Chapter Six
6.8 Recommendations
There are a number of recommendations that can be made that impact at both school and at Ministerial level. Some of the recommendations cannot be acted upon effectively within schools without the Ministerial support. There are five main recommendations.
6.8.1 Funding
This is a key issue as many of the following recommendations require additional or targeted funding to ensure they are feasible. This funding cannot be re‐allocated from most schools’ budgets given that schools rarely have sufficient funding to cover all costs at present. The MOE needs to ensure there is sufficient funding for:
Appropriate professional development for teachers – not just the initial course or professional learning opportunity but also the necessary follow‐ up further down the track as identified in group discussion sessions; Training for senior/middle managers in the appraisal process; Awarding teachers for excellence performance, perhaps in the allocation of time and/or income so that they can continue teaching at this high level and maintain their passion and enthusiasm for the role.
Funding for schools is currently based on the decile weighting of the school and the number of students on the roll (interview with school Finance Officer (FO), 2011). This money comes directly from the MOE. There are other sources of funding such as STAR funding and income for Job Track and Gateway programmes, but these funds are specifically allocated for these programmes and cannot be used for other purposes. The only other sources of income come via school donations from families attending the school and investment interest when available. While these sources of income meet operational requirements, it is always a juggle to ensure each aspect of the school’s operation is met. The FO also stated that “you cut your cloth to fit the garment” indicating that the school must make do with what money they get and try not to overspend. She added that it would be great to have more funding as this would increase the opportunities available for staff and students.
At the school where this research was undertaken the budget allocation for professional development is 0.2% of the total operations grant. This met the needs of the school prior to the changes made to the appraisal system. As the staff grew over the past several years, so too did the money available, but not the overall percentage. With the increased focus now on professional and life‐long learning, this budget will potentially fall short of the needs of staff for external professional development opportunities. The financial officer of the school stated that the current budget allowed for most departments to send a representative to subject conferences and for several on‐off sessions per department. She agreed that follow‐up of these courses would be the ideal, but that currently there is little opportunity for this as few courses provide this option, and funding is ‘tight’ and must be shared fairly among staff. It is my recommendation that the budget for professional development and the appraisal process should be increased to a minimum one per cent of schools’ budgets. This figure is supported by Beall’s (1999) research where he suggests one per cent of funding from the operations grant would be beneficial for professional development. For this to happen across all schools, the MOE would need to increase funding provided to schools, targeting a portion of that allocation for professional learning. They also should also ensure when contracting out professional development to outside organisations that a follow‐up programme for the course is provided for participants as well.
6.8.2 Training
Senior and middle managers responsible for teacher appraisal and performance management should be trained for this role. When a teacher is promoted to the position of middle or senior management, it is automatically assumed that they then know how to appraise other teachers appropriately. This is not always the case as seen in survey one data. There is a huge variety of skills necessary for the effective management of staff and these are not always ‘picked up’ during a teacher’s career unless that teacher specifically targets these skills.
Primarily, an appraiser needs to understand the system to be utilised for performance management and the different meanings that could be interpreted from the assessment criteria used. This understanding alone, however, is not
sufficient. Appraisers also need to have highly developed interpersonal skills. They are essentially evaluating another person. Much of the individual teacher comes through in their teaching practice so to evaluate their practice is akin to evaluating the person. This is a potential minefield. Both the teacher and the appraiser must have a shared understanding of “what makes a good teacher” (O'Neill, 1997, p. 119). This is a difficult requirement in itself given there is no set definition of a good teacher (McKenzie, 2005).
Interpersonal skills are easy to manage when the appraisal process is going well. However, when there are issues of poor performance or worse, of incompetency, then the appraiser‐appraisee relationship becomes strained. Principals, as they have the ultimate responsibility for appraisal, find this situation difficult to manage due to a lack of formal training (McKenzie, 2005). If the appraiser does not or cannot deliver the message of poor performance then the teacher will continue as though nothing is ‘wrong’ (Yariv, 2009). It is for this reason in particular that training should be provided for teachers responsible for appraisal.
A further and related aspect of training needs to cover the documentation process and data collection, particularly in the cases of poor performance and incompetency. Appraisers should know what is required and how to structure the content of documents. In competency procedures, the documentation is long and onerous and if not done well, the teacher in question can remain at the ‘chalk face’ having a less than desirable impact on students for longer than necessary. Training, therefore, is a key aspect in successful staff management.
A final aspect of training is the need for consistency, both within a school and across schools. Training in the how’s and why’s of appraisal would help to ensure that this is the case. Any training will require an associated increase in funding
6.8.3 Time
The issue of time came up consistently throughout this research. Too often changes are implemented within the education system and teachers are expected to manage the change without the commensurate time being allocated. With
changes to the appraisal process time is needed for a variety of purposes within the new system. While this need has always been present, changes have made its need more pressing.
Time should to be built into the structure of the school year to accommodate reflection, discussions, observations and interviews. The first major time requirement is for the development of shared understanding about what a quality teacher is and how one can be assessed. In this research that understanding also involved consensus on what the RTC meant and how they could be evidenced as was achieved by the development of a shared RTC evidence source for the portfolios. While this has begun within this school, it is an on‐going process that will require later whole staff PD sessions and discussions, both for the review of initial ideas and the development of new ideas.
Teachers responsible for appraisal also need a time allocation for this process. It is often too difficult to manage their own practice and evaluate other teachers
effectively if they do not have the time to do so. Many teachers with appraisal
responsibility in my school have three or four teachers under their charge. Managing the appraisal for this number of teachers and making the process meaningful takes time – time they do not always have.
Teachers also felt they have insufficient time to meet the requirements of the appraisal process identified in survey one. They need time to observe other teachers, to reflect on their practice and to engage in professional dialogues. This needs to happen without impacting on their own classroom practice through missing time with their classes.
The final time issue is the need for discussions that allow for professional development, learning and reflection. These could be built into whole school PD sessions, department meetings and into the school day. However, the time is not always available for this to happen. Providing funding to make time available would help alleviate this situation so that an hour (or more) every fortnight or month could be allocated to this purpose. Providing for this aspect of the appraisal
process could lead to improvement of both teaching and teachers through the sharing of ideas and best practice, and from the reflection a teacher undertakes on their practice. When this process is completed in collaboration with others the benefits are immense. This was certainly the case in this research. The more discussions the research group had, the better they felt about their own practice and the changes and processes they were undertaking.
6.8.4 Portfolios
Schools might be advised to consider that each teacher develop a portfolio. However, to insist this occurs as a prerequisite for the appraisal process will not work. The portfolio needs to be developed to ‘fit’ the school culture and the specific requirements it may have that are additional to the ‘standard’ appraisal process. This could mean that each school develops their portfolio that is first, specific to the school, and second, personalised by the teacher.
The portfolio structure developed during this study works very well for this school. It may work equally well for other schools. A modified version of it is in use at a local ECE centre. However, the key point here is that a skeleton portfolio should form the basis of the appraisal process. This skeleton contains the necessary documents required to show a teacher meets the attestation and registration requirements, but goes a step further. It includes documents that help teachers develop their individualised professional development plan and aids to the reflective process.
Once this skeleton document is in place, teachers can then individualise portfolios to showcase their practice. This process is managed through the teacher selecting relevant sources of evidence to support the RTC, displaying these artefacts in a manner he or she sees as appropriate to their personality and preferences, and documenting the reflective processes undertaken. This variety of content quickly became apparent during this research. Teachers chose different means of demonstrating their practice from having two portfolios, one with evidence only and the other with the skeleton documents, to annotating their evidence sources and storing these in filing cabinets or folders. One teacher was developing his
portfolio electronically. Irrespective of how teachers develop their portfolios, the basic structure should provide the guidance and support necessary to ensure this process is ‘done and done well’.
6.8.5 Teacher in Charge
This is an important recommendation from this research. Establishing this role requires the allocation of both time and funding. This position could involve direct oversight by a member of senior management in larger schools, or be a member of management in smaller schools. The position requires sufficient ‘power’ to make things happen and ensure processes are followed. However, it is also important that this person is seen to be approachable and have a detailed understanding of the expectations of a teacher.
This position could involve a variety of roles attached to it including the all‐ important training of appraisal supervisors. If this person could not do this himself/herself then they could be responsible for finding opportunities that would meet the need. Another aspect of this role is to ensure portfolio documents are up to date and that modifications to these are done in consultation with staff. This is important as it maintains ownership of the process for teachers. A further aspect is the reminders of steps in the process as they are due for completion within the skeleton structure, and the publicising of PD opportunities as they are advertised by providers.
The support and guidance of teachers as they go through the appraisal process could be another key role for this person. Teachers often need reassurance as they go through the steps of appraisal over the course of the year. Participant C was a good example of this. Questions such ‘what do I do for this?’ and ‘Is this what I need for this part of the cycle?’ were commonly asked of me as I undertook this research. Advice on where to find PD, how to develop a PD plan, what reflection involved and how to source evidence were also aspects upon which I was consulted. My role at the school did not officially involve these aspects, but as I was most up‐to‐date with the process and had helped to develop the new appraisal portfolios I was the obvious choice for advice. During 2011 I was in the fortunate
position of having a MOE study grant and thus arranged my time to meet these needs while still gathering data. However, as of 2012, my time is less freely available, but the need for the support and advice I have been giving will not diminish.
SCT could fulfil this role, however, their focus is not specifically in this area of appraisal, and it would require more time than they have allocated. As a consequence, the MOE needs to consider this as a specialist role also and thus fund it appropriately. Having such a position within schools will again help with the consistency of approach and focus, and ultimately, the improvement of teacher quality across sectors.