Esther Bushell – School Governance and Workforce Adviser Education (School Teacher Appraisal) (England) Regulations 2012 A briefing for Heads and Governors Esther Bushell – School Governance and Workforce Adviser

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 teaching standards and their objectives An assessment of the teacher’s training and development needs A recommendation on pay where relevant

Key differences between the 2006 and 2012 regulations – The Policy 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 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

Key differences between the 2006 and 2012 regulations – The Cycle Twelve months from 31st October -31st October for teachers. Twelve months Twelve months from 31st December – 31st December for headteachers 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 Performance Management Committee of 2 or 3 governors. Headteacher is appraised by 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 teaching standards Governing body will inform the HT the standards they will be assessed against.

Key differences between the 2006 and 2012 regulations – Appointment of appraiser 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 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 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

Key differences between the 2006 and 2012 regulations – Review of Performance 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 A written report to be produced after the end of each appraisal period which includes three elements assessment of performance assessment of professional development needs pay recommendation where relevant Reviewer required to make a recommendation on pay progression where relevant Teacher had a right to appeal against any entry on their review statement

The link between appraisal and capability Is the teacher performing well throughout the year? Yes Continue with appraisal No Constructive feedback throughout the year, review targets, explain implications of poor performance

The link between appraisal and capability Has teacher made sufficient progress since your initial concerns? Yes Continue with appraisal No Formal capability meeting. 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 Continue with appraisal Yes 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 Continue with appraisal No 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 Continue with appraisal No Dismissal with notice Right to appeal

The link between appraisal and capability Formal Capability meeting Formal written warning Formal 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 www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/schoolgovernors - these slides