Performance Related Pay - What a performance!

What a performance

Ten quick questions that will help you assess your school’s readiness 

for performance related pay

Although many academy heads have had flexibility on setting pay levels for some time now when September arrives every headteacher will be able to set pay levels according to a teacher’s performance.

Instead of automatic progression up the traditional pay scale, pay bands will be kept as a reference point and heads will have discretion over where in the band they place any member of staff.

There will of course be many heads who will be concerned about this. They may be afraid that it will leave them open to accusations of favouritism that may set colleague upon colleague.  

The risks exposed by the introduction of Performance Related Pay (PRP) are even starker when you consider the information management ‘gap’ that exists in most of England’s schools. Most still do not have a systematised way of managing and tracking school improvement planning processes like staff performance, school development planning and CPD.

Heads find it difficult to determine where their staff are in meeting the requirements of the new teacher standards in the current performance management arrangements, not least because the teaching standards changed last year, creating a significant knowledge gap. The same applies to teachers. This is worrying, especially when we know that these very same standards will be used to judge PRP.

I believe that headteachers can prepare their schools for the challenge of PRP by taking a fresh look at their existing performance appraisal processes. A good starting point is to test them against a set of key principles.

First of all, it is vital that any decision about pay based on performance is justified by hard evidence and that this is benchmarked against one set of standards by which everyone is judged. As Russell Hobby, general secretary of headteacher union the NAHT said back in December: “Staff have a right to confidence in the performance management system before their progression is connected to it.”

Confidence will come from robust, transparent and systematic approach to performance appraisal. Without these core characteristics PRP will be compromised. This could lead to the headteacher being accused of inconsistency and favouritism. At worst, this could even lead to legal proceedings such as an employment tribunal.

But good performance appraisal shouldn’t just be about PRP. It is important to get performance appraisal right because it is one of the main tools for supporting and developing staff. Good performance appraisal helps you deliver the most effective teaching and learning possible for your students.

So what should the process look like? Here are six key features for starters, plus 10 key questions to ask yourself in your preparations for PRP:

• It should be about more than just the annual appraisal process – it must be part of the bigger picture.
• It must be clear and transparent so that everyone knows what they should be doing and why they are doing it.
• It has to be consistent in terms of process and procedure, but flexible enough to cater for individual roles and responsibilities.
• It should promote objectivity by making possible fair and equitable discussions which make all the stakeholders in the process feel confident and valued.
• It needs to be scalable so that it has the capacity to grow and flex with the development of the school.
• It must be future proof. Evidence put into the process today must automatically carry forward and presented in context so that the work put in does not become redundant.

Are you ready for PRP?

Ten quick questions that will help you assess your school’s readiness for performance related pay:

1        How familiar are you, your SLT colleagues, governors and staff with statutory and non-statutory PRP guidelines?

2        Does everyone in the school understand the importance of gathering evidence for their performance appraisal and long-term career development? And do you give staff time to reflect on and gather performance-related evidence?

3        Is performance-related reflection and evidence gathering scheduled into the school working week?

4        What guidance is there for staff to understand exactly what good evidence of performance is?

5        Is the school development plan used as a driver for measuring performance?

6        Do you give staff the opportunity for discussion, feedback and guidance on their performance, other than in performance appraisal meetings?

7        Is there an agreed complaints procedure for any PRP disputes?

8        Do you have easily accessible systems in place for recording ongoing performance related evidence?

9        Are the systems consistent, fair and transparent and are staff given adequate training and support to use them properly?

10   What did Ofsted think of the school’s performance in all of the above areas?

An Outstanding school overcoming Performance Management paperwork

An Outstanding school overcoming Performance Management paperwork

Deputy headteacher Jeff Miller had one overarching reason to choose an online school improvement planning system.

“Quite simply, I didn’t want to do staff performance management on paper,” says Jeff, who is deputy head at the ‘outstanding’ 1,000 pupil Oakwood Park Grammar School in Maidstone, Kent.

“As the person charged with performance management my head comes to me and asks me how staff are doing in their performance appraisals and I can use an online system to give him an instant picture. Without an online system it was a case of me roaming around the school for a couple of weeks collecting pieces of paper.”

After demoing a number of systems Jeff chose Bluewave.SWIFT School Edition. This is an online system that connects information and documents across self-evaluation, school inspection reports, strategic planning, professional development and performance appraisal. Schools can then drive improvement processes and keep ahead of ever-changing accountability and inspection requirements while saving time and cutting costs. The school has been using the system since May 2008.

Jeff is using the performance management element of the system at the moment although he does have ambitions to use other functions in the future.

The performance management element of Bluewave.SWIFT School Edition allows Jeff and his headteacher to see where each of the 120 Oakwood staff members are in the performance appraisal cycle. Jeff can see information such as whether the headteacher has approved appraisals, details of lesson observations of each staff member, when the next interim reviews are scheduled and how each staff member is doing against the teacher professional standards. Staff members can see their individual appraisal records and feed their observations and evidence into them.

The recent change in the teacher professional standards in September 2012, when the number of standards were drastically reduced, could have created an enormous extra workload for Jeff and his team. However, with the Bluewave system the evidence that staff built up against the previous standards were automatically mapped to the new standards, so there was no need to start again.

“The system has been very good with tracking the changing teacher standards,” says Jeff. “It has made it easy to link the teaching standards to the objectives that you are setting staff.”

“It does what Bluewave.SWIFT says it does very well,” he says. “I also like it that when I give them feedback about the system, the company takes things on board. The product doesn’t stand still - it is always in evolution.”

“Very simply I made the best choice based on price and functionality.”

For further information, please visit our website – www.bluewaveswift.co.uk or contact us on 0845 4900 447, info@bluewaveswift.com

Measuring CPD Impact - Let’s clear away the confusion

Let’s clear away the confusion

It would be rare to find a school today that didn’t have systems of some kind in place that helped them accurately track and measure the attainment of pupils.

Management information and pupil assessment systems are now commonplace in schools and academies because they make it easy for leaders to analyse a student’s progress so that teachers can target support where it is most needed.

Ensuring that no pupil falls through the net and that every student meets or exceeds their potential is a number one priority for every school leader.

But in order for them to fully realise these ambitions they need to look at ‘backroom’ school improvement processes such as CPD, performance management and development planning as much as what happens in the classroom.

If school leaders have a clear view of what’s happening in these areas they can make sure everybody plays a part in reaching school development targets. It also means that leaders can identify which staff members need more professional support and everyone gets recognition for the contribution their work makes. The result is a better run school in which pupils prosper.

We know these processes have a big impact on pupil performance. The Teacher Development Trust for example highlights a New Zealand study showing that classes whose teachers had taken part in high-quality professional development improved twice as fast as those in other classes. It also showed that the 20 per cent of pupils deemed ‘least able’ made improvements up to six times faster than their peers in other classes.

Strange, then, that the vast majority of schools in England and Wales today – around 85 per cent – simply don’t have the means to track and manage these improvement processes in ways that make it easy for them to use the information and act on it. The fact is many leaders think they have that ‘clear view’ but when compared with schools that use modern day tools, the gap is quite staggering.

Most schools still follow the standard information gathering approach, usually involving hyperlinked Word documents, over-complicated computer spreadsheets or lever arch files destined to sit on an office shelf.

Money, time and complexity are the main reasons why this approach still persists. It’s too tricky to get that intelligent view with a PC spreadsheet because it takes too much time to mine the data, interpret it in various ways and link it to evidence. I’ve seen for myself some wonderfully creative, DIY documents which at first appear to be a massive step forward for schools. But after a few months, it becomes quite apparent that maintaining these tools is a full time job which can’t be sustained because there aren’t the resources. Another downside of this approach is that these ‘homebrew’ tools often become unstable and this frustrates school leaders when they need to access accurate information.  

As well as clouding a school’s view of what it needs to do to keep on improving, this traditional approach could also create problems with Ofsted. The body now wants schools and academies to give full account of the improvement processes that ultimately have a huge impact upon pupil attainment. It wants evidence that the SLT knows the school’s strengths and weaknesses, that leaders are immersed in self-evaluation and that development plans are focused on improving teaching and raising achievement.

These are compelling reasons for schools to change, yet most still have a bit of a blind spot in this area.  I worry that this reluctance might be a sign of a deeper, age old, issue– a fear of change.

All school leaders and their staff are open to change if it means tangible improvements. But human nature is what it is and some schools think it better to avoid the discomfort and continue as they have always done.

I believe the intelligent management of these processes will help leaders and their staff overcome these fears. School improvement planning and the monitoring of impact shouldn’t be about cold data crunching. We need to use technology to support people in their development and let them make a real contribution to school objectives. This applies equally to individuals following their own career path and large organisations trying to make sense of the bigger picture. Essentially, it’s time to adopt modern day business practice for the business side of things so that the number one priority, education, is informed, evidence lead and free from the burden of bureaucracy .

For example, if a school’s performance management systems show that staff need some professional development in a particular area it would help if they were given the means to evaluate that CPD themselves and back this up with evidence that it is making a difference – or not. Many leaders will claim they already do this, but are the methods they use sustainable, accessible and above all, do they solve the old problem of how to produce evidence of the impact of CPD on pupil achievement?

This is easier said than done with traditional tracking and management methods but it is achievable using the online school improvement planning systems that are now available. These systems can unify staff rather than alienate them, giving them a voice in the change management process that otherwise might not be heard. This is about staff having ownership and control and it helps dissipate their fears about change.

The issues around school improvement planning that I pointed out earlier are likely to become even more pronounced for leaders of groups of schools, such as academy chains, federations and trusts.

Recently I’ve been spending more time working with groups of schools, helping them to address these issues. They are all faced with some common challenges. The chief one is how to reduce the time spent on school improvement planning across their schools while ensuring that there is consistency in tracking, management, reporting and ultimately quality assurance so that it makes it easier to manage and deliver support where it is needed.

In these situations the quality assurance of member schools becomes a pressure point because of geographical distance. A teaching school will, for example, need to monitor the progress of teacher training students and the quality of its ITT provision.

With online systems the miles don’t matter as much. This gives school leaders the means of reviewing the schools from where they work and target support where it is needed.

As the UK education system becomes more diverse, with academies at the forefront of this transformation, there is now an even greater need for schools to manage themselves as effectively as possible. Paper and spreadsheets might give schools data about their school improvement processes, but it won’t be easy to interpret or act upon because it will be so difficult to manipulate.

It really is time for schools to get a clear, intelligent view of improvement processes like CPD, performance management and development planning so that they can meet the demands of accountability – and help staff help pupils achieve.

85% of schools maintain or improve their Ofsted Grade!

85% of schools maintain or improve their Ofsted Grade!

We (Bluewave) have gathered data regarding eighty schools that have been using Bluewave.SWIFT for a number of years. The only criteria are that these eighty schools have experienced at least two inspections within the study period. We have focussed only on ‘overall effectiveness’ for the purpose of this study and the figures relate to judgements made following the school’s second inspection unless otherwise stated.

We don’t assume these schools improve solely as a result of using Bluewave.SWIFT. Our preferred view is that these schools would have improved anyway and as part of their leadership and management approach, they choose the very best tools to help them get there.

Our summary conclusion therefore, based on the evidence gathered, is that schools with the capability and capacity to improve are more likely to do so using Bluewave.SWIFT.

Read the excerpt from Ofsted statistics and the comparison figures below:

Management Information: new schools inspection framework

This management information provides an overview of the outcomes of the inspections which took place under section 5 of the Education Act 2011 in the first three weeks of the new school inspection framework which began 1 January 2012. 

Table 1: The inspection judgements of schools inspected between 6 January and 20 January 2012 (percentage of schools)[1]

Click image to enlarge.

Percentages are rounded and do not always add exactly to 100.

Summary of Ofsted findings with Bluewave.SWIFT user comparisons.

·         Out of 348 schools inspected in the first 3 weeks of the new arrangements, 57% were judged good or outstanding in their overall effectiveness. (Ofsted)

·         64% of schools were judged good or outstanding. (Bluewave.SWIFT)

·         Eight per cent of schools were judged outstanding in their overall effectiveness, achievement of pupils and quality of teaching judgements.

·         24% of schools were judged outstanding compared with 8% after their first inspection – an improvement of 16%.

·         Thirteen per cent of schools were judged inadequate in their overall effectiveness and of these seven per cent were given a notice to improve whilst the remaining schools were placed into special measures.

·         3% of schools were judged inadequate – no change compared with the first inspection but the schools were different.

·         All but seven schools had a previous section 5 inspection. Only 19% of schools improved, 50% stayed the same and over a quarter (28%) declined on their previous inspection. This compares with 34% improving, 47% staying the same and 19% declining at inspection during 2010/11.

·         36% of schools improved their grading

·         49% of schools maintained their grading

·         15% of schools experienced a lower grading

Additional Information (compiled by Bluewave)

The following is a summary of Ofsted judgements achieved by the eighty schools using Bluewave.SWIFT and includes comparisons with Ofsted inspection data from the period September 2005 to August 2011

Summary  of data relating to the eighty schools across two consecutive inspections and comparisons with Ofsted data (Overall Effectiveness)
1	Percentage of schools that maintained or improved their Ofsted Grade	85%
2	Percentage of schools that improved their Ofsted Grade	36%
3	Percentage of schools that improved to achieve 'Outstanding'	18%
4	Percentage of schools judged to be 'Good' or 'Outstanding' in their second inspection	64%
5	Percentage of schools graded Outstanding in first inspection	8%
	Percentage of schools graded Outstanding in second inspection	24%
	Average percentage of inspections graded 'Outstanding' - Ofsted Data (Sept 2005 - Aug 2011)	14%
	Lowest percentage of inspections graded 'Outstanding' - Ofsted Data (Sept 2005 - Aug 2011) - '05-'06 & '10-'11	11%
	Highest percentage of inspections graded 'Outstanding' - Ofsted Data (Sept 2005 - Aug 2011) - '08-'09	19%
6	Percentage of schools graded 'Inadequate' in second inspection	3%
	Average percentage of inspections graded 'Inadequate' - Ofsted Data (Sept 2005 - Aug 2011)	6%
	Lowest percentage of inspections graded 'Inadequate' - Ofsted Data (Sept 2005 - Aug 2011) - '08-'09	4%
	Highest percentage of inspections graded 'Inadequate' - Ofsted Data (Sept 2005 - Aug 2011) - '05-'06 & '09-'10	8%

The full Ofsted report can be found here: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/official-statistics-maintained-school-inspections-and-outcomes

---

Continuity in the new Professional Teacher Standards - Bluewave.SWIFT

Continuity in the new Professional Teacher Standards

One of the challenges faced by people when they encounter change is having to ‘start things from scratch’. Understandably, people may be forgiven for asking ‘why change?’ and ‘why so often?’ A good example of this is the Ofsted SEF which changed fairly regularly and was then apparently abandoned in July 2011 only for a new framework to be devised and advised in January 2012. A more recent example is the new Professional Standards for teachers.

The new Teacher Standards come into force in September 2012 but is it really the case that teachers must wait until then before using them? A more relevant question perhaps is ‘what happens to all my evidence from the past?’ Having invested so much of their time in generating an evidence base for one format, is it really fair to ask teachers to do it all again?

Answers to these questions are the reason why Bluewave.SWIFT exists; leaders in education will recognise there must be continuity and succession planning if we are to ensure the burden of bureaucracy does not impinge on the core business of a school. In other words, administration must be made easier.

Teachers using Bluewave.SWIFT have ‘future-proofed’ their evidence. Simply storing their evidence and documents in a unique way ensures that it all comes to the surface in the right place in the future, regardless of what the next version of teaching standards looks like. This method works for all staff and indeed for the whole school meaning that everyone can have a truly lifelong record of progress all in one place, all interconnected to Performance Management and to Continuing Professionaldevelopment (CPD)

The Teacher Standards 2012 are built into in Bluewave.SWIFT alongside the current teaching standards. Headteacher standards are also included as well as Teaching Assistant standards and the National Occupational Standards for support staff.

Click here to see a video of how you can evaluate against the new Teacher Standards 

Implementing a Coherent Whole School Improvement system for Self Evaluation, Development Planning, Performance Management and Continuing Professional Development

ROYDS SCHOOL SPECIALIST LANGUAGE COLLEGE

Traditionally, schools have not fully grasped the way in which to evaluate the effectiveness of all that they do and we were one of those. Oh Yes – we evaluated Performance Management and produced reports for governors. We evaluated CPD and departments provided their analyses year on year. We drew up our School Development Plan with all the appropriate priorities, and departments provided their own plans to dovetail into this. We evaluated individual areas such as Behaviour and made improvements accordingly but, somehow, we were working in compartments rather than as a whole. We were using the Leeds Quality Standards Framework (QSF) which enabled us to start exploring many aspects of our activity. We saw packages on the market and tried them but they were, in many ways perpetuating what we were already doing. Bluewave SWIFT provided the answer through marrying the QSF with a sophisticated yet understandable whole school evaluation product which did what it said on the tin – it linked up all areas of school evaluation into a coherent whole.

We started with Performance Management as this was one area in which all colleagues annually participate and would be the means of introducing Bluewave SWIFT to them. Clear ‘click by click’ guides were provided to complement the User Guide already built into the process and all colleagues received training in how to use the module. We developed a ‘Preparation’ template which was completed by reviewees and emailed to their Reviewer two days before the review was held. Feedback testified to the efficacy of doing this as reviewees indicated that they felt it gave them a really positive control in the process. As part of the review, CPD needs were discussed in relation to the agreed objectives and these were entered, generating all the needs in a coherent manner for the CPD Co-ordinator to develop individual, departmental and whole school training plans. During the year, as colleagues’ generated evidence against their objectives, they evaluated their progress against the SWIFT statements linked to, for example, a Professional Standard. A survey of   teaching and support colleagues showed that 91% felt that they had been enabled to make a positive contribution to the process as seen from the following comments:

‘It allows for a more focused discussion to take place with regard to staff progress and development. Also it will be valuable as an online portfolio giving access to information in an electronic format.’

‘Using Bluewave makes it a more formal and professional process enabling me to track my progress through evaluating my achievements against clear statements.’

‘I feel the formal structure is good, it ensures that progress is made on CPD and it helps greatly in evidencing achievement.’

‘It was closely tied in with the School Improvement Plan and allowed for focussed discussion on staff and departmental needs.’

‘This is quick and easy to track. Also reminding me what my targets are. It is great to have all my progress in one place.... no more searching for bits of paper!’

At the same time, the Headteacher and Leadership team utilised the School Development Plan module for the last two of a three year plan. The SDP was converted into the Bluewave SWIFT format with great ease. We were able to feed into the process, information from RAISE ONLINE as a means of sharpening the focus of our project development. Data from the Local authority as well as our own internal data for monitoring student improvement also informs training needs and the meeting of targets both through Performance Management. All this development has been made possible because Bluewave always responded quickly and positively to comments and suggestions for improving the process and were very supportive in maintaining contact with us. For example, we were asked for ideas that would help them in developing Classroom Observation schedules, and, in a short time, many of these were in place enabling us to test out the process successfully.

Next Year we will be developing this further by training all Heads of Department in the process of putting their own plans onto Bluewave, linking them to the SDP. In order to make this more meaningful, the SEF headings provide the basis for all SDP planning.

REFLECTIONS

·        The success of the process lies in the systematic way of training and developing colleagues ‘a step at a time’. Through familiarisation with one module of Bluewave SWIFT, they came to see the real value of the others. We now have ‘Bluewave Champions’ in the school who are working with departments and individuals to guide them through each aspect of the programme.

·        The school needed to start somewhere and Performance Management proved to be a valuable vehicle for this. On reflection, however, in order to discover the power of the process we would recommend that it begins with completion of the new SEF which generates the priorities for the SDP. Projects based on these priorities would be established before the Performance Management Cycle begins so that when Objectives are being identified they can be directly linked to the school priorities through membership of a project. The CPD needs generated would be directly linked to school priorities and evaluation would seamlessly run throughout the process, evidence being generated from the individual, being available for promotion into SDP projects and ultimately to the SEF which is viewed by Ofsted.

THE NEXT STEPS

Through building up the use of Bluewave SWIFT, it is the intention that we will continue to develop expertise in each area of the programme, refining the links and using the new ‘Strengths and Weaknesses’ facility in the CPD module to further focus the projects in the SDP and the training received by individuals and focus groups in the school.

The ultimate aim over three years is to so inform and train colleagues that all business will be conducted using Bluewave SWIFT as the vehicle for all evaluation. Don Rolls, Performance Manager at the school commented:

 ‘It is terrific to see a product on the market that does what it says, which is sensitive to current trends and changes in education and which seeks to serve the needs of its clientele, through insightful ongoing refinements based on research amongst the shop floor users!’

Don Rolls – Deputy Headteacher

Royds School Specialist Language College, Leeds