The NUT Commissioned a Survey of Teachers on Performance Management and Threshold Assessment

ATL NASUWT NUT PAT UCAC

JOINT SUBMISSION TO THE STRB 2001

REVIEW OF THE THRESHOLD

The NUT commissioned a survey of teachers on performance management and threshold assessment which was undertaken by the University of Warwick.

The joint submission of the teachers’ organisations to the School Teachers’ Review Body on threshold assessment included the Report in full as an annex. This document includes the summary from the Report as an appendix.

The Report is available in full from the headquarters of the teachers’ organisations that are signatories to the joint submission.

Amendments to the current arrangements

This submission is made in the context of the teachers’ organisations view that the threshold arrangements in their current form should be replaced by a new salary structure for classroom teachers through which teachers will progress on the basis of continuous professional development. The proposed new structure is described in the section of the joint submission on Salaries and Conditions of Service. Pending the introduction of such a new salary structure, the teachers’ organisations believe that significant changes should be made to the present threshold arrangements.

While the process has been handled effectively in most cases, there is no doubt that many participants found the arrangements daunting and suffered considerable anxiety because of difficulties that emerged.

It is clear from the evidence now emerging that the threshold process fails as an incentive both to motivate and retain teachers and to recruit them, objectives set out by the Government in the 1998 Green Paper. The results of a survey conducted by the NUT, attached in Appendix 1, provide evidence to support this assertion. Exeter University has also conducted a study of the process. In addition, all the teachers’ organisations gained information through extensive involvement in threshold casework at all stages of the process. This has been used to inform this joint submission.

Whilst acknowledging that some of the difficulties were related directly to both the sheer scale of the operation and problems which arise inevitably from the introduction and implementation of an entirely new system, there are fundamental elements of the process which require change within the current arrangements. The evidence Cambridge Education Associates (CEA) presents to the STRB will be an important factor in determining the changes required. It is regrettable that to date the DfES has shared neither information from CEA nor its own analysis with other statutory consultees. In the light of this the teachers’ organisations reserve the right to submit further evidence once this information is available.

The threshold standards

At the heart of any standards should be a strong emphasis on the quality of teaching. However, the number, nature and content of all current standards require revision to remove unnecessary duplication and repetition and to ensure a clear focus on those factors which identify teaching quality and classroom effectiveness. It is with these issues in mind that the teachers’ organisations propose the following amendments.

Standard 2, Teaching and Assessment should be at the heart of the process. It could be enhanced by the incorporation of elements of the Professional Characteristics Standard which relate to the findings of Hay McBer.

Standard 1, Knowledge and Understanding should include key elements of Standards 4.1 and 4.2, Wider Professional Effectiveness, to avoid repetition and duplication of information.

The arguments against the continued inclusion of Standard 3, Pupil Progress have been extensively rehearsed. It overshadows the whole process, diminishing the importance of other standards, in particular those that focus on classroom practice. From the evidence provided by surveys of teachers, they believe that Standard 3 is fundamentally unfair. Indeed many teachers, in the first round, concerned that the success of the application rested solely on this standard, placed excessive emphasis on it and in some cases paid less attention to other important standards.

The provision of information at school level to support the standard has been variable. Some teachers have spent hours unnecessarily trawling through statistics, others have felt disadvantaged by the lack of statistical information available. Teachers who worked part-time, including those on jobshare found it a particularly difficult part of the process as the standard appeared to be geared towards full-time staff who it seemed could demonstrate continuity more easily.

The teachers’ organisations maintain that the threshold standards should focus on the input factors which contribute to high quality classroom teaching, such as skill, knowledge, classroom management, planning and preparation. If teachers are required to demonstrate through the evidence they provide that they are delivering these effectively and assessment confirms this then it would be reasonable to conclude that pupils are making appropriate progress.1

In addition substantial improvement would be achieved by the removal of ‘Wider Professional Effectiveness’ and ‘Professional Characteristics’ as freestanding standards.

The key elements of ‘Wider Professional Effectiveness’ are described as taking responsibility for professional development and using its outcomes to improve teaching and learning and making an active contribution to the policies and aspirations of the school.

13.The standard is based on the premise that the majority of teachers have control currently over their own professional development. The reality is very different. Provision is dictated largely by national, local and school priorities. In addition, there is inconsistency within and between schools in the opportunities for professional development and access to them. The only information teachers could reasonably be expected to provide is from the professional development opportunities which have been made available to them. The inequality of current provision has been acknowledged by the Government in the formulation of its recent plans for a national Continuing Professional Development Strategy. Given these variations, until such time as entitlement and equality of access for every teacher can be guaranteed, it is inappropriate to continue the degree of emphasis on this found in the current standards.

Reference in ‘Wider Professional Effectiveness’ to active contribution to school policies and aspirations in the context of a process designed to assess effective classroom practice is inappropriate. It introduces an opportunity for inappropriate, subjective assessment of a teacher’s wider contribution to the school to be made. In addition, it fails to recognise the varying practices for policy development which operate in schools. Its inclusion is, therefore, in both respects potentially discriminatory.

It is difficult to justify professionally a continuation of the artificial separation of ‘Professional Characteristics’ from standards that focus on teaching and learning. Whether an applicant is challenging and supporting pupils to do their best, as this standard requires, should be evident from the teaching strategies employed, the assessment techniques adopted and the monitoring processes used. Such information would be provided in response to Teaching and Assessment. In addition, the information requested is non-specific making it difficult to complete and producing an inevitable variation in approach by applicants. This compromised objective assessment.

Any revised threshold standards and procedures must relate equitably to all eligible teachers. Experience has shown that the threshold arrangements have been a particularly difficult exercise for applicants in non-standard settings. The review of the standards must result in appropriate amendment to incorporate formally in guidance and regulation the good practice already established by CEA. Many of those working in non-standard settings provide support services for schools and teachers and do not work directly with individual or groups of pupils. CEA, in conducting external assessment in non-standard settings took this into account in the assessment process by applying flexibility to the provision of direct or indirect evidence of contribution to the desired outcomes of each of the standards. This needs to be incorporated formally into the process.

Particular attention also needs to be paid to the difficulties experienced by supply teachers many of whom found access to all aspects of the procedure highly problematic.

The application form

The initial application form proved to be complicated, time-consuming and onerous to complete. Due to a number of factors, including inadequate training, lack of clarity of guidance and teachers’ understandable anxiety, extensive amounts of unnecessary additional information were provided by applicants and consequently many hours were spent by them completing the form. Heads and external assessors faced serious problems in maintaining consistency and fairness when the amount of information provided by applicants varied so significantly.

The changes to the form proposed by the DfES for the second round are welcome as far as they go. In particular the introduction of a word ‘limit’ for each standard will undoubtedly, in all but the most unusual of circumstances, assist application and make consistent assessment easier.

However, further substantial change is required.

• Rationalisation of the standards as described in previous paragraphs would make the form more focused and streamlined.

• Whilst the logic of identifying areas for further development on the form of an applicant who has been deemed not to have met the standards is evident, heads and teachers have expressed concern that to record these where the standards are met detracts from the overall judgement and has the potential to disadvantage the applicant during external assessment. In addition recording such information is unnecessary duplication of elements of performance management and the school’s professional development procedures. Development needs should be recorded only where standards are not yet met.

• The process of heads’ assessment would be simplified if the declaration form required only a statement of confirmation of the evidence and that it is representative of overall performance.

These changes will make the process easier to manage, more consistent, equitable and transparent. They will reduce significantly the workload and bureaucracy for all parties.

External assessment

Whilst acknowledging the need to streamline some aspects of the current external assessment process, there is no doubt that it has engendered confidence among teachers, ensured rigour in internal assessment and supported heads by providing external validation of the process used to assess applications, thus reducing their vulnerability to formal challenge.

A number of difficulties arose in schools in preparing for the process, particularly the collection of evidence by sample applicants and the time heads were required to allocate for discussion with the assessor. The huge volume of applications in the first round and lack of experience of the process contributed directly to these problems. However, as the numbers will reduce significantly in subsequent rounds, it can be anticipated the process of internal and external assessment should be far less demanding and time-consuming.

The selection of the sample of applicants was problematic. Often schools were unclear about the criteria used for selection. The lack of specific guidance about the circumstances in which heads could add to the sample created tensions. In future, this may not continue to be a problem as the number of applicants will be dramatically reduced. Fewer applicants will also reduce considerably the time heads need to devote to the process.

A simplified, more focused application form with fewer standards would make a significant contribution to reducing the complexity of assessment. The process could be improved further and made more transparent and manageable by the introduction of:

• direct written communication from the external assessor to sample applicants, detailing the evidence required;

• an entitlement to a defined, minimum amount of notice of the visit.

As the threshold is the current mechanism by which teachers access the upper ranges of the national pay spine the teachers’ organisations consider it essential that an integral part of the process be the maintenance of an external, independent system that ensures that it has integrity and operates consistently and fairly within and between schools. Such a system would also ensure the portability of the standards achieved. It is essential also that the threshold assessment review arrangements remain. They have secured justice for a significant number of applicants who failed to cross the threshold.

Feedback

Feedback is a crucial element of the threshold process. It has an important developmental role for all applicants but particularly for those deemed not to have met the standards. These applicants require feedback to enable them to understand what steps they need to take to try to ensure success in a subsequent application and to assess whether to apply for review. The Regulations also require that feedback must take place before an application for review can be submitted.

A number of difficulties have emerged with regard to feedback for teachers deemed not to have met the standards. These include:

• delay in return of the original application form to applicants due to them being retained by CEA for quality assurance purposes;

• the return of the application form by heads with no verbal developmental comment or opportunity for this to be provided;

• refusal by some heads to provide additional, written supplementary comments when those on the form failed to identify adequately why standards had not been met;

• claims by heads that changes to the application form overturning an original recommendation of ‘met’ to ‘not met’ had been made by the external assessor but being unable to produce the assessor’s written reasons, causing considerable anxiety and confusion for the applicant. Contact with CEA regional co-ordinators usually revealed that the decision had been made by the head;

• absence of the facility for applicants to be accompanied at the feedback meeting by a union representative in cases where there were particular concerns or difficulties.

These problems can be rectified by:

• photocopying application forms to be retained by CEA for quality assurance while leaving the originals with the applicants;

• amending DfES guidance to state clearly that meetings between the head and applicants deemed not to have met the standards must take place to provide feedback and that an agreed note of the key points discussed at each meeting must be provided for the applicant;

• incorporating on the application form a section to indicate clearly who is responsible for amending the head’s original recommendation on a standard; and

• making provision for applicants to be represented by a union representative in appropriate circumstances.

The review process

The teachers’ organisations welcome the review process but believe that it still contains unsatisfactory features. Some review applicants will be denied natural justice unless a further stage is added to the process, providing entitlement to make personal representations. The current review process should remain, with a shortened timescale for the decision being given by the review assessor. This stage should resolve the great majority of cases, giving justice that is seen to be done. However, where applicants have grounds to believe that the outcome of the review has been unjust, they should be able to appeal to a national appeals panel, which would involve entitlement to representation at the panel meetings. In addition, a number of features of the review process should be changed.

Although the DfES published information on how to apply for review no details of how it would be carried out were issued. This has caused considerable confusion for heads and applicants who have no idea about how the process operates or what is expected of them;

The timescales for review are excessively protracted. This increases the anxiety of applicants. In addition, it causes practical problems for those who may wish to apply in the next round of threshold assessment.

The application period for the next round opens while the outcome of the review for a number of applicants is still unknown. Although it is possible to apply for review and a new assessment at the same time, the overlap of the two processes has the potential to disadvantage applicants. While they focus on the review and wait for the outcome, for fear of prejudicing the decision the opportunity may be lost to discuss constructively with the head any remedial action which may be needed to support the new application should the review be unsuccessful.

A more appropriate independent, external review mechanism with defined timescales that makes a clear separation between review and application needs to be established and supported by the production of detailed guidance. A process external to the school is an essential protection for all parties involved in the threshold process.

Funding

A key incentive for schools and teachers to participate in the threshold process was the allocation of direct funding to support it. Without this financial, rather than professional, considerations would most likely have been the key influence on the outcome for those who applied.

To maintain the viability of the threshold process and to ensure that all teachers who aspire to meet the national standards are appropriately rewarded the current direct funding mechanism to local authorities must be maintained.