of a severe teacher shortage

4. If the only realistic way to see your pay increase to reasonable levels is through promotion, then we will see teachers taking promoted posts without the relevant experience and before they are really ready

5. If you have been teaching for a full extra year, then that experience is valuable and should be rewarded even if it can't quite be quantified

Any objections?

Those of you that think that your school does performance management well, how is it run? Are you given time and cover for your meetings? Do you have termly reviews? What sorts of targets do you have? (Tick lists of jobs or vague 'improve Y9 group work skills', numerical targets with 100% completion or on average?)

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.

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...

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

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.

All 16 teachers in the school I am a governor at

I suspect this makes a huge difference. 100-odd teachers at my school. It isn't even my line manager that sets my objectives and does my appraisal, just a TLR-holder.

I don't have 1-1s with my line manager ever. Is this a thing in other schools for bog standard classroom teachers?

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

So if my responsibility was to find training but my school refused it, I still got pay progression. In theory, I was held accountable for things within my control but not blamed if something else went wrong.

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.

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?

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.

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

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)

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.

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!

Isabella that issue is exactly the one that I talked about upthread. Last year our head of physics (on M3) didn't meet his exam targets (by a mile). He wasn't worried about pay progression - his attitude was 'they wouldn't dare deny me it, or I'll leave'. Sure enough, he got it. The head of drama didn't.

Last year I had three targets:

• One was pupil attainment. Basically, all exam classes exceed minimum FFT target on average (achieved). A level achieve ALPS 4 (not achieved).

• One was classroom. Mine was about creating a pack of resources for more challenging quantitative A level questions (not achieved).

• One should be 'whole school' based and all members of teaching staff are expected to have some sort of whole school activity that, once upon a time, would only have been in UPS territory. Mine was creating scheme of work and accompanying CPD for non-specialists to deliver GCSE (achieved).

Targets are set in October, there is a mid-year review in February and the full year is reviewed in September. It's all done after school or during PPA. There's also two lesson orbs per year and three 'official' book scrutinise on top of 'learning walks' and 'drop ins'.

My year was b*ggered up by the fact that my HOD left midway through the year leaving a pile and a half of unfinished projects. I ended up having to write his allocation of GCSE schemes of work as well as mentoring the PGCE student.

Doesn't all seem worth it for M6. I also have line management responsibility for a curriculum support assistant and have to do his performance management as well.

I am shocked at all these PM meetings in PPA and after school.

You lot need your unions!

Haven't kissed my head yet. Am a bit worried now as he is retiring..

Isabella that first target of yours is not one target!

If it is base on all you exam classes that could be loads of classes ( or in my case this year , one , shared)

Piggy, were you talking about me or Isabella?

If it was me then the target was for four classes - two year 11s and two year 13s. All of thise classes were shared - the year 11s three-way (specialist science teachers), and the year 13s two-way. I didn't teach one of the year 13 classes in year 12 at all, so only actually taught them 25% of the course.

In my 13 years of teaching I have only ever taught two exam classes (GCSE Chemistry) that I have been the sole teacher for. All my other classes have been shared.

How did this get past the unions in the first place?

I had a quick Google and it looks as if performance related pay for teachers came in around 2013 which is perhaps why it wasn't on my radar at the time, I had no school age children. Weren't there strikes?

Performance related pay was mooted for HE support staff 10 years earlier than this. The unions didn't manage to get rid of it completely, but managed it to a large extent. I suppose it's different unions and a different time but I am still surprised.

It all happened under Gove. We went on strike but the public didn’t really support it, why were we moaning about pay when everyone else is having pay cuts, the usual.

The DfE said we were striking to stop heads having the ability to pay good teachers more.

So teachers just started quitting instead of striking. Well done Gove.

Oh I see, thanks Noble, sorry to miss something so fundamentally important to education I had a LOT of stuff going on!

IIRC the strikes about PRP and conditions came at a a very similar time to strikes about the change to the teachers' pension scheme. The public were not very supportive - why should teachers get a final salary scheme when no-one else does any more?

The unions didn't do a particularly good job of mobilising teachers to take part in industrial action, and informing the public of the issues. It doesn't help that there are many schools like mine where there are no reps for any unions at all.

piggy, I totally agree that prp is a bad idea for this exact reason. I understand that physics teachers are hard to find and, actually, I am pretty good at my job. But my colleague's job is at least as important (she teaches English) and it seems massively unfair to withhold pay progression based on factors which even the head and governors admit were beyond her control.

I fundamentally disagree with prp from M1 - M6. At higher levels I can see that you might need to be doing something extra to earn more money, but for people on the bottom end of the pay scale the job really isn't worth doing if you aren't going to move up.

Isabella I think sweet!

A target should only ever be for one class ; in fact I was encouraged this year to make it about a sub group of one class! ( I didn't)

Lots of our classes are split, too. I feel your pain.

Paperweight tbf there was an awful lot going on in education at the time too so it was hard to keep up even if you were in the middle of it! I do remember having some rows about PRP on here

I think at the time the financial situation in schools wasn't quite so dire and the idea that schools would intentionally depress the pay of good, hardworking teachers to save money wasn't so obvious.

To those of you at the top of the pay scale - you are lucky to be out of this mess. Remember Nicky Morgan wanted schools to be able to push teachers back down the pay scale!

My training on PRP emphasised that a teacher can still progress up they payscale even if they don't meet numerical targets (ie aspirational percentages of children achieving whatever level/grade/progress) as long as they have shown via their evidence throughout the year that they have taken the right steps or course of action to try to achieve it and if they have fulfilled all the teaching standards for their level of experience.