Transcript Presentation Title

Education (School Teacher Appraisal)
(England) Regulations 2012
A briefing for Heads and Governors
Andy Wilson – Team Manager HR
Outline of this briefing
• Overview of the new process
• Key differences between 2006 and 2012
regulations
• Overview of the link between appraisal
and capability procedures
The new appraisal process – key headlines
• Comes into being for any appraisal cycle that
starts after 1st September 2012
• More formal link between appraisal and
capability process
• Statutory requirements reduced by 75%
• Applies to all teachers in maintained schools
Appraisal will consist of...
• Formal annual assessment of a teacher’s
performance against the Teaching
Standards
• Formal annual assessment of a teacher’s
performance against their objectives
The appraisal report will include...
• An assessment of the teacher’s performance
against the teachers’ standards and their
objectives
• An assessment of the teacher’s training and
development needs
• A recommendation on pay where relevant
• Use individual reports to inform anonomised
summary reports for Governors and Ofsted.
Key differences between
the 2006 and 2012 regulations – The Policy
2006
2012
Governing Body must establish a Performance
Management Policy
Governing body must adopt and make available a
document setting out the appraisal process
Policy must be consulted on with teachers and trade
union representatives
Consultation with staff and trade unions in the
school
Policy must be reviewed every year
Policy had to include arrangements for the
monitoring and evaluation of the policy
HT required to provide a written report annually to
the FGB about the application of the PM policy in
the school
The policy was required to show the link between
the PM process and school improvement and
development planning
The policy had to include a classroom observation
protocol
Model Policy provided by RIG was “Strongly
Recommended”
Model Policy provided by DfE is optional but
regulations must be met
Key differences between
the 2006 and 2012 regulations – The Cycle
2006
2012
Twelve months from 31st October - Twelve months
31st October for teachers.
Twelve months from 31st
December – 31st December for
headteachers
Twelve months
Cycle required to be the same for
all teachers excluding heads
For teachers moving post/ school,
the HT can decide whether the
cycle should start again. All cycles
end on 31st October.
HT can decide on shorter or longer
cycles to accommodate teachers
arriving or leaving a school.
Key differences between the 2006 and 2012
regulations – HT appraisal
2006
2012
Performance Management Committee of at least
2 and a maximum of 3 governors.
Headteacher is appraised by a sub group of the
governing body.
Where the HT was unhappy with the members of
the committee, he could request a change in
writing to the FGB
Teachers or staff governors could not review the
performance of the HT
Governing body set objectives having consulted
the external adviser or SIP where applicable
Governing body must set objectives having
consulted an external adviser which they appoint.
Headteacher will be assessed annually against
the relevant standards
Governing body will inform the HT of the
standards they will be assessed against.
Key differences between the 2006 and 2012
regulations – Appointment of appraiser
2006
2012
The Headteacher was reviewer for
all teachers
The Headteacher is the appraiser
for all teachers
The Headteacher could choose to
delegate the role of reviewer in its
entirety.
The Headteacher will decide who
will appraise other teachers
The reviewer had to be a teacher in
a line management or higher
position in the staffing structure.
Where the teacher was unhappy
with the choice of reviewer, they
could request a change in writing to
the HT.
Key differences between the 2006 and 2012
regulations – Setting of Objectives
2006
2012
Objectives must contribute to improving
pupils’ progress
Objectives must contribute to school
improvement
Performance management planning
statement had to include
• Objectives
• Arrangements for classroom
observation
• Evidence that will be taken into account
• Performance criteria
• Support to be provided
• Timescales
Objectives must be
• Specific
• Measurable
• Achievable
• Realistic
• Time-bound
Plan written and passed to teacher for
agreement within 5 days
Right of appeal to any of the entries on the
performance management planning
statement
Key differences between the 2006 and 2012
regulations – Classroom Observation
2006
Classroom observation protocol included as
part of the PM policy
PM planning statement included planned
observations and detailed
• Purpose of the observation
• Particular aspects of teacher’s performance
being assessed
Classroom observation had to be conducted by
a qualified teacher
3-hour limit to classroom observation for
performance management purposes
Verbal feedback given to teacher within 24
hours
Written feedback given to teacher within 5 days
Teacher could add comments to the written
feedback of the lesson observation
2012
Key differences between the 2006 and 2012
regulations – Review of Performance
2006
2012
No surprises – review meeting looked at
evidence that had been decided upon in the
planning statement
Within 5 days of the review meeting, reviewer
required to produce a draft and pass to the
teacher.
Within 10 days of the review meeting, reviewer
required to produce a final version
Reviewer required to make a recommendation
on pay progression where relevant
Teacher had a right to appeal against any entry
on their review statement
A written report to be produced after the end of
each appraisal period which includes three
elements
i.assessment of performance
ii.assessment of professional development
needs
iii.pay recommendation where relevant
The link between appraisal and capability
Is the teacher performing well throughout the year?
Yes
No
Continue with appraisal
Constructive feedback throughout the
year, review targets, explain
implications of poor performance and
record the discussion
Draw up a formal support plan, with
review and further support plan as
necessary
The link between appraisal and capability
Has teacher made sufficient progress since your
initial concerns?
Yes
Continue with appraisal
No
Arrange a capability meeting
Right to be represented.
Conducted by HT
Explores professional
shortcomings
Decides whether there is a
case to answer
The link between appraisal and capability
Was there a case to answer?
No
Yes
Continue with appraisal
Formal written warning (final
written warning for very serious
cases)
Sets out actions needed to bring
about improvement
Sets out a review date
The link between appraisal and capability
Formal review meeting – has sufficient
progress been made?
Yes
No
Continue with appraisal
Final Written warning
Sets out improvements needed
Sets a date for a decision
meeting
The link between appraisal and capability
Decision meeting – has sufficient progress been made?
Yes
No
Suspend
Continue with appraisal
Dismissal with notice
Right to appeal
The link between appraisal and capability
Appraisal
Capability
meeting
Written warning
Review
meeting
Final written
warning
Decision
meeting
Dismissal
Sources of further information
www.education.gov.uk
Teacher Appraisal and Capability Model Policy
www.legislation.gov.uk
2012 Education (School Teacher Appraisal)
Regulations
Nottinghamshire’s Appraisal and Capability Policy –
and Guidance - draft