School Teachers Opposed to Performance Pay

Teacher Support Network

2008-04-09T11:08:00.001-07:00

Message from the TSN:

Hello, I’m the digital media manager for Teacher Support Network. Just came across your blog. Neat stuff. You’re an active internet user and a teacher. I’m looking to develop new ways for teachers to get more involved using online community building tools. I just wanted to send you a personal invite to get involved in some of our upcoming things

Outside of our tools on our site http://teachersupport.info, We also have some entry points set up on the social network sites.

On Facebook:

Page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Teacher-Support-Network/8348473439

Group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2385602766

Would enjoy your participation and feedback. We’re also looking to get more teacher bloggers involved with TSN’s online work to create more teacher bloggers, or at least more participants talking about issues facing UK educators. We’re in the midst of creating some new online tools and would be neat to have you on board to maybe look at some of them as we’re developing them.

Anyway, any input is welcome. Thanks in advance

Andrew Lyons
Digital Media Manager
Teacher Support Network

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT – A NATIONAL ISSUE DEMANDS NATIONAL ACTION !

2007-04-05T09:27:00.000-07:00

PERFORMANCE PAY

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT – A NATIONAL ISSUE DEMANDS NATIONAL ACTION !

Martin Powell-Davies (Lewisham NUT)

T HE NEW REGULATIONS being introduced this year are not just “more of the same”. They are a serious escalation of a performance pay and monitoring regime which has already done so much harm in schools.

P

The 2007 STRB report recommended that pay progression is linked to performance management for main scale teachers too.
erformance management and the pay ‘threshold’ were always intended to be the mechanism to force performance-related pay on teachers. When they were first introduced, Socialist Party Teachers warned how they would be used to bully teachers into taking on even more work for fear of not getting a pay increase, and how bullying managers could use them to divide and demoralise staff. With others, we helped to initiate “School Teachers Opposed to Performance Pay”. While our union leaders failed to act, STOPP organised a national demo and rally in London in 2000.

Without industrial action, our campaign could not prevent performance pay being introduced. But it did help persuade New Labour to tread more carefully. To start with, nearly every teacher crossed the threshold. But, every year, the noose has been tightening. More teachers are being told their performance isn’t good enough to make the next step up the Upper Pay Scale – especially from U2 to U3.

But New Labour and their advisers think schools are still being too generous! Under their new performance management regulations, schools will be expected to set teachers more ‘challenging’ objectives and make more ‘robust’ pay decisions. OFSTED and the new School Improvement Partners will be used to make sure Heads are doing what the Government expects of them.

Line managers, rather than Heads, will be expected to do the dirty work. At the end of each performance management review meeting, they will have to say whether they think members of their team should be allowed to progress up the pay spine or not. Instead of any genuine discussion about teaching and learning, these meetings will now be dominated by pay. Teamwork and morale, so vital to a successful school, will be undermined.

It looked like these threats would only apply to Upper Pay Spine teachers at first, but the 2007 School Teachers’ Review Body report recommended that pay progression is linked to performance management for main scale teachers as well. This will apparently help “teachers to prepare for threshold assessment ” (!) and schools to “distinguish more effectively between unsatisfactory performance meriting … withholding of pay progression and serious underperformance meriting capability procedures ”.

The threat of capability procedures is not an empty one either. The RIG advice (5.38) states that “if serious weaknesses are identified … performance management should cease and the school’s capability procedure be substituted”. Heads have been specifically advised at training sessions that they should consider taking such an approach with UPS3 teachers that are no longer making the grade. This alone - along with the pressure on ‘reviewers’ to be firm with ‘reviewees’ -answers those who argue that UPS3 teachers won’t care about these changes.

There are other threats that should have been given more publicity. For example, Regulation 16 allows any reviewer with concerns to call a ‘revision meeting’ and set new targets mid-cycle. Of course, neither the law, nor the model RIG policy, set any limit on the number of targets to be set.

Even where NUT groups can secure our policy of a maximum of three objectives, the problem remains of what those objectives actually say. The NUT guidelines released last year correctly recommended that “objectives should not contain commitments to achieve certain percentages of test or examination results”. Unfortunately, the same statement appears to be missing from the latest NUT model policy for schools.

F

To show … that we are engaged in a serious fight, local approaches must be combined with national action.
ailure to show sufficient “pupil progress” is already the commonest cause of rejection of pay progression. In New Labour’s league-table dominated system of competing schools, this will be even more common in future. Unless we organise an urgent fightback, every teacher faces “payment by results”. Staff will end up opting to work where results are easier to get, adding to the growing polarisation between schools.

Performance management isn’t just about pay, it’s also about control. It is bound up with the incessant nit-picking observations that so demoralise and stress teachers. How can such observation be “supportive and developmental” when it’s linked to pay?

The latest blow is the revelation in the latest “NUT News” that any limit on ‘drop-in’ classroom observations has been dropped from the original draft RIG model policy. Teachers could apparently face a visit from a manager at any time – with the prospect of a ‘revision meeting’ being called if they are unhappy with what they see.

Of course the RIG unions will do nothing to advertise these dangers. The ATL’s advice to its school reps states that “local NUT representatives will not necessarily have the same information and understanding of the proposals that representatives of the social partnership will have.” We’d hope not! But has the NUT actually done enough to explain to teachers what is really at stake?

The Executive’s amendment (15.1) accepts the danger of performance pay applying even to main scale staff but reassures us with the thought that the Secretary of State didn’t make any formal change to their pay arrangements – for now ! For them, any consideration of national action is left for when “additional” measures are introduced. By then the new regulations will be in place.

Cambridgeshire’s amendment, reflecting the views of some in both the Socialist Teachers Alliance and the CDFU, calls for school and Division action to be supported where unacceptable policies are introduced or pay progression unacceptably denied. However, consideration of national action is postponed until “there is evidence of general support for such a strategy amongst members”.

But this is really an excuse for continued delay. PRP seeks to divide and isolate teachers. It is best fought by collective action. Of course, as on workload, we must encourage members to take local action. But, to show teachers, and the Government, that we are engaged in a serious fight, local approaches must be combined with national action.

The strategy of relying on individual school reps and Division officers to fight local battles alone will not succeed. As on TLRs, we may win some local victories, but many members lack the confidence to ‘go it alone’ in fighting battles that they rightly recognise are part of a national issue. But, if the Union led from the front and held a ballot for national action over performance pay and the workload driven by it, members would give support. That was certainly what the 96% YES vote in our indicative ballot of Lewisham NUT members demonstrated. That’s why we hope our amendment 15.3 will be reached, and passed, by Conference. No more excuses, give a lead, take action!

Socialist Party Teachers Bulletin

2007-04-05T09:25:00.000-07:00

You can read the bulletin online.

Click Here

Articles on

Slavery: the truth
Supply Teaching
Workload
Academies
Testing
Young Teachers
Performance Pay
Defending Reps
Professional Unity
SEN and Privatisation
Early Years
Building Schools for the Future
Political Fund
Classroom Observations
Pupil Behaviour
Salaries
Fringe Meeting
National Action

Read before you judge!

Young Teacher elections - Phil Clarke opposes performance pay

2007-02-17T08:40:00.000-08:00

All NUT members under the age of 35 are entitled to vote for the representatives of young teachers.

The following is Phil Clarke's statement:

I am seeking election as a recently qualified teacher who believes that the NUT has a vital role to play in defendingyoung teachers and the future of the comprehensive education system.

The main issues I want the union to campaign on for young teachers are:

* excessive workload
* the threat of performance related pay
* housing costs (especially in the South East)

The government seems determined to further divide and privatise the education system with the use of PFI schemes, trusts and academies. In contrast, we need publicly funded and accountable schools which co-operate not compete.

I am a Socialist and an active member of a hospital anti-cuts campaign group. I believe that it is only with a willingness to campaign and fight that the NUT will be able to play its vital role in securing an education system which meets the needs of all pupils.

Censorship in West Sussex

2007-02-01T13:42:00.000-08:00

West Sussex teachers have a blog on http://westsussexteachersassociation.blogspot.com and their employers have blocked them from viewing the site at school. WSTA represents about 4000 teachers in West Sussex.

This is extraordinary because the site has links to inservice training and ICT training courses teachers can take and their employers are just being heavy-handed.

If you have any thoughts on this you might like to email ictinschools@westsussex.gov.uk and give them your uncensored opinion on this!

They have also blocked
http://socialistteachers.blogspot.com
http://stopperformancepay.blogspot.com

The more protests they receive the more likely it is that they will drop this absurd policy.

Workload ballot results

2006-12-14T02:46:00.000-08:00

The positive answer to the ballot was overwhelming:

Endorsing the guidelines (Q,1) 99% Yes !!

Supporting a ballot for action if necessary (Q.2) 87% Yes

The turnout was just under 20% - not surprising given the hopeless lack of national union publicity about the ballot and the guidelines beforehand.

Some may try and use the lowish turnout to argue there's no support - but the 99% speaks for itself.

We need to "translate" the workload guidelines into clear statements - perhaps a checklist for every rep to see what could be taken forward in their school.

Call for national action

2006-10-29T02:50:00.000-08:00

TOO MANY teachers are already being ground down under the pressures of a divisive system of performance monitoring, imposed targets, league tables & inspections. It is creating a regime that bullies senior management to further bully staff and is the underlying cause of so much of our intolerable workload.
The new performance management regulations will make matters even worse. If they are introduced as planned in 2007, staffrooms will be further divided and demoralised as even more teachers are denied their pay progression. It’s time teachers stood together and called a halt!
More staff denied a pay rise
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT and the pay ‘threshold’ were always intended to be the mechanism to force performance-related pay on teachers. reject
When they were first introduced, Socialist Party Teachers warned how they would be used to bully teachers into taking on even more work for fear of not getting a pay increase. With others, we helped to initiate STOPP, “School Teachers Opposed to Performance Pay”. While our union leaders failed to act, STOPP organised a national demonstration and rally in London in 2000.
Without industrial action, our campaign could not prevent performance pay being introduced. But it did help persuade New Labour to tread more carefully. To start with, nearly every teacher crossed the threshold. But, every year, the noose has been tightening. More teachers are being told their performance isn’t good enough to make the next step up the Upper Pay Scale – especially from U2 to U3.
Figures recently given to the NUT National Executive suggest that as many as 50% of eligible staff may be failing to “cross the threshold”! In some cases, Heads are just getting harsher in their assessments. But many staff may simply not be putting themselves through the stress of having to prove their worth to school management.
Failure to show sufficient “pupil progress” is often the excuse for rejection. In other words, teachers now face a crude system of “payment by results”. But test scores depend on lots of different factors, many well out of the control of an individual teacher. Staff are being denied a pay rise despite the hours of hard work they put in.
Colleague against colleague
NEW LABOUR and their advisers think schools are still being too generous! Under their new performance management regulations, schools will be expected to set teachers more ‘challenging’ objectives and make more ‘robust’ pay decisions. OFSTED and the new School Improvement Partners will be used to make sure Heads are doing what the Government expects of them.
But, if that wasn’t enough, in most cases it won’t be the Heads making the decision. Line managers – often close colleagues – will now be expected to do the dirty work. At the end of a performance management review meeting, reviewers will have to say whether they think members of their team should be allowed to progress up the pay spine or not.
Instead of any genuine discussion about teaching and learning, these meetings will now be dominated by pay. Teamwork and morale, so vital to a successful school, will be undermined. Of course, if the Head doesn’t like a line manager’s decision, they can still overrule it and impose their view !
THE GOVERNMENT’S original aim to apply performance pay to every teacher hasn’t changed. But to try and minimise opposition, the new performance management advice stresses that pay recommendations should only apply to teachers on the Upper Pay Scale. For now, teachers below the “threshold” can still expect their annual increment. But for how long? If they succeed in getting this latest attack in place, you can be sure it won’t be long before it is extended to main scale teachers as well.
It’s hard to think of a more poisonous way of destroying teamwork. But that’s what will happen if these regulations come in. More colleagues will be denied their pay rise; more will be left demoralised; more will feel they have no option but to ‘teach to the test’; more will accept management dictates so as to keep in line for a pay rise.
Vote for action on workload
TEACHERS FACE A STARK CHOICE. Do we carry on allowing the screw to be turned tighter every year? Or do we take the threat of these new performance management regulations as the opportunity to organise united action against performance related pay?
Leaving individual teachers to pluck up the courage to appeal against unfair pay decisions is just not good enough. Most governors will stand by the school’s original rejection of pay progression.
Nor will the action proposed under the NUT’s ‘workload’ ballot be sufficient. Teachers must make the most of any action being offered to limit workload and get the vote out in the NUT’s national ballot starting on November 20th. But there should have been much more prior consultation with members about what will actually go into the new action guidelines. They may still not go far enough.
Previous NUT ‘beating back bureaucracy’ action allowed members to apply workload sanctions in every school. Now the Union is advising that local ballots for school-by-school strike action will be held instead.
As with TLRs, this approach can win important victories in well-organised schools. It may help to bring the number of classroom observations and objectives in line with NUT policy. But members would feel more confident if workload action was being taken across all schools.
But national action needed
WE NEED NATIONAL ACTION both on workload and to go further and build a campaign to defeat performance related pay itself. A divisive system, designed to isolate colleagues, should be fought by uniting teachers in national strike action.
If the NUT leadership put out a call for a national strike against performance pay, and the workload and bullying that come with it, teachers would respond positively.
The new regulations aren’t due to start until autumn 2007. That gives us time to organise a fightback. We should not only demand their withdrawal, but also the granting of the Union’s salary claim so that every teacher can win a significant pay rise, without it being tied to performance.
Teachers can’t afford to hold back and let the Government pile more pressure on us. But our union leaders will only organise action if we put them under pressure too! That’s why NUT school groups need to:
* Send in letters and petitions to Steve Sinnott and the NUT National Executive calling for a national strike ballot
* Organise an indicative ballot in your school or NUT Association to show the strength of support for national action

Draft petition to download see below.

Action on Performance Management

2006-10-27T16:04:00.000-07:00

A leaflet on Performance management is available here

A ballot form for strike action is available to download here

A petition for action is available here

Postponed for a year – a year to build a campaign to defeat these regulations!

2006-10-11T03:38:00.000-07:00

Comments on the new regs for Performance Management

For further information, contact Martin Powell-Davies, Chair, STOPP
martinpd_uk@yahoo.co.uk 07946 445488

Commentary on the Rewards and Incentives Group’s:
Guidance on Teachers’ and Head teachers’ Performance Management (released October 10th2006)

Making us jump through more hoops is apparently to help reduce workload !
1.7 RIG has sought to develop non-bureaucratic, streamlined and multi-purpose arrangements for teachers’ performance management which build on the existing system and reflect partners’ overarching commitment to raising standards and tackling workload.

Yes, line managers will have to do the dirty work for Heads.
4.11 RIG believes that wherever possible the role of reviewer should be delegated to the teacher’s line manager, i.e. the person who directs, manages and has a post of responsibility for the area in which the reviewee mainly works.

Come prepared, after all there’ll be no union rep at a meeting to set targets & pay.

5.4 The planning and review meeting should be a professional dialogue between the reviewer and the reviewee. Reviewees should play an active part in the meeting making sure they put forward their views about their performance and future development. They may find it helpful to … ensure they have copies of any relevant documentation and evidence, and written feedback on classroom observations. In preparing for the next cycle … consider, as a backdrop to the discussions, the standards which apply to their current career stage and those to which they might progress, and, where the reviewee is eligible for pay progression, the relevant criteria for pay progression set out in the STPCD.
Reviewers need to be ready too – forget teamwork, make it rigorous !
5.5 Reviewers will want to be well prepared for the planning and review meeting, and may find it helpful to … check that all documents to which they will refer at the meeting have been shared with the reviewee, to assist their preparation for it. In preparing for the next cycle … ensure they have consulted with relevant third parties with direct professional knowledge of the reviewee, about possible objectives for the next review cycle, performance criteria, evidence, arrangements for collecting it and support to be provided to the teacher.

There is no limit to the number of “challenging” objectives you could be set.

5.8 Reviewers are responsible for ensuring rigour when objectives are set. Objectives should focus on priorities. They should be time bound, challenging but achievable, and reflect the need for a satisfactory work/life balance. A reviewee’s objectives should reflect any relevant team, year or whole school objectives.

There will be three hours of classroom observation for performance management.

5.10 All classroom observation should be undertaken in accordance with the regulations and the school’s protocol for the conduct of classroom observation and the school’s performance management policy ... There should always be a clear rationale and focus for any classroom observation. There should be no observations in addition to those agreed in the planning and review statement except for those described in paragraphs 5.17 and 5.18 below.
5.11 The regulations specify a limit of three hours in any review cycle for classroom observation, but there is no requirement for the whole three hours to be used.
How can observation be “supportive and developmental” when it is linked to pay?
5.14 Classroom observation should be supportive and developmental … The observation record should be sufficient to meet the needs of individuals and the school (i.e. summarising the focus, what was learnt from the observation, the feedback given and any subsequent … follow-up)

It might be more than 3 hours – Heads and Senior Managers can still “drop-in”!

5.16 - 5.18 If concerns arise during the review cycle or the reviewee’s circumstances change … additional classroom observation, where necessary including observation that exceeds three hours within the review cycle, may be agreed ... Classroom observations by Ofsted or by a local authority using its statutory powers of intervention are also not part of performance management ... Heads have a right to drop in to inform their monitoring of the quality of learning. In large schools they may delegate drop in to appropriate members of the leadership group.

Targets and performance will be judged on data. This is “payment-by-results”.

5.19 The other evidence which will be taken into account will normally be in the form of data or written feedback from specific individuals.

The Headteacher can still step in to overrule line managers’ decisions.

5.27 It is anticipated that head teachers will set up procedures for monitoring and moderating the plans for the forthcoming cycle agreed in planning and review statements. As part of this the head teacher may review planning and review statements …and where necessary instruct the reviewer to prepare a new statement prior to it being finalised and retained.

If you don’t agree with your reviewers’ recommendation, tough!
5.41 The reviewer and reviewee should seek to agree an assessment of the overall performance of the reviewee against the performance criteria agreed at the beginning of the cycle. This should include, where the reviewee is eligible, making a recommendation on pay progression, taking into account the pay progression criteria. If the reviewer and reviewee cannot agree, the reviewer’s view will be recorded.

Holding off on the main scale for now but rationing upper pay scale progression?

5.42 There is no change to the arrangements for pay progression. Annual increments continue to apply as set out in the STPCD for classroom teachers on the main scale. Therefore reviewers do not need to make a recommendation in support of an annual increment. The only exception to this is where the reviewer, in accordance with the school’s pay policy, is considering a discretionary additional point (double jumping) where provided for in the STPCD.
5.43 Reviewers will need to make a recommendation where the reviewee is on the pay scale for post threshold teachers, the pay spine for members of the Leadership Group [or that for ASTs].

Postponed for a year – a year to build a campaign to defeat these regulations!
7.1 The revised regulations will come into force on 1 September 2007. Local authorities, governing bodies and head teachers have until autumn 2007 to put arrangements in place for performance management that reflect the requirements of the revised regulations.
7.2 The first plans made under the revised regulations should be agreed by 31 October 2007 for teachers and by 31 December 2007 for head teachers. 7.3 The first full planning and review statements which record the outcomes of an assessment of performance and, where a teacher is eligible, include a pay recommendation, must be completed by 31 October 2008 for teachers.