Staff appraisal: How do we balance accountability with growth?
An Assistant Headteacher, I spent a number of years trying to develop an appraisal programme that fitted with the ethos and culture of that school’s setting; that was thorough, fair but robust. And it had to be one that staff actually engaged with rather than viewing it as something punitive and threatening or a tedious tick-box exercise.
As I researched staff appraisal, I found this publication very helpful: Could Do Better? Assessing what works in performance management by the CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development) . It’s from 2016 but is enduringly relevant and useful in helping remove the complexity of school environments from process of appraisal; making it more objective. The report itself is a good read, and I do recommend it. After picking out the main findings from the research it is based on, I was able to then apply the framework to the evaluation of teacher performance and, importantly, teacher development.
The takeaways from the report are as follows:
A general definition of appraisal is –
To establish objectives through which individuals and teams can see their part in the organisation’s mission and strategy
To improve performance among employees, teams and ultimately organisations
To hold people to account for their performance
(Hutchinson 2013, Armstrong and Baron 2005).
And it then goes on to define its purpose as –
Administrative
Accountability; a basis for decisions on reward, promotion, progression, capability; the meeting of standards (in schools this would be Teacher Standards & statutory safeguarding).
Developmental
Helping to develop performance through greater focus, motivation and effort; informing learning and developmental activities.
This was the area I was equally interested in. A few years ago, I added a section to the appraisal programme that we called Growing Our Own (or GOO). In addition to our appraisal targets, I wanted staff to be able to express what their GOO Goal was for the year, so that SLT and school leaders could be aware and support staff in this. More about this later.
The CIPD clearly recognises the dangers of performance management went it is not carefully implemented. Its findings here do ring some alarm bells in considering why appraisal may not be successful. As the CIPD states summarises: “Criticisms of performance reviews are typically made on several grounds. They are seen to be: overly time consuming and energy sapping; disappointing and ultimately demotivating for individual employees; divisive and not conducive to co-operation and effective teamworking; and most damningly, not effective drivers of performance.”
How can appraisal in schools serve to motivate? The report looks at the setting of targets and goals, and the feedback that can determine its effectiveness.
In this post I will look at target-setting, and then follow up with feedback and then the GOO process and what it might look like in your own settings.
Part 1: Target-setting
Regardless of whether targets are shared across school, are quantifiable, or driven by the SDP (School Development Plan), the CIPD’s report states that: “For relatively straightforward tasks, set goals that are clear and specific, and challenging yet achievable.” One thing we all know though, is that targets related to teaching practice, pedagogy and outcomes in schools are far from straightforward. This would therefore be a mistake to simplify targets for the sake of ease.
So we need to look further into the report for advice on the complexities of teaching. It advises: “When faced with complex tasks, set ‘do-your-best’ expectations or goals focused on learning and behaviour. Because a high level of focus is needed to navigate tasks and act in an appropriate manner, specific and challenging goals can detract from the immediate things we need to focus on to perform.”
That’s more like it. We know how complex the process of teaching is , but looking at the new ITTECT framework, which also mirrors the NPQ framework for leadership, we can see practice separated into deliberate areas. Trainees and ECTs would agree that the targets they are set from the framework focus on short-term goals. Does this mean that targets for more experienced teachers shouldn’t be for the whole year ahead as they could be too generic and ‘woolly’? Could it be that ‘mini-targets’ could help achieve the larger goal? That’s what we would also do for the students we teach: achieve larger outcomes through smaller steps. Andragogy (adult learning) has distinct differences to pedagogy of course, but certain areas overlap, particularly when we think about motivated, engagement and the need to feel valued.
In many school settings there are two points in the year before the final appraisal review where targets are assessed for progress. Would this process be aided by setting these ‘mini-targets’ at the beginning of the year, where we state what should be achieved by a certain time check, and the next mini-target be set at this first check-in point, and so on?
I think this is an important and also achievable ‘tweak’. It acknowledges the many layers and strands to the teaching smorgasbord and would also lend flexibility over the year that allow for unexpected changes (illness, changes to staffing, worldwide pandemic, etc.) It also seems a much more human way to proceed.
Next time: Feedback, praise, ratings and difficult conversations.
