Encore Conference Centre, Northlink College, Panorama Provincial Principals’ Forum The Integrated Quality Management System (IQMS) Encore Conference Centre, Northlink College, Panorama 22 July 2011

Overview Background of the IQMS 2009/2010 Statistics 2009-2010 Ratings 2009 vs. 2010 Analysis of 2009 – 2010 IQMS Process System Flaws Operational Challenges Process Concerns Due Dates

Background Integrated Quality Management System (IQMS ) - Resolution 8 of 2003. “For the Department of Education – and for all educators - the main objective is to ensure quality public education for all and to constantly improve the quality of learning and teaching, and for this we are all accountable to the wider community. The Department has the responsibility of providing facilities and resources to support learning and teaching. Successful educational outcomes also depend upon empowering, motivating and training educators. Quality Management seeks to monitor and support these processes. Evaluation of programmes and practices is essential to any ongoing effort to improve any profession. Evaluation is not apart from but is a part of the educational process”.

Background – cont. "It is our individual performances, no matter how humble our place in life may be, that will in the long run determine how well ordered the world may become." Paul C. Packer  Purpose: align & implement the different quality management programmes (Developmental Appraisal, Performance Measurement & Whole School Evaluation).

Background – cont. DA: to determine areas of strength and weakness – to draw up programmes for individual development. PM: to evaluate individual teachers for salary progression, grade progression, affirmation of appointments and rewards and incentives.

2009/2010 Statistics 98% of all educators in the province were evaluated. The majority of educators not evaluated were as a result of sick leave. Educators that were non-compliant with the process: 2009 = 75 2010 = 51

TOTAL SCORE FOR EACH POST LEVEL SCORE RANGE FOR EACH RATING 2009 – 2010 Ratings TOTAL SCORE FOR EACH POST LEVEL YEAR POST LEVEL: 1 TOTAL: POST LEVEL: 1 POST LEVEL: 2 TOTAL: POST LEVEL: 2 POST LEVEL: 3 TOTAL: POST LEVEL: 3 112 168 208 1 - 49% 50 - 69% 70 - 84% 85 - 100% %AGE RATING Rating: 1 Rating: 2 Rating: 3 Rating: 4 SCORE RANGE FOR EACH RATING 1-55 56-77 78-94 95-112 1-83 84-116 117-141 142-168 1-103 104-144 145-175 176 -208 Percentage 2009 40 7528 10279 3417 21264 6 1187 1777 875 3845 4 423 668 358 1453 0.2 35.4 48.3 16.1   30.9 46.2 22.8 0.3 29.1 46.0 24.6 2010 53 8228 10630 3170 22081 12 1351 1884 787 4034 7 498 609 293 1407 37.3 48.1 14.4 33.5 46.7 19.5 0.5 43.3 20.8

2009 vs. 2010 Since 2009, scores have become more realistic – indicating an improved understanding and management of the system. In some cases there is no evidence to support ‘high scores’. Training interventions and support to educators is still inadequate. Overall ratings are not aligned to your typical ‘Bell Curve” – [5% ; 75% ; 20%]

Categories of educators that do not qualify for pay progression: Analysis of 2009-2010 Process Categories of educators that do not qualify for pay progression: Those promoted in a cycle (1 July – 30 June) Resolution 5 of 2006. Break in service (1 Jan – 31 Dec), (1 July – 30 June) Temporary educators (less than 12 months continuous service) Under qualified educators (REQV 12 or less – on a personal maximum) Underperforming educators. Educators that did not comply.

System Flaws “Unsatisfactory Score” generated by PERSAL for all categories Conversion of scores (office-based, PMDS to IQMS) Educators acting on higher post levels Secondments (Non-Union) No score due to LEAVE (maternity & sick) Improvement of qualifications Promotion dates

Operational Challenges Summative Score Sheets (QA7) Non-compliance – no copies Late Submission – no copies Not all Pages submitted. School’s name not on all pages. Total number of WCED educators incorrect. Incorrect PERSAL numbers. Incorrect Post Levels. Educators evaluated on higher post level not indicated. i.e PL1/PL2, PL2/PL3, PL2/PL4

Operational Challenges – cont. Scores incorrectly added up (not verified). Post levels added to scores. Some do not contain the required 3 signatures (SDT Co-ordinator, Principal & IMG Manager). Status not indicated (Permanent, Temporary, Substitute, Secondment). Reasons for non-evaluation not recorded (Sick Leave, Maternity Leave, Secondment, Refusal).

Process Concerns All permanently employed educators MUST be evaluated (Secondments). Schools must keep records of QA5s and QA7s. Moderation and verification must take place by the principal & IMG Manager (EVIDENCE BASED). P2 & P3 Principals must be evaluated as Principals. Being evaluated on a higher post level – by agreement. Learning Support Educators (LSE) – reflected on QA7. Substitutes – on QA7 as well as permanent educator. Transfers to and from other provinces.

Due Dates for 2011 Baseline Scores (new teachers) 25 March 2011 Complete Summative Evaluation 29 October 2011

Quotes "An acre of performance is worth a whole world of promise." William Dean Howells "The man who does not take pride in his own performance performs nothing in which to take pride." Thomas J. Watson