Before I start I want to caveat what I'm about to say with a disclaimer that this is empirical evidence from a single secondary school. However, if it reflects widespread practice across the country then it's deeply worrying for the future. I know many members here hold different views to my own regarding the education system but I thought it worth sharing.
Last year when the new performance related pay scheme was introduced, the senior leadership team (SLT) made it clear that by 'performance' they wouldn't be looking purely at GCSE results. They would take into account individual pupils' progress no matter what level they finally achieved.
If you had a child who was failing going into year 11 but you helped them towards a pass (at any grade) that would be seen as a success. Helping a child achieve a D instead of an E would count and so on. It was also made clear that if you could show you had done everything in your power to help a child and for whatever reason (exam stress, external issues) they didn't show improvement in their results, it wouldn't necessarily count against you. SLT also emphasised that organising extra circular activity (trips, after school clubs) would be recognised, as would taking on other responsibilities and additional personal and professional development activity.
All of this was set out at the beginning of last year and teachers were given individual targets to meet, some based on GCSE results and some based on the other items mentioned. When the scheme was proposed, many teachers complained that there would be an additional admin workload in order to record and thus 'prove' that they had done everything in their power to meet their targets but trusted in SLT and the new system.
The belief was that in the long run not an awful lot would change because many/most teachers already did a lot of the background work to the above, helping failing students outside of school hours, organising school trips and ECA. The only real difference would be the level of recording required to 'prove it' when it came to their annual performance and salary review…
Fast forward to the beginning of the new academic year and for this particular school, the GCSE results weren't amazing. English, maths and science were hit hard by the restructuring to a single end-of-year exam. Modern foreign languages was recovering from a head of German who had taken early retirement a year earlier (before they could be sacked for incompetence) and there were similar issues across other departments.
The annual reviews took place over the last couple of weeks and it seems that the only criteria SLT have taken into account when judging performance and salary is the GCSE results. As a result, teachers who had top sets last year were awarded pay rises for achieving A* to Cs and everyone else has had their pay frozen or been given the minimum step up (recently the pay grades were reorganised so that there are twice as many, meaning each step now is a half-step a couple of years ago).
This is regardless of the amount of extra time and effort put in over the year (and the recording of such).
The upshot is that the majority of staff feel lied to, cheated and resentful of SLT and any colleague 'lucky' enough to have landed a top-set class last year or this year. School trips have already been cancelled for this year because teachers don't feel there's any point in putting in the extra effort. SLT have made it clear to teachers of middle sets that they should only focus on those 'boarder-line' students that could achieve a C if they are currently predicted a D and to basically forget about any child who is unable to do so.
How much of this is coming from government (local or central) I don't know. SLT and the governors may just be doing as their told or they're reacting to funding pressure. Either way, it just seems like a scheme to reduce pay by the back door.
I can already predict some people will say "work shy teachers always the victim, cry me a river" but I think this should be a genuine cause for concern.
Before this new system was put in place teachers did these things without considering a correlation to pay, it was extra work but it was part of the job. Now that it's been made clear that these activities aren't required and the only thing that matters is A* to C results, there's absolutely no incentive to do anything 'extra' or to help those children who aren't targeted with A* to D.
Ultimately this is going to have a detrimental effect on kid's school experience but it's also going to see the majority of those boarder-line kids left behind. Getting a child from a U to a G might not sound like much but if a teacher has spent time with that child, encouraged them and helped them to do their best it can do wonders for that child's confidence and self belief. Those little victories are going to be lost.
I was tempted to title this thread 'unexpected consequences of performance related pay' but to be honest, it's not that unexpected for many people who said PRL was a bad idea over a year ago.
If the results improve next year and the teachers get their pay rises I'm sure there will be less complaints but actually will it have resulted in a better education for the cohort as a whole? I think not.
==
TL;DR - PRP is a back-door way of suppressing teacher's pay that will have a negative impact on the education system as a whole.
Last year when the new performance related pay scheme was introduced, the senior leadership team (SLT) made it clear that by 'performance' they wouldn't be looking purely at GCSE results. They would take into account individual pupils' progress no matter what level they finally achieved.
If you had a child who was failing going into year 11 but you helped them towards a pass (at any grade) that would be seen as a success. Helping a child achieve a D instead of an E would count and so on. It was also made clear that if you could show you had done everything in your power to help a child and for whatever reason (exam stress, external issues) they didn't show improvement in their results, it wouldn't necessarily count against you. SLT also emphasised that organising extra circular activity (trips, after school clubs) would be recognised, as would taking on other responsibilities and additional personal and professional development activity.
All of this was set out at the beginning of last year and teachers were given individual targets to meet, some based on GCSE results and some based on the other items mentioned. When the scheme was proposed, many teachers complained that there would be an additional admin workload in order to record and thus 'prove' that they had done everything in their power to meet their targets but trusted in SLT and the new system.
The belief was that in the long run not an awful lot would change because many/most teachers already did a lot of the background work to the above, helping failing students outside of school hours, organising school trips and ECA. The only real difference would be the level of recording required to 'prove it' when it came to their annual performance and salary review…
Fast forward to the beginning of the new academic year and for this particular school, the GCSE results weren't amazing. English, maths and science were hit hard by the restructuring to a single end-of-year exam. Modern foreign languages was recovering from a head of German who had taken early retirement a year earlier (before they could be sacked for incompetence) and there were similar issues across other departments.
The annual reviews took place over the last couple of weeks and it seems that the only criteria SLT have taken into account when judging performance and salary is the GCSE results. As a result, teachers who had top sets last year were awarded pay rises for achieving A* to Cs and everyone else has had their pay frozen or been given the minimum step up (recently the pay grades were reorganised so that there are twice as many, meaning each step now is a half-step a couple of years ago).
This is regardless of the amount of extra time and effort put in over the year (and the recording of such).
The upshot is that the majority of staff feel lied to, cheated and resentful of SLT and any colleague 'lucky' enough to have landed a top-set class last year or this year. School trips have already been cancelled for this year because teachers don't feel there's any point in putting in the extra effort. SLT have made it clear to teachers of middle sets that they should only focus on those 'boarder-line' students that could achieve a C if they are currently predicted a D and to basically forget about any child who is unable to do so.
How much of this is coming from government (local or central) I don't know. SLT and the governors may just be doing as their told or they're reacting to funding pressure. Either way, it just seems like a scheme to reduce pay by the back door.
I can already predict some people will say "work shy teachers always the victim, cry me a river" but I think this should be a genuine cause for concern.
Before this new system was put in place teachers did these things without considering a correlation to pay, it was extra work but it was part of the job. Now that it's been made clear that these activities aren't required and the only thing that matters is A* to C results, there's absolutely no incentive to do anything 'extra' or to help those children who aren't targeted with A* to D.
Ultimately this is going to have a detrimental effect on kid's school experience but it's also going to see the majority of those boarder-line kids left behind. Getting a child from a U to a G might not sound like much but if a teacher has spent time with that child, encouraged them and helped them to do their best it can do wonders for that child's confidence and self belief. Those little victories are going to be lost.
I was tempted to title this thread 'unexpected consequences of performance related pay' but to be honest, it's not that unexpected for many people who said PRL was a bad idea over a year ago.
If the results improve next year and the teachers get their pay rises I'm sure there will be less complaints but actually will it have resulted in a better education for the cohort as a whole? I think not.
==
TL;DR - PRP is a back-door way of suppressing teacher's pay that will have a negative impact on the education system as a whole.
