Showing posts with label Self-Appraisal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Self-Appraisal. Show all posts

Monday, 15 January 2018

The Journey to Review365

Appraising Ben. 

Every school has a Ben. Ben doesn’t prepare lessons or mark pupils’ work on time; Ben has poor classroom control; Ben uses outdated pedagogy and Ben is uninspiring; BUT each year Ben’s classes get grades comparable to those of other colleagues in the department. In time I discovered that the reason for this was that, as soon as parents found out that their child was in Ben’s class, they enlisted the services of a private tutor. 
As I sat across the table from Ben and his union representative, I realised that I needed an appraisal system that was capable both of addressing under-performance and of recognising those many teachers who go the extra mile. 

Learning from the Best. 
The starting point of the journey to Review365 was in November 2010 when I had the opportunity to visit the Human Resources team at the Basel headquarters of Novartis, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. It has the value and turn-over the size of a small country and its continued profitability depends on developing new drugs and medicines each year to replace those that are going out of patent. Novartis' success relies on attracting and developing the best talent in the world. There, the rewards for high performance and the cost of poor performance are literally measured in hundreds of millions (£s). 

The success of Novartis is founded on teams working collaboratively to develop drugs which go to market in a timely fashion. They use a 3 x 3 grid developed by The Harvard Business School to evaluate performance. 

This performance management tool combines two aspects: 'performance outcomes or results' on the y axis; and 'attitudes and behaviours' on the x axis. In the pharmaceutical industry, the loss to rival companies of experience and insight to rivals usually results in a delay in a patented drug getting to market that can reduce the profit margin on a drug by tens of millions of dollars. Thus, Novartis’ appraisal structure recognises that there is little point in rewarding a manager who get greats results and exceeds his personal objectives, if, in so doing, he causes a number of his work colleagues or subordinates to leave the company because of his poor attitudes and behaviours. During my days with Novartis, I realised that ‘attitudes and behaviours’ were the key to a successful school appraisal structure. 

‘Results’ v ‘Attitudes and Behaviours’ in Schools: 

The case of Ben illustrates that it is important that school appraisal structures take into consideration the 'attitudes and behaviours' of teachers. The attractive aspect of the Novartis approach to appraisal is that it doesn’t just look at outcomes or, in school terms, academic results. Rather it gives scope to evaluate how teachers do their job, distinguishing between colleagues who conduct themselves in a professional way on a daily basis and teachers like Ben.
An appraisal structure that looks at the key teaching competences allows appraisal to focus on teacher improvement and development and not just on results. 
Such a structure also provides scope to recognise those who are team-players, those who are excellent practitioners and those who go the extra mile for their pupils. It also provides a mechanism to highlight areas of relative strength, which might be harnessed by the school in spreading 'best-practice'; or of relative weakness, which then become areas to focus on in the following year. 

The Appraisal Grids: 

Over the past seven years, it has been my privilege to work with two exceptional senior management teams at Berkhamsted School, UK, and JESS, Dubai to develop a series of competency grids which effectively define those who are 'Requiring Improvement', those who are meeting the standard and are defined as ‘School Practitioners' and those who go well beyond what is required and called 'Lead Practitioners'. Different grids were created in MS Excel for School Administrators Teaching Assistants, Teachers, Middle Leaders, and Senior Leaders – each reflecting the important key competencies required for these roles. The grids have evolved and been refined over the past years – a process that will inevitably continue as priorities within the school and education change.

The Appraisal Process: 

The process starts with the appraisee completing a self-appraisal by selecting either ‘Requiring Improvement’, ‘School Practitioner’ or ‘Lead Practitioner’ for each of the key competencies. Their line-manager or appraiser then repeats the judgements for each competence from his/her perspective. They then have an appraisal meeting at which the appraisee and the line-manager discuss areas where they have made differing judgements and make agreed moderated judgments. At this meeting they also agree three key competency targets and one IT target on which the appraisee is going to focus during the coming year. 

Collecting Appraisal Data. 

The first versions of the appraisal process were completed on paper with the appraisee and appraiser highlighting the grids in different colours. In time this evolved into a process highlighting cells within Excel. This system has proved to be very effective at identifying personal strengths and weaknesses as well as areas to prioritise for INSET. However, like all previous methods, it fell short of expectations as it couldn’t help measure the scale of the training needs either for a particular department or for the school as a whole. This information is at the heart of school improvement. For example, we might discover that a large number of teachers across the school were not using ‘data to inform planning and evaluate the needs of students’, this then is not an issue for each individual teacher, rather, it is a School Training Issue

Hable and Review365. 

In March 2016 we at JESS, Dubai approached Hable, who had facilitated our move to Office365, to build an appraisal tool within SharePoint. However, after much trial and error, it became apparent that SharePoint was not sufficiently flexible to be provide the functionality which we need. Thus, in September 2017 Mark Reynolds, the founder of Hable, took the decision to invest in developing the web-based SharePoint App that is Review365, which launches at BETT this month. 
Review365 is a fast, efficient and flexible appraisal tool, which allows schools to take a more strategic approach to performance management and the identification of training needs.

This blog was written for the Hable Blog.

Monday, 30 May 2016

Using Appraisal to Drive School Performance - Presentation

A presentation given to the Education Experts Conference in Dubai on Monday 30th May, 2016.

Friday, 13 February 2015

How to Conduct a Teacher Appraisal

An INSET given to Heads of Department on how to conduct a teacher appraisal

 

Sunday, 23 February 2014

Teacher Appraisal and PRP - Part Six: PRP for HoDs and Teachers

The majority of the posts in this series have focused on appraisal and on improving performance - I make no apology for that, for any organisation that seeks to introduce a form of Performance-Related Pay needs first to have robust appraisal structures in place.  As I argued in the first of these posts (see Part One), there are a number of issues when it comes to measuring teacher performance solely on the basis of pupils' results. The Novartis 3 x 3 grid which looks at both 'outcomes' and at 'attitudes and behaviours' provides an appraisal structure that looks beyond simple outcomes.

PRP and Heads of Department.
Recently I attended a Westminster Forum on the Introduction to Performance-Related Pay to the Maintained Sector. The well-rehearsed arguments for and against were played out, but no one mentioned that Heads of Department have a key role to play. My experience working in some of the top independent schools in the country is that a school's academic performance stands or falls by the quality of its Heads of Department because, unlike senior leaders, they are the close enough to the action to have a significant influence. It is they who are in a position to establish high standards and to hold teachers to account when they fall short; and it is they who can turn a blind eye and let poor performance drift. It was for this reason that we both decided first to introduce the new appraisal structure at HoD level, and, alongside that, to introduce an element of PRP for HoDs.
'Too soon to measure'
One of the issues that we have had to address is the situation where a HoDs appraisal falls 6 months after taking office. Clearly the HoD cannot be held responsible for the historic departmental results. However, we took the view that there was nothing to be lost by using the 'Attitudes and Behaviours' data to evaluate the HoD's performance, albeit over a relatively short period of time.
PRP and Teachers
At present we have no plans to roll out PRP to teachers because we are not confident that we have the granularity of data on teacher outcomes that would make it a meaningful exercise. Our priority is getting the new appraisal structure to bed down and to evaluate what impact it has in terms of teacher and whole-school improvement.
Roll-out Timeline
  • 2011-12: Senior Leadership Team and Governors formulate new appraisal structure
  • 2012-13: Consultation with HoDs on new pay scales and a group of HoDs drew up the HoDs appraisal grids
  • Michaelmas 2013: Working parties develop the Teacher, SLT and EY appraisal grids
  • Jan/Feb 2013: HoDs appraisals.  Outcomes judged on three-year rolling average; Self-appraisal forms comepleted, 360° Feedback, Moderation Meeting and Feedback Meeting
  • Jan/Feb 2013:  Trial Appraisals of the Teacher and SLT Grids
  • March 2013:  Publication of Teacher and SLT Grids (to Prep and Senior school staff)
  • April to June 2013:  Teacher Appraisals;  SLT Appraisals
  • Jan/Feb 2014:  HoDs appraisals - these will be the first PRP appraisals
The principal advantage of rolling out the new structure to the HoDs is that they already have an understanding of the process by virtue of having been through the appraisal process themselves.They have in effect already had some informal training in advance of the formal meetings and hopefully will be well prepared when they come to conduct teacher appraisals for members of their department later this academic year.
Caveat
This project is in its infancy and we are very conscious that what we are doing at the moment is not the finished article - it is very much work-in-progress. There will be lessons learned as we go through the progress and I suspect that the Appraisal Grids will go through many more versions over the next few years. I will write again in due course with updates on our progress.

Acknowledgements:
It is only fitting that I close by paying tribute to the many members of the Berkhamsted School team who have put hours of work and brain-power into this project; particular thanks must go to Deputy Heads who have worked hard to create a system that works and to the HoDs and teachers who have been the first guinea pigs going through the system. Thanks to you all.

Links to related posts on Teacher Appraisal and PRP:

Teacher Appraisal and PRP - Part Five: The Feedback Meeting, Target-Setting and CPD

The Feedback Meeting with the appraisee should take place as soon as possible after the line-managers have agreed a moderated and standardised version of the Appraisal Grid:
The Feedback Meeting fundamentally is a dialogue about teacher improvement.
The aim of the meeting is not to agree a final version of the appraisal grid - it is to have a constructive, informed conversation about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the appraisee and, above all, to set personal professional development targets for the following year.
Discussion of those areas where there is a difference of judgement:
There is clearly scope for a discussion where there is a difference of opinion between the self-assessment of the appraisee and that of the line-manager. Here the question of evidence will need to be discussed and the reasons for the different judgement explored.
  1. The appraisee may over-estimate his or her performance.  In these instances it is incumbent on the line-manager to explain what the appraisee needs to do in order to meet the next level. This is a very important aspect for the credibility of the process:  the line-manger needs to have a good understanding of what it takes to be considered 'outstanding'. At the end of the day, there is nothing lost by the line-manager and appraisee agreeing to differ, so long as there are clear professional development outcomes.
  2. The appraisee may under-estimate his or her performance.  These instances are an opportunity for line-managers to build up, praise their team-member and build up his/her confidence.
Target-setting
The whole appraisal structure is focused on Teacher/HoD/SLT improvement. 
The Appraisal Grids themselves point the way to target-setting. If, as a HoD, I put myself in column 2, assessing myself as 'meeting expectations/good', I have automatically set myself the target of being outstanding - the description for which is already in front of me.
The purpose of the Feedback Meeting is to select which 2-4 areas are going to be the priority for the next academic year. The role of the Line-manager is to set intermediate targets for the appraisee so that s/he can make that progress over the coming year. 
CPD
At Berkhamsted, alongside these developments in our Appraisal system, we have put in place a twilight programme of INSET with eight major stands:
  1. GTP
  2. NQT
  3. General Teacher
  4. Head of Department  (Academic Middle Management)
  5. Assistant Head of Department
  6. Head of House  (Pastoral Middle Management)
  7. Assistant Head of House
  8. Senior Leadership Team (including a Senior Leadership Reading Group)
All staff are required to attend at least four of the eight twilight INSET sessions during the year.  Each of the strands of next year's CPD programme will be devised in light of the training needs that come out of this year's appraisal rounds.  

Teacher Appraisal and PRP - Part Four: The Review and Moderation Stage

Step Two:  The Review and Moderation Stage
The Review and Moderation Stage of the Appraisal Process is conducted by the line-manager:
  • In the case of a teacher, this is the Head of Department in the senior schools; or the Head of Year in the prep schools.
  • In the case of the HoD, this is the Deputy Head who line-manages that cluster group (Departments are allocated to one of four clusters: 'English and Languages', 'Humanities', 'Maths and Science' and 'Creative and Practical'
  • In the case of a Year Head in the Prep Schools it is the Headteacher.
  • In the case of SLT, it is the Principal.
This structure both empowers middle managers and spreads the load from the SLT.
360° Feedback
The Line-manager collates evidence.  Let me take the example of the appraisal of a HoD by a Deputy Head:
  • Evidence from Below:  the Deputy Head will send a simple confidential questionnaire to members of the department about the performance of the HoD.  These will include comments on a range of issues including how department meetings are run, the extent to which the HoD provides clear leadership of the department, the way in which tasks are shared out within the department and so on.
  • Peer to Peer:  the Examination Officer will provide feedback on the HoD's administrative efficiency in relation to both internal and external examinations.
  • Evidence from Above: the Vice-Principal Education and the Director of Studies will provide feedback on the Departmental academic performance in relation to MidYIS and ALIS data, on how the HoD uses budgets and on their administrative Efficiency in terms of meeting deadlines etc.
Lesson and Meeting Observation
HoDs will collate information on the basis of formal and informal Lesson Observations. Likewise, Deputy Heads will evaluate the HoDs performance at cluster group meetings and by attending HoDs meetings from time to time.

Step Three:  The Line-Manager Review
Once the line manager has received all the highlighted (Self)Appraisal Grids from their department or cluster, s/he reviews the appraisee's self-assessment in each category against the 360° and observation data that they have collated. The line-manager then make his/her own judgement of the teacher/HoD's performance by noting that they agree the self evaluation or by highlighting the grid in a different colour:
HoD Reviews the Teacher's Self-appraisal
There is clearly scope for a discussion where there is a difference of opinion between the self-assessment of the appraisee and the line-manager. Here the question of evidence will need to be discussed and the reasons for the different judgement explored.  (How this is done will be tackled in the next blogpost.)

Step Four:  The Moderation and Standardisation Meeting
As teachers we are all familiar with 'Moderation' and 'Standardisation' meetings for pupils' work - indeed schools have exceptional expertise in this area in comparison to many other sectors. The purpose of the meeting is to ensure that there is a fairness in the system across the school - between clusters and between departments. It is also a vital step in ensuring that 'outstanding' remains truly outstanding and that there isn't grade inflation.  Yes, we all hope that next year that more people will be deemed 'outstanding' than last year, but we want that to be because of genuine improvement rather than because of a lack of rigour in the appraisal system.
So earlier this term here at Berkhamsted, the Deputy Heads met with the Principal and the Director of Studies and we looked at the reviewed Appraisal Grids (highlighted in both colours as above), evaluated the evidence and came up with a final judgement for the overall score for each of the HoD.

The Moderation and Standardisation Meeting was a very important meeting and, as a Principal, was a great opportunity for me 'to take the collective pulse' of the School's middle management.  It was also a great opportunity to witness the professionalism and passion of the team of Deputy Heads who are rising to the challenge of driving up standards of teaching and learning in the school.

Next Post in Series

Teacher Appraisal and PRP - Part Three: The Self Appraisal Stage

The Appraisal Grids:
So far we have developed five versions of the Berkhamsted Appraisal Grids (although they are a different stages of maturity):
  1. Teacher (for KS1 to KS5)
  2. Head of Department
  3. Senior Leadership Team
  4. Early Years
  5. Support Staff
The Appraisal Grids focus on 'Atttitudes and Behaviours' rather than on outcomes and all follow the same fundamental structure. Key competences or responsibilities relating to the role are identified.

There are descriptors of three levels of teacher 'attitudes and behaviours':
  1. Falling Short of Expectations
  2. Meets Expectations / Good
  3. Outstanding
Step One - Self Appraisal
The appraisal process starts with self appraisal. Teachers simply work their way through the appraisal grids highlighting the description that summarises their performance best. They need to be prepared to present evidence in support of their judgement. This might take the form of lesson planners, photographs of classroom displays etc.
There are four advantages of this system of self-appraisal:
  1. The grids force teachers to focus on how they are performing in relation to key teaching competences (or 'responsibilities' in the case of middle and senior managers.
  2. It is very quick and easy to complete the appraisal grid self-appraisal. It takes the appraisee about 30 minutes to highlight the grid.
  3. It is a standardised system across departments and key stages
  4. The process automatically sets targets for teacher improvement and describes what that improvement might look like:
Improving the Pace of Lessons is clearly a priority in this instance.
Next Post in Series