Positive Teacher Appraisal Through Classroom Observation

Diane Montgomery

• Publisher: David Fulton Publishers
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781134109579
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Éducation
• Subtopic: Éducation générale

First Published in 1999. 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 their own performance and its effect on learners. A significant way of achieving this is by reflection on performance which can best be supplied by systematic classroom observation and feedback from professional colleagues. This book describes how to set up and engage in classroom observation, using well­established professional sampling frames. It also illustrates how to use focused appraisal sessions and 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. 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 continuing professional development courses.

Chapter One

Appraisal

Introduction

The White Paper Excellence in Schools (DfEE 1997) reported that the appraisal arrangements currently 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. OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education 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; 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 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. 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. The proposed solution was to return to a system of payment by results which had first been rejected in 1902 for its failure to achieve the desired effects.

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 largely left up to the teachers to decide the focus for the observation. The foci chosen were teaching methods in 28 per cent of cases, curriculum in 7 per cent; assessing children’s work in 4 per cent of cases. Of those who had been appraised 60 per cent thought that it had improved their work performance. Whether or not it was more than a Hawthorn Effect or a ‘feel good’ factor was not tested.

Although appraisal schemes existed and were in policy documents in schools surveyed as part of the preparation for this book many of the schemes had to all intents and purposes lapsed. The clear exceptions were in relation to the appraisal of Newly Qualified Teachers and to Capability procedures. Appraisal had in the main become a perfunctory desk-based review infrequently entered into. Because of the renewed attention to appraisal most schemes were in the process of being revived and strengthened by classroom observation. The training of Senior Management Teams had begun, followed by training for Departmental Heads and the whole school staff in a supportive form of classroom observation linked to promoting school development. Where full appraisal schemes still operated staff generally 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 and recent inservice training inputs, as well as the expertise of the person observed.

Currently the DfEE is conducting a review of the appraisal scheme as there will be a sharper focus on teacher performance (DfEE 1999). It will be based upon classroom observation linked to pupil results and the annual performance targets. Newly Qualified Teachers will be formally appraised and assessed on a Pass/Fail basis so that those found wanting can be excluded from the profession. Appraisal for all staff is to take place on an annual basis and will be ‘marked’ on a five point scale. Performance related pay will be given to those who score in the top bracket and who improve their SATs and public exam scores in line with the schools’ targets. How this will be funded from the school budgets which are already overstretched has yet to be determined. There will be a system of fast tracking for ‘able graduates’ who become skilful teachers and a cadre of ‘superteachers’ can expect to be paid up to £40,000 a year to encourage them to stay in the classroom and not seek promotion and financial gain by going into management.

In this climate, books on appraisal which act as a support to good practice and help improvement where there is underperformance are essential. There is a danger that a system concerned primarily with targets and performance related pay can cause participants to overlook quality in education by emphasising ‘schoolhousing’ (Renzulli 1986) and to narrow the curriculum targets to those defined by the SATs (Feller 1994). It is important that teachers retain and build their professionalism in the face of this form of increasing bureaucratisation or ‘civil service mode’ of education. This conflict seen in education does not exist for other professions. They are not professions commanded by a bureaucracy such as the DfEE propelled by Government. The aims of educators and bureaucrats are inconsistent. With bureaucrats in control, education in the UK is being driven towards increasing levels and layers of paperwork. Teaching feels as though it has become a subsidiary activity to the pursuit of correct paperwork. In this atmosphere if there is not a written policy on every aspect of school life then it is not a ‘good’ school and OFSTED inspectors can fail its provision.

Experienced and expert teachers continually report 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 and 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, and 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 brought and enjoyed the title of ‘axeman or woman’. This can hardly contribute to the health and wellbeing of a school as a developing organism.

None of these concerns are new. It is in fact surprising that since appraisal began to be introduced into schools over twenty years ago, these issues have not been resolved. Is it that some of these problems have no resolution? Or indeed is it that the appraisal strategies which have been applied have been misguided, borrowed as many were from industry and commerce? Do we know what does work and is appropriate? A second look at the issues and a review of what we have learnt since they were first discussed may well prove helpful.

Appraisal: issues, nature and purposes

As early as 1972 Handy had already reviewed the three main systems of appraisal currently in operation, mainly in commerce and industry. The categories were: appraisal for financial reward; appraisal for promotion and appraisal for performance enhancement. He detailed the advantages and disadvantages of each and concluded that staff development was the best and most successful purpose. It was surprising that what followed paid no attention to this, indicating that a different agenda was to be pursued.

Appraisal systems can be formative or summative and some claim to be both. The formative approach is very much concerned with staff development and giving feedback on performance. In the latter the appraiser compares the performance with external criteria and judgments are made about pass or fail. Sometimes levels of attainment and rating scales are used as in an OFSTED inspection. It is difficult to make appraisals using only one type of procedure whether formative or summative.

According to Scriven (1986) the criteria for summative personnel evaluation should have either a logical or a legal connection to teacher performance and they must be necessary for good teaching. The popular focus, for example on questioning techniques, selected for a classroom observation may be neither necessary nor sufficient for good teaching to be taking place and therefore avoids the central concerns of teaching and teachers. The most common reason for declaring a teacher incompetent (Wise and Darling Hammond et al. 1984) was inability to control the class. This is still true today and evidenced in the annual reports issued by the DfEE on behalf of the Chief Inspector for schools. However, it is mostly in the classrooms of newly qualified teachers and those heading for capability procedures that classroom management is a major concern. It is also frequently addressed in capability procedures with little success.

In general many linked purposes of appraisal can be identified within the three main categories: accountability, payment and reward, performance related pay, promotion, assessment, quality and school development, personal development, career enhancement, communication, motivation, valuing and job satisfaction, motivation and warning, monitoring, references, inservice training, target setting, discipline and capability. There are also three major issues which arise within them whatever the process, these being credibility, autonomy and roles discussed later.

For example, it is important that the procedures selected are fair and are seen to be so. Inextricably linked to the notion of fairness is that of credibility. Lack of credibility can quickly undermine any system of appraisal. It is therefore necessary, before embarking on appraisal that these issues are fully explored. This exploration demonstrates the necessary commitment to the process by all concerned. It is vital that all the staff share an understanding of the criteria to be used and the processes to be experienced. It is thus better if they share in the development of the criteria and processes rather than have them imposed. This problem is implicit in any national scheme for it is important that there should always be some autonomy at the local level. If there is not, then people do not identify with the aims and purposes and do not feel that they have ownership of the system. It is then in serious danger of becoming a paper and pencil exercise.

Appraisal schemes tend to flourish only where there is a tradition of self-evaluation. Then it is seen as a natural development of a process already in operation. It is also important that any results from appraisal are linked to appropriate action such as training, development or career enhancement. If they are not then the procedure may be seen as an empty one soon to be discounted. However, there are also periods when consolidation is appropriate and a positive system of appraisal can be very motivating and satisfying, enhancing the communication between professionals.

Appraisers who cannot control their own classes, command subject knowledge and pass on teaching wisdom suffer from lack of credibility.

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 discontinued it. It reemerged with the Ruskin College speech of the then Prime Minister James Callaghan in 1976 and now again under a Labour Government (Christian Democrat style) in 1998. Callaghan launched the ‘Great Debate on Education’ arguing that a section of the economy which consumed such a large proportion of public money, £6 billion, should be more accountable to that public for the way 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. This 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. The issues related to roles are discussed in a later section.

At the 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. 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 teach. 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 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.

Formal appraisal of teachers’ performance became an important issue only when the then Secretary of State for Education, Sir Keith Joseph (1983) proposed that as part of the process of accountability teachers themselves must be appraised. He later linked appraisal with remuneration, next enhancement and then career development (Joseph 1985a, b).

The appraisal movement: staff development, motivation, job satisfaction and communication

The movement for some system of appraisal had been gathering momentum during this period. Thus research on the Evaluation and Enhancement of Teaching Performance, Programme Four of the Learning Difficulties Research Project (LDRP, Montgomery 1984) began in the Spring of 1983. It involved shadowing pupils for a day at a time to find out what kind of curriculum they were being offered following systematic inservice education planned by the school. Nerys James, a deputy head of the secondary school in which the programme began wrote as follows:

Diane Montgomery visited Heathside School in the Spring Term of 1983 to look at curricular developments in action in the classroom. What she saw and what we thought she would see there were not always one and the same thing … We had in many cases worked on the basis of what we thought was going on, and not on factual observation.

Our subsequent discussions turned to how teachers, some newly qualified and others who were finding some of their classes too challenging, might be helped. It was usually only these individuals who were being observed and given feedback on their performance. However, the checklists and methods of appraisal being used by the school were not found to be improving the teachers’ performance. At this stage another secondary school close by with similar problems joined the project. They were already also using classroom observation and video feedback as part of their appraisal processes. Despite this they were not able to improve the performance of several teachers and were about to institute dismissal procedures as they were then known. They were also moving into pupil questionnaires to give feedback on teacher performance.

Samuels (1983) at Heathlands School and Trethowan (1987) at Warden Park already had well established appraisal systems emphasising performance review and target setting. These too emphasised appraisal for performance enhancement. As a result the systems also were found to enhance motivation of the staffs concerned and increased their job satisfaction. They also led to improved communication within the schools. There was, however, a dearth of evidence in quantitative and qualitative terms to show how performance could be and was enhanced.

Despite the considerable evidence which was being accumulated at ground level on workable systems acceptable by the staffs in the various schools and beginning to be adopted by others, the Department for Education and Science (DES) commissioned the Chief Education Officer of Suffolk Local Education Authority (Graham 1985), to research appraisal schemes. The research team consisted of three head teachers, one from the primary sector; the Chief Education Officer; a deputy CEO and the Senior General Advisor. The head teachers had some experience of running their own appraisal schemes under the LEAs’ encouragement and were helping others develop their own schemes through advisory work.

The team’s method of research review, however, did not include the range of terms or key words which would have given them the database for a comprehensive review of relevant research (Burgess 1990). He concluded that they used the wrong key words to do their computer based literature search. They used ‘review’, ‘assessment’, ‘appraisal’ and ‘evaluation’ but not ‘methodology’, ‘qualitative research’, ‘e...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface
• 1 Appraisal
• 2 Classroom Observation
• 3 Case Studies in Appraisal
• 4 Effective Learning
• 5 Effective Teaching
• Epilogue
• References
• Index