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 professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

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

    Dismiss Notice

Moving through threshold m6- u1

Discussion in 'Pay and conditions' started by little_miss_sunshine, Jun 11, 2011.

  1. Hi just wondered if anyone could help. I'm at the top of the main payscale and due to go on to the upper in september. What do I need to do? some staff didnt go through last year and were upset? is there a form? when do i need to complete it by? thanks
     
  2. All on the DFES web site: it sets out all you need to know and yes, there is a form.

    http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/careers/payandpensions/b0077089/threshold-assessment-201011-round-11

    NOT the DFS web site that I just looked at by mistake! Duh.... Good Luck

    John
     
  3. becktonboy

    becktonboy New commenter

    The noly form whihc is required is a little letter of 'application' informing your head you wish to be considered. School policy can not override the requirements of the STPCD so if your head says, our school policy is to fill in one of the old evidence forms, point out that such a policy is in contravention of the STPCD for anyone covered by the 2006 (PM) regulations.
     
  4. I dislike openly disagreeing, but teachers applying for threshold do have to provide evidence to the head that they meet each of the ten Post-hreshold Standards (P1- P10) and the head has to comment on each one to confirm that the standard has been met. If any of your colleagues didn't get through, it's likely they fell short on one or more of these. The application can be made online but evidence is needed that the standards for P1-P10 have been met.
     
  5. Ooops = premature send there.... If the last two performance management reviews collectively show the standards have been identified and met, that will suffice, but the review statements must be sufficiently explicit in respect of evidence that PT standards are evident
     
  6. From the DFES web site:

    All those wishing to become post threshold teachers will need to meet the standards specified in this form.

    Please enclose copies of the PM Review statements that relate to the 2 years immediately prior to the date on which you submit your request.

    Pass the request form to your headteacher between 1 September 2010 but no later than 31 October 2011.
     
  7. CarrieV

    CarrieV Lead commenter

    We work on the basis that if the PM reviews DON'T say you haven't met standards then you have! It's down to the Head then to make sure the review is clear, rather than you to provide additional evidence to show that you have met them!
     
  8. OK, but what if the pay recommendation is not to award UPS. You have to appeal, and the effort involved in that probably outweighs the effort in ensuring you meet all the standards. I'm not sure I would want to gamble.
     
  9. CarrieV

    CarrieV Lead commenter

    But the handling of the PM review process is the Head's responsibility, not the teacher's.Surely it is up to the Head to ensure the process is fit for purpose not for an individual teacher to do so. Heads are ( or should be) aware that progression is based on standards being met and the PM review is the only documentation required to support this. So all standards should be assessed during the review and additional evidence shouldn't then be necessary when an application is made. As becktonboy said, it is the Heads responsibility to prove that their decision is correct and you haven't met the standards in any appeal, we just apply that to the review too.
     
  10. Piranha

    Piranha Lead commenter

    I know of nothing that says it is the Head's responsibility. For example, see the NUT advice - http://www.teachers.org.uk/node/11344 . A relevant quotation from it is:
    The DfE advises that, due to the link between threshold assessments and performance management reviews, teachers currently on M4, M5 or M6 should ensure during performance management planning and review meetings that their performance management reviews will "allow a fair and accurate assessment to be made against the post threshold standards".
    Some may think it is unfair to expect teachers to need to keep tabs of the regulations; others may think that it is reasonable for them to take an active part in their own career progression. Either way, that does seem to be the rule.
    In my (limited) experience as a performance manager, I have made a point of ensuring that the standards are demonstrated in relevant reviews. I think it is dangerous for posters to treat what they think should happen as if it were the law; it could lead to some candidates missing out. If a standard is missing, a Head trying to save money will be able to refuse threshold.
    It is not too late for those on M6. Look at your last review and your progress this year, and see which (if any) standards are missing. Then, you have the rest of the term to do something to ensure that they can appear on this year's review. It may mean asking your performance manager to come to a lesson to observe something. Provided that they are cooperative, you should be able to get your 2010-11 review in the right shape to ensure UPS1 from September.

     
  11. Piranha

    Piranha Lead commenter

    To add to my previous post, the criteria for UPS1 are stronger than those for a teacher, and include things that some teachers don't do. For example, "P10. Contribute to the professional development of colleagues through coaching and mentoring, demonstrating effective practice, and providing advice and feedback." Some teachers may decide that they do not want to do "extras" which add to their workload. How is the Head supposed to know which teachers are intending to apply and which ones aren't?
    The Upper Pay Scale is not just a continuation of M1-6; otherwise it would just be M7-9. It demands a greater contribution from the teacher and cannot be given unless their is evidence. A succesful perfomance review is only evidence of Core standards, not post-Threshold. That is why the previous process was so demanding; the new one is not supposed to make it a formality.
     
  12. Is someone a little bit indignant at having to submit lots of evidence when m6 teachers now just hand in a signed piece of paper?
     
  13. If you check the RIG guidelines it is the head's responsibility to manage the PM process appropriately. They can delegate this to other reviewers who then have the responsibility to base the review on post threshold criteria if necessary for the reviewee's progression.

    It is not the teacher's responsibility to be aware of this, it is for the reviewer to inform and for the teacher to meet the criteria. If this process was not properly done and a teacher did not achieve post threshold, then the teacher would have the right to appeal as the head has not managed the process.

    I'm a union rep. by the way so you might need to check the rules first Pirhana.
     
  14. Piranha

    Piranha Lead commenter

    No, I am not. I did consider delaying for a year so that I would not need to find evidence, but decided I might as well go for it. However, I am very concerned that people don't lose out because of not understanding the rules. My suggestions to avoid this wpuld not create much of a burden. My understanding is that it may be the Head's responsibility to manage the Performance Management process, but it is the teacher's responsibility to ensure that they are meeting the standards and that it is clear from the reviews. As I mentioned before, I have managed people who were subject to the new rules, and did my best to make sure the PMs were helpful to their cases.
    Cicedean, I am interested to hear what you say, but it does (on the face of it) contradict the NUT guidence I quoted. Please could you tell me where I can find the guidelines that make this point? I would be more than happy to be proved wrong - I have plenty of colleagues who would be grateful.
     
  15. I am an NUT rep. and the guidance from the NUT website is helpful but best practice, it is still ultimately the head's responsibility.
    Your guidance on setting out specific targets to the criteria for post threshold is excellent and should be followed but where the reviewer hasn't done this, any refusal to post threshold should be appealed.

    Link to RIG guidelines (PM guidance 2009), 2009 guidance still the same as at present in most respects.

    http://sites.google.com/site/tesfaqs/home/files
     
  16. Piranha

    Piranha Lead commenter

    That is helpful; thanks. It does seem to give a balanced view that the decision to be assessed against the post-threshold criteria is a joint one. What I feel uncomfortable with is the view that the teacher can do absolutely nothing and then appeal. It is a disgrace that some reviewers don't bother to bring the subject up, but I also think that the teacher should take some responsibility. I applied using the old system 2 years ago, and noticed recommendations to teachers who were on M4-5 at the time to ensure that performance management demonstrated the standards.
    I still stand by my advice that it is best to get the standards written into this year's review, rather than leave them out and expect to appeal if it all goes wrong. It would make the review meeting last a bit longer, but it really isn't that much work.
    If it does go to appeal on the grounds that the reviewer didn't do their bit, is success almost guaranteed, or can they still turn it down if there is not enough evidence of all the standards?
     
  17. I wouldn't say success is guaranteed but as previously said, the head would have the onus of proof not the teacher.

    It's more sensible for a head to agree that they need to accept and organise the PM process properly the following year, as the union would argue that the reviewers should have been appropriately trained to implement this properly in the first place.
     
  18. becktonboy

    becktonboy New commenter

    Well, the 2006 regulations say :
    8.—(1) The governing body of the school shall ensure that the performance of teachers at the school is managed and reviewed in accordance with the performance management policy
    and later
    11.—(1) Subject to the following paragraphs of this regulation, the head teacher shall be the reviewer for all other teachers at the school.
    (2) In the case where the head teacher is not the teacher’s line manager, the head teacher may delegate the duties imposed upon the reviewer, in their entirety, to the teacher’s line manager.
    So the head is responsible for all PM reviews but delegates some or all of the work to line managers.
     
  19. Piranha

    Piranha Lead commenter

    Sorry, my post was unclear. I meant that I didn't think the Head was responsible for ensuring that teachers approaching possible threshold are assessed against the post-thtreshold standards. I know they are responsible for the whole process. After reading all the stuff it still seems a bit unclear, which I guess is why the NUT gives the advice I mentioned earlier in their own guidance document.
    What would be really useful would be a one page summary that could be stuck up in staff rooms or given to all staff when they reach (say) M3, or to all reviewers, so that everybody is aware of the need to get PM reviews in shape in time for Threshold applications. Done properly, reviews can almost completely remove the surprise element form decisions about threshold, as all the standards will have been discussed. Perhaps there could be a tick box in the review document so that a potential candidate can specify which standards they want to be assessed against,
     

Share This Page