Helping Teachers Develop through Classroom Observation

Diane Montgomery

• Publisher: David Fulton Publishers
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781134145973
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Enhancing the quality of teaching and learning in schools for the benefit of the teacher and pupil is not a matter of quick 'tips for teachers.' It requires a fundamental review by every teacher of his or her own performance and its effects on learners. A significant way of achieving this is by systematic classroom observation and feedback from professional colleagues.

This book describes how to set up and engage in classroom observation using well-established professional sampling frames. It illustrates how to use focused appraisal sessions and how to deliver the feedback interview. Underpinning the author's practical guidance is a tried and tested theory of improving teaching and learning for school development and performance management.

The approach is practical, positive and supportive and is designed for senior staff, SENCOs, teachers in primary and secondary schools and those taking INSET and CPD courses.

Chapter 1
Performance Management

Introduction

In September 2000 a performance management system was introduced into English schools with the purpose of strengthening the links between the school development and improvement plan and pupil performance. This system would directly link individual teachers' performance with their pupils attainments. This time the system emphasised the links with professional development so that the satisfaction and motivation of teachers could be enhanced and thus produce the desired outcomes.

The reasons for this new development were that the appraisal system previously established (DFE 1991) had fallen into disuse (again) in some schools and was perfunctory in others. However, some had established useful models which, if linked to performance management strategies derived from the business world, could have led to the raising of standards in schools. As a result of the consultation following the Green Paper (DfEE 1999a) significant improvements in the strategy were achieved, marrying best practice in both fields and, by providing supporting materials, research and guidance.

The specific concerns identified in the White Paper Excellence for All (DfEE 1997) were that the appraisal arrangements then in operation did not provide an adequate check on students' performance. The targets set often failed to focus on improving teacher effectiveness in the classroom and were not specific or measurable. The Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED 1997) identified five main weaknesses in the appraisal systems operating in schools. They were lacking in rigour; there was poor evaluation of the impact on teaching quality and the pupils; there was unrealistic target setting; there was infrequent or ineffective classroom observation; and there was a failure to link appraisal to training. In effect, appraisal in the majority of settings had become a perfunctory exercise.

In the same year the National Union of Teachers (NUT 1997) reported that teachers feared that the results of appraisal would be used against them. This indicated a lack of trust between the appraisers and the appraisees. The NUT insisted that appraisal must be linked to professional development and not to pay, promotion or capability procedures — shades of the debate which had raged more than a decade earlier when formal appraisal was first introduced (Joseph 1984). In other words, all the attributes which good appraisal schemes might be expected to offer had somehow been bypassed, and appraisal had become a paper-and-pencil exercise in keeping with the worst predictions.

Research by Wragg et al. (1996) in 400 schools found that only 28 per cent of teachers were observed teaching, and this occurred only once instead of twice as in the appraisal regulations. In many cases the observation lasted for less than the 30 minutes' minimum recommended span. There were also doubts over what was being appraised and it was left largely up to the teachers to decide on the focus for the observation. The foci chosen were teaching methods in 28 per cent, curriculum in 7 per cent, and assessing children's work in 4 per cent. Of those who had been appraised, only 60 per cent thought that it had improved their work performance (Baron et al. 1998). Whether or not it was more than a 'Hawthorne Effect' or a 'feel good factor' was not tested.

With the intended publication of the Green Paper (DfEE 1999a) schools across the country began, in advance, to reappraise their appraisal procedures and prepare for the new regime. Thus it was that following a workshop on Positive Classroom Observation and School Improvement at the Secondary Heads Conference (SHA 1998) several hundred schools signed up over the next two years to learn more of the system described in this book. It was part of the Learning Difficulties Research Project (LDRP), Programme Four on the Evaluation and Enhancement of Teaching Performance begun in 1983 to support appraisal in schools when the initiative was first announced (Joseph 1984).

Although appraisal schemes had, to all intents and purposes, lapsed or become attenuated since 1991, the clear exceptions were in relation to the appraisal of Newly Qualified Teachers (NQIs) and to capability procedures.

In schools in the LDRP, where full appraisal schemes still operated, staff usually chose the focus for the lesson observation with differentiation - equal opportunities, special educational needs, provision for the more able, classroom management, questioning techniques and curriculum being the most popular. The choice of focus tended to depend upon the areas of competency and interest of the observer, recent in-service training inputs, as well as the expertise of the person observed.

Experienced and expert teachers still reported being unsure of their competencies in appraising the classroom performance of others. They were clear about being able to recognise and deal with failing performance but less secure about how to retrieve it or about how to appraise with some exactitude the broad range of competencies which they might meet. Senior teachers were often concerned about their distance from the classroom, the role which they brought to any observation and the effect it might have upon pupils, as well as their lack of subject expertise except in their own domain. Devolving appraisal to subject leaders and heads of department equally did not fill them with confidence. Others who were involved in the appraisal of NQTs and in capability procedures often relished the negative powers that their new role could bring and some enjoyed the title of'axeman-woman'. This did not contribute to the health and wellbeing of a school as a developing organism.

In the new scheme performance management is closely linked to threshold assessments which are based on the new standards introduced for head teachers, subject leaders, SENCOs (Special Educational Needs Coordinators) and NQTs, and induction standards.

In addition to these standards and courses of specific training at approved centres for head teachers and aspiring heads, the Government has introduced a National Literacy Strategy (NLS) (DfEE 1998), a National Numeracy Strategy (DfEE 1999) in primary schools, with pilot projects on literacy and study skills in Year 7 for secondary schools. This, of course, returned primary schools to the situation they had been in before the introduction of the National Curriculum ten years earlier when every primary school spent most of each morning on 'Basic Skills' often in application in subject areas. The result has been that literacy standards have risen to previous levels but the overprescriptive and narrow approach adopted to literacy through reading has left spelling and writing behind. The Numeracy strategy has proved to be more responsive and less subject to criticism.

Since these core skills have been addressed to some extent, other priorities have emerged such as the underachievement of boys in writing (OFSTED 2000) and Black Afro-Caribbean groups (OFSTED 1999). There have also been a flurry of initiatives such as Excellence in Cities (DfEE 1999d) and the establishment of training programmes for Gifted and Talented Coordinators in schools, and associated funding of'Summer schools', Master classes' and World Class Tests, for all of which there is no evidence for their value or effectiveness (Freeman 1998).

Teachers are once again weighed down by the welter of initiatives and a continuous round of bidding and funding. Performance management, however, has its most serious side for it touches at the heart of teaching and learning and the personal performance of teachers. This time we must get it right. This time more opportunities for local initiative have been permitted, and with their focus on development they have the potential for success.

Performance management

The performance management system now in place is one which provides for the reviewing and agreeing of priorities within the context of the school development plan (Bubb and Hoare 2001).

The main points of the current system are:

• to agree annual objectives tor each teacher to include objectives relating to pupil progress and ways of developing and improving the teachers' professional practice;
• to undertake, within the year, monitoring of progress and classroom observation of teaching;
• to hold an end-of-year review meeting which includes an assessment of the teacher's overall performance — this should take account of achievement against objectives and agree objectives for the next year - the discussion should cover development opportunities and activities;
• to use performance review outcomes to inform pay decisions as appropriate; and
• for head teachers the objectives agreed should relate to school leadership and management and general pupil progression.

Fundamentally, these are no different to those which were established in schools which operated well-structured appraisal systems. They now have a harder cutting edge in that SATs results, public examinations, OFSTED assessments and other measures such as reading and spelling test outcomes must be built into the assessment procedures. Teachers reaching the spine point nine on the salary scale are eligible to receive an extra increment of £2,000 if they have met the objectives agreed. Failure in one or two out of five lessons in an OFSTED inspection, for example, would prevent this increment being awarded until the teaching performance shortcomings had been identified and remedied.

There were many teachers who had reached scale point nine when the scheme was introduced and so performance management suddenly had a wide and strong impact which the appraisal forerunner did not have because there were no such incentives.

Performance related pay — accountability

The accountability movement began in 1872 when a system of payment by results was introduced. Over time, it lapsed until the Education Act of 1902 formally discontinued it. It re-emerged again with the Ruskin College speech of the then Prime Minister James Callaghan, in 1976, and now, again under a Labour Government, in 1998. Callaghan launched the Great Debate on Education', arguing that a section of the economy that consumed such a large proportion of public money, £6 billion (now £16 billion), should be more accountable to that public for the way in which the money was spent and the value which resulted. He wanted value for money. Accountability was linked not only to costs and value for money but to standards and the questioning of autonomy in the education system. Professional autonomy was no longer to be sacrosanct.

There had been a move from a selective tripartite system of education in 1970 to a mainly comprehensive style of education. This had raised concerns in many quarters about standards. It fuelled public concern about education, and appraisal was seen as a method for ridding the profession of failing teachers. I his of course made all teachers feel somewhat threatened as there were considerable differences of opinion about teaching methods, styles and contents (Bennett and Jordan 1975). This gave rise to a central concern about the credibility of the appraiser and the process in the pursuit of accountability.

At that time 'appraisal by walking about' was the most common method in operation. Few schools had instituted formal appraisal procedures, although there were some notable exceptions (Samuel 1983; Trethowan 1987). In many small primary schools, heads and deputies joined in the classroom work with staff and so were able to claim that they had observed their staff teaching. The same could not be said of secondary school heads and college principals, however. In addition to this, a wide range of teachers helped in the training and appraisal of students in their own classrooms by contributing to the college assessments. This participation slowly increased until the present, when mentors in school may be the prime teaching practice supervisors and assessors. Despite the requirements for the profession to be made more accountable and the institution of a system of independent inspections by OFSTED, no special money was put into appraisal itself.

In the current performance management system, in addition to threshold payments and sums of money to attract new members into the profession ('golden hellos'), governing bodies can also make discretionary pay awards (performance related pay (PRP)), and there are a host of initiatives (Beacon Schools, Investors in People, Specialist Schools, Excellence in Cities, etc.) to bid for, which can bring extra funding, so that many schools now have a more flexible budget to promote initiative and development.

There have always been divided opinions in the teaching profession about PRP and incentive driven systems. Noticeably, it was the younger members of the profession who favoured PRP. Shortage of money, promotion being blocked by senior colleagues whose jobs they felt they could do or were doing, and inexperience and lack of knowledge of the underlying issues might have contributed to this perspective. On the other hand, those disputing the value of PRP held that a true professional is just that, a professional, and this means that they seek to do the best job they can whatever the circumstances, and thus financial incentives can do little to improve their performance. They should, however, be paid at a level befitting their professional status. Such incentives can be seen as bribes and may actually demotivate and dissatisfy when they are small and when staff given them are not perceived to have been given them fairly (and this is at times inevitable despite best efforts). All staff on the whole will think that they deserve and must be awarded the PRP and it can be difficult to bring some to see the reasons why they may not be awarded it.

PRP was introduced into higher education in 1991 on a limited scale, in the first place for senior managers, and each had targets to meet which were established in an appraisal review. The targets were usually written by the individual, tinkered with by someone senior and then assessed at some later period by the senior on a five point scale in an undisclosed, unevidenced manner, without consultation. The 'pot of money' set aside for the purpose was then shared out. At the time, the more external funding a tutor acquired the higher the PRP. All sums were undisclosed. An attempt to roll the system out to all members of staff to all intents and purposes failed as there was insufficient money to fund it adequately, and experiments were tried where two or three tutors who had consistently demonstrated excellence in teaching during the year were awarded sums of £500. Faculty approaches to this varied in who was put forward and why, from the system of sharing the £1,000 out between all, to selecting two on the basis of 'Buggins turn this year' to systematic internal and external validation of appraisal of teaching. The new system of performance management in schools is far more complex and rather more subtle and has avoided some of the major flaws, not least that a significant sum of money has been made available and that teachers are competing with themselves rather than with others, and this is tested against nationally established criteria with local agreement on their application in practice.

Higher education institutions now do have in place systematic appraisals of staff and in June 2001, Sir Howard Newby, incoming president of the Higher Education Funding Council for England announced that ministers were taking seriously the funding gap of nearly £1 billion in higher education but that the new money to be made available must be linked to a system of appraisal which was performance related so that poor performance was not rewarded. No doubt a similar system to that which operates in schools will be devised in which a significant sum of money is available as a 'carrot, or bribe, to opt into the system and set the whole thing in motion.

The performance management structure and implementation

The implementation of a performance management scheme has meant that heads and deputies have had to broaden the management structure to strengthen it and delegate responsibility down through the school system to teams of middle managers. This has inevitably led to a hierarchical system of management. It can work well where it is served at each level by good or inspirational leaders. However, the system does not work in an easy and fluent manner as yet, for there is a history of promotion and reward in schools which has never been evidence based in this way. It is also true that teachers are still appointed to post on the basis of interview, which is only 25 per cent reliable! They should be seen teaching, even if they are to lead a department, for their quality in teaching can help them promote it in their team and at least gain respect for their professional skills.

The new structure has thus strengthened the staff development responsibilities of team and subject leaders. It also requires that there is a system for feeding this information into the system so that staff development undertaken is linked to the school development plan and funding acquired for the purpose. There may also be indi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Introduction
• 1. Performance Management
• 2. Classroom Observation Methods
• 3. Case Studies in Appraisal using the Formative System
• 4. Effective Learning
• 5. Effective Teaching
• Epilogue
• References
• Index