Appraising Teachers in Schools

A Practical Guide

Les Bell

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000226997
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Didattica
• Subtopic: Didattica generale

Originally published in 1988, Appraising Teachers in Schools considers and provides advice on the introduction of staff appraisal in schools.

Following the publication of the 1987 Pay and Conditions of Employment and written by contributors with practical experience of introducing staff appraisal into schools, the book provides guidance on the introduction of staff appraisal across a range of schools; outlines a planning process for the establishment of staff appraisal; and offers suggestions for how to prepare for the appraisal process. It covers both primary and secondary education in a variety of larger and smaller schools.

Appraising Teachers in Schools will appeal to those with an interest in the history of education and the history of staff appraisal in schools in particular.

Chapter 1
Appraisal and the Search for Accountability

Les Bell

This book is written for teachers. It is written for those teachers who are responsible for planning and implementing formal staff appraisal procedures and for those who may, in the future, share such a responsibility. It is also written for teachers vyho will experience staff appraisal in one or more of its many forms. In one sense, therefore, it is for all teachers since the new Pay and Conditions of Employment (DES, 1987) indicate that all teachers may be required to take part in some form of staff appraisal. Not only is this book for teachers but it is also based on the practical experience of teachers. All the chapters, with the exception of the first two and the last one, are written either by teachers who have experience in appraisal or about the experiences of such teachers. All the contributors have practical experience in evaluation and appraisal and, in particular, in the application of appraisal processes to schools. The book is a way of sharing those practical experiences in the hope that colleagues might benefit from them.

The work described was carried out by a range of people in a variety of institutions. Not only were the institutions different but the relationship of the writers to their institutions varied. Some are the headteachers or deputy headteachers, while others are external consultants invited to work with the teachers in the schools. This range of activities reflects the rich variety of approaches to staff appraisal which can be found in schools. It also reflects the extent to which the most appropriate and effective form of staff appraisal is that which is derived from, and rooted in, the particular circumstances of each school. Staff appraisal processes must take into account the uniqueness of each school and the individuality of teachers within that school. No attempt has been made, therefore, to suggest that there is only one workable model of staff appraisal. Indeed the various experiences described here exhibit significant differences, although they also have key features in common. The differences, the common features, and a series of general principles, which might be deduced from the practical approaches to staff appraisal on which this book is based, will all be discussed in the final chapter. Chapter one sets the scene for the practical examples of the introduction of staff appraisal into schools which follow. It seeks to examine those factors which have produced this interest in the appraisal of teachers. It explores a range of different meanings which can be attached to staff appraisal, some of which are more helpful than others. It seeks to place in context those processes which are discussed in subsequent chapters.

In search of accountability

The appraisal of teachers in schools is a process which is as old as the education service itself, although the nature of the process and the criteria used have changed over time. Grace (1985) has argued that 'gentleness and piety' were preferred to 'cleverness' by the early inspectors of schools. Such ideological reliability, which was embodied in religious and moral expressions of respectability, was soon linked to performance indicators. The first question asked by those responsible for managing schools or appointing teachers was: 'What percentage did you pass last year? Upon what is the salary and the reputation of a teacher to depend? Upon his ability to turn out so many yards of reading, writing and arithmetic from his human machines ...' (Gautney, 1937, p. 119 quoted in Grace, 1985, p.8.)

Thus the ethics of industry, expressed in terms of measured production and close managerial control, were applied to schools more than a century ago. As a response to this teachers developed their own association to struggle for professional autonomy. By 1926, the claim of teachers to be professional and for schools to be relatively autonomous institutions was being taken seriously, if only to create a buffer against socialist ideas. As White has argued, '... it was no longer in the interests of anti-Socialists, including Conservatives, to keep curriculum policy in the hands of the state ... the Conservatives had everything to gain and nothing to lose from taking curricula out of the politicians' hands.' (White, 1975, p.28 quoted in Grace, 1985, p.11.)

What was intended here was that a system of controls over education would be created which was mediated through the professionalism of teachers. One of the effects of this process was to devolve evaluation and appraisal of teachers to headteachers while, at the same time, creating a climate which made open, formal performance assessment extremely difficult since the ethic of legitimated professionalism was based on teacher autonomy. This, in turn, presupposed individual self-evaluation and selfregulation by teachers themselves. Perhaps understandably, therefore, being a 'good professional', having an acceptable personality and establishing good social relations were esteemed qualities and the procedures used to assess these qualities were general, diffuse and less than systematic (Grace, 1978). Thus teachers applying for posts and asking for references were often unclear about the criteria upon which they would be judged and unsure about how the information would be collected. This situation still pertains in many schools.

In 1976, James Callaghan made his Ruskin College speech. The argument he put forward was partly a response to the then current criticism of education, and partly a means of raising a series of concerns about the extent to which the school curriculum was appropriate for the last quarter of the twentieth century. In particular, it raised the issues of the need for a core curriculum for all pupils; the need to pay more attention to the requirements of industry and to develop more positive attitudes towards industry on the part of young people; and the need to develop stronger links between schools and the wider society in order that the great secret garden, the curriculum, could come under public scrutiny. In order for this to happen teachers had to become more accountable to interest groups outside the school, including parents and industrialists. Thus, as Nisbet (1986) has argued, the accountability movement and the pressure for formal teacher appraisal is a challenge to the claim for autonomy by the teaching profession. This challenge is specific to education in the sense that it is an attempt to assert the right of non-professionals to have their views about education taken into account. It is also part of a more general challenge to professional autonomy for, as Leigh (1979) has argued, professions are suspected of a conspiracy against the laity.

Teachers who shelter behind 'the protective barrier of professionalism' (Nisbet, 1980, p. 12) are also more difficult to manage and this at a time when the need to manage the teaching force more effectively was being identified by successive Secretaries of State for Education and Science. In 1977 Shirley Williams argued in her Green Paper, quoted in The Times Educational'Supplement, that if the education service was to give value for money, then, a high priority had to be given to, 'The establishment of standard procedures for advice and, where necessary, warning to teachers whose performance is considered unsatisfactory' (TES, 9.11.84, p.7).

By 1983, Sir Keith Joseph was arguing that those managing schools had a clear responsibility to establish a policy for staff development based on the assessment of every teacher's performance (DES, 1983). This heralded what has been called, 'the Government's managerialist strategy for developing the statutory phase of schooling' (Wilcox, 1986, p.1). This was followed, early in 1984, with the statement that every LEA should have accurate information about each of its teachers and that such information should be based on, among other things, an assessment of the teacher's classroom performance (Joseph, 1984). This point was reaffirmed a year later when the Secretary of State asserted that the LEA can only be satisfied that each school is properly staffed if it knows enough about the competences of the individual teachers. Such knowledge could only come from some form of appraisal (Joseph, 1985). The White Paper Better Schools (DES, 1985a) gave notice that the Secretary of State would seek new powers to ensure that such appraisal schemes could be imposed on teachers if this became necessary. In 1986, Kenneth Baker, successor to Keith Joseph as Secretary of State for Education, piloted his new Education Act through Parliament. Contained within its strange miscellany of provision was the enabling legislation to which his predecessor had referred. This legislation is now embodied in The Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions of Employment) Order 1987, which imposed, for the first time, detailed conditions of service on teachers. These include, for headteachers:

(8a) Supervising and participating in any arrangements within an agreed national framework, for the appraisal of the performance of teachers who teach in the School (Schedule 1, DES, 1987).

and for all other teachers:

(4) Participating in any arrangements within an agreed national framework for the appraisal of his performance and that of other teachers (Schedule 3, DES 1987).

Thus it appears that the appraisal of teachers' performance is with us in spirit, if not in action. Teachers are, in ways as yet unclear, to be held accountable for their professional practices.

Responses to the search for accountability

The movement towards the appraisal of teacher performance is only one part of what seems to be a set of strategies for changing the nature of education provided in our schools. These strategies include an attempt to restructure and revise the curriculum. This can be traced through publications such as A Framework for the School Curriculum (DES, 1979b), The School Curriculum (DES, 1981a) and Circular 6/81. In this each LEA was instructed to:

• (a) review its policy for the school curriculum in its areas, and its arrangements for making that policy known to all concerned;
• (b) review the extent to which current provision in the schools is consistent with that policy; and
• (c) plan future developments accordingly, within the resources available.
  (DES, 181b, Circular 6/81, Section 5.)

The Curriculum from 5 to 16 series followed, number 2 of which sought to promote professional discussion about the whole curriculum in terms of breadth, balance, relevance and differentiation (DES, 1985c). At the same time, a number of initiatives were taken that were intended to influence both curriculum content and pedagogy. These included the introduction of new technology to all sectors of education, and the development of the Technical and Vocational Education Initiatives (TVEI) which were funded by the MSC. The school curriculum now seems to be about to experience an even more significant shift with the proposed introduction of a national curriculum. The implications of this for staff appraisal will be explored in chapter two.

Implicit in this re-analysis of the curriculum has been a reexamination of forms of assessment and a debate about processes of assessment. For example Bates (1984) has argued that formative, criterion-referenced, diagnostic and teacher-made forms of assessment may well serve 'educational' purposes more faithfully than summative, norm-referenced, performance-based and standardized tests. These, he argues, are more closely related to 'managerial' purposes of sorting, classifying, allocating and controlling pupils. The Assessment of Performance Unit has been active in trying to identify criterion-referenced assessment processes across the curriculum while the pupil-profiling and the GCSE have added impetus to such developments. The proposed introduction of 'bench-mark' testing for all children at 7, 11 and 14 years of age will bring this aspect of education into the limelight yet again, although it remains to be seen how far the worst fears of the teaching profession about the stultifying and regimenting effects of these tests are realized.

The trend towards the appraisal of teachers, therefore, needs to be seen in the context of a series of other, perhaps related, changes in education. These changes may not all be taking us in the same direction. For example, there seems to be some significant contradictions in the emphasis on cross-curriculum, integrated approaches to teaching contained in, say, TVEI and CPVE (Certificate of Pre-Vocational Education), and the strong subject emphasis which, it appears, will pervade the national curriculum. As will be argued below, similar contradictions can be identified in the various sets of meanings which can be and have been attached to staff appraisal during the debate about its appropriateness for use in schools.

This debate is part of a broader reconsideration of the management of the teaching force. The extent to which teachers should be accountable and the identification of 'for what' and 'to whom' they should be accountable have been crucial aspects of this debate. These issues have not been settled but the role of the school governors in the accountability process has been considerably enhanced by the 1986 Education Act while LEAs have had thrust upon them a more active role in managing the curriculum. This may soon change yet again if schools are given the opportunity to become financially autonomous or even to opt out of the LEA framework entirely. For the present there has been a significant devolution of power and responsibility from LEAs to schools for some aspects of the management of the teaching force. This is most evident in the area of in-service training. Here the recent introduction of Grant Related In-Service Training (GRIST) requires LEAs to provide each school with the resources to meet staff development needs as identified at school level. This may enable schools to provide support and follow-up which can be related to the outcomes of staff appraisal.

Schools have approached staff appraisal from at least three different positions. Perhaps the school self-evaluation initiatives were the least threatening and most distantly related to the direct processes of staff appraisal. Elliot (1981) points out that by 1980 two-thirds of LEAs in England and Wales had been involved in discussions about school self-evaluation and many had already produced guidelines indicating to schools how they should go about evaluating themselves. Clift (1982) suggests that some of the self-evaluation schemes which followed these guidelines concentrated on asking about institutional procedures while giving scant attention to the outcomes of learning and making virtually no reference to standards (e.g. ILEA, 1977). The use of these schemes tended to be left to the individual schools. At the other extreme Clift identified a small group of schemes, exemplified by that of the Oxfordshire LEA, which contained the external validation and moderation of internally assessed standards. This scheme was mandatory in Oxfordshire schools. Clift argues that all LEA school self-evaluation schemes were expected to promote professional and institutional development, as well as rendering the schools in some way accountable for what they were doing. He suggests that self-evaluation may lead to an awareness of institutional or professional shortcomings which is necessary before remedial action can be taken. Such an awareness, while being necessary for remedial action, is not sufficient of itself to ensure that remedial action is taken. He concluded that school self-evaluation will not produce institutional or professional improvements without a massive input of managerial and leadership skills and without some means of ensuring that teachers become involved in those activities which might produce such improvements.

Perhaps as a result of reaching conclusions similar to those above; perhaps out of a recognition that the introduction of teacher appraisal would become almost inevitable; and perhaps out of a desire to establish and own an appraisal system appropriate to their own schools, a number of LEAs have begun to establish staff appraisal procedures in schools. Some of these, such as the Suffolk scheme, are a product of DES pilot projects, while others are the result of initiatives from within the LEA itself. These schemes vary in a number of ways, not least in the extent to which they place the emphasis on the evaluation and development functions of the appraisal process. Sidewell (1987) has suggested that the Croydon scheme is one which places considerable emphasis on evaluation and accountability. It will measure student performance against standardized tests. Staff appraisal will then be related to these results. This scheme is explicitly geared towards promotion within the LEA with potential candidates for promotion being selected for special training. In the newly revised Solihull scheme, however, the developmental and evaluative functions are given equal emphasis:

Purposes

1. Evaluation must be seen as ongoing and applicable to all levels of the service. Its purpose is to provide information about the service in order to improve the quality of the service and to demonstrate accountability.
2. To encourage personal and professional fulfilment and development of staff. (Solihull, 1986, p.7.)

Staff appraisal here is seen as an integral part of the overall process of school evaluation with the intention of supporting and developing effective practices and of generating programmes for action. The responsibility for this remains with the school, unlike the Nottinghamshire Professional Development Programme, in which much of this responsibility rests with the LEA's Inspectors (Nottinghamshire, 1985) and where appraisal is part of a developmental structure. This emphasis is carried even further...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Figures
• 1 Appraisal and the Search for Accountability
• 2 The Appraisal of Teachers
• 3 A Planned Approach to Staff Appraisal in Schools
• 4 Practical Appraisal in Primary Schools
• 5 The Introduction of Staff Appraisal into Schools
• 6 Whole-School Evaluation and Staff Appraisal in Secondary Schools
• 7 Whole-School Staff Appraisal in the Primary School
• 8 The Introduction of Staff Appraisal to a Newly Amalgamated School
• 9 Appraisal and the Headteacher
• 10 Classroom Observation
• 11 Staff Appraisal and the Professional Development of Teachers
• Notes on Contributors
• Bibliography
• Appendices
• Index