1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice


Discussion in 'Primary' started by Devonsent, Mar 28, 2011.

  1. Mentioned and used to create targets to improve the performance.
  2. Forgot to add that they will then be required to ensure the progress is there, or face not meeting the target. If they do not meet the targets set, there are procedures in place for this. You would also need to ensure that moderation is good so that the targets are approved rather than an exercise to keep you happy.
  3. mystery10

    mystery10 Occasional commenter

    Doesn't your LEA give advice on performance management, or some other professional body to which you belong?
  4. Sorry, I might be asking a silly question. I understand what you mean when you say create a target based on this so that teachers need to ensure progression in order to meet their target and I agree with this. However, what are you referring to when you are talking about moderation?
    Is this moderation of pupil progress? So teachers do not simply create results to meet their target?

  5. You can't and shouldn't make teachers accountable for pupils' progess, because there are (many) factors involved in pupils' progress that are outside teachers' control. This is a basic principle of management strategy.
    What you can and should make teachers accountable for is the quality of their teaching. If the pupils aren't making expected progress, then you look at what the obstacles are to their progress and - if teaching is an obstacle - how it can be improved.
  6. mystery10

    mystery10 Occasional commenter

    I agree, but unfortunately I don't think the performance management framework in teaching recognises this very sensible element of management practice. Can anyone out there inform us better?
    It is my understanding that children's achievement targets and whether or not they measure up to them do go into the teacher PM review process - but as I understand it, it is rare that targets go in that the teacher would feel the child was less than capable of achieving. Take from that what you will.
  7. littlerussell

    littlerussell New commenter

    Good practice in performance management as per our LA training.
    1. Set a progress objective. 89% L4 or 90% move two sublevels or whatever.
    2. Identify what the individual teacher needs to do (more of, better, or just start doing) to achieve this objective.
    3. Spell this out ... action steps, evidence, success criteria. Could be e.g. you need to use more AfL strategies, use success criteria in lessons, deploy TA more effectively etc etc.
    At the end of the cycle, teachers are accountable that they have taken the actions agreed with the reviewer and can evidence as such, thus meeting success criteria.
    If success criteria are met, PM cycle is successful, irrelevant of whether children meet targets or not. The teacher did as they were directed to do, without the impact desired. If children don't meet targets, it should be assumed that either (a) teacher has done all they can OR (b) the original set of actions agreed were misguided and didn't help the teacher achieve their targets.
    Take a look at etc training for resources, examples etc which follow this model.
    Silly example:
    Objective: 105% will achieve L5 unicycling
    Actions: 10 minutes daily unicycling practice; cross-curricular unicycling; use AfL and deploy TA to support children who keep falling off.
    Success Criteria/Evidence:
    Timetable shows 10 minutes unicycling daily.
    Planning shows evidence of unicycling in other subjects, particularly RE
    Teacher assessments identify underachievers and TA support planned and delivered.

    If the success criteria are met, whether the unicycling L5 is 105% or 5%.

Share This Page