-1.png)
In the 2024 iteration of the School Teachers Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD), the statutory requirement for performance related pay has been removed. With this in mind, Schools and Academies may need to rethink how they manage teacher appraisals and performance. This shift presents both challenges and opportunities to create more effective and supportive appraisal practices.
Performance-related pay (PRP)
PRP has faced criticism for being ineffective and placing undue stress and pressure on teachers. Its removal from the STPCD as a mandatory requirement aims to ease the administrative burden and shift the focus from pay-linked performance to other performance management methods.
Even if your school decides they no longer wish to use performance related pay, the alternative is not as simple as allowing automatic progression.
Advice within the new STPCD itself details that performance should still be considered when determining pay progression for teachers.
So how can Schools and Trusts wishing to remove performance related pay marry these two conflicting requirements?
Reviewing your systems
Whilst some interpret the removal of the statutory requirement for PRP as the total abolition of the appraisal process, this is not the intended outcome.
Refining and adapting your appraisal process to focus on support and development is more practical, offering a far more collaborative and transparent approach. Where a decision has been taken to remove PRP, schools should consider reviewing current arrangements for appraisals, ensuring that the system in place is:
- Collaborative: engaging teachers to set goals and identify improvement areas
- Clear: defining specified targets and objectives for development of the individual that prioritise professional development
- Geared towards the minimisation of workload: to reduce associated stress for colleagues
- Positive: reviewing and celebrating successes of the individual
- Constructive: addressing performance gaps clearly and offering established support systems
- Regular: presenting frequent opportunities for feedback (such as opportunities for peer review, self-assessment and leadership check-ins)
- Transparent: equitable to all teaching colleagues, focusing on professional growth rather than punitive measures
Exploring alternatives to the annual appraisal cycle
Without PRP, schools have more flexibility to explore alternative approaches to the traditional annual appraisal cycle:
- Continuous Professional Development (CPD): implement ongoing CPD programs that shift focus to continuous improvement rather than annual reviews.
- Peer reviews and 360-degree feedback: encourage peer reviews and collaborative learning communities where teachers can share best practices and support each other.
- Multi-source feedback: utilise multi-source feedback mechanisms to gather comprehensive insights from colleagues, students, and parents.
Real world case studies
Collaborative Appraisal System: A London primary school replaced its annual appraisal system with a collaborative approach. Teachers set personal development goals at the start of the year and participated in regular peer review sessions. This approach fostered a supportive environment and led to noticeable improvements in teaching quality and staff morale.
Continuous Professional Development: A Manchester secondary school implemented a continuous professional development program. Teachers attended monthly workshops and training sessions tailored to their needs. The school saw a significant increase in teacher engagement and student outcomes.
Mentorship Program: A Birmingham school introduced a mentorship program for new and struggling teachers. Experienced teachers provided guidance and support, helping mentees develop their skills and confidence. This program reduced turnover rates and improved overall teaching standards.
Responding to union pressure
The end of mandatory performance related pay does not equate to automatic progression, nor does it negate the need for an appraisal process. Open dialogue with unions is crucial to address concerns and find common ground if schools find that this suggestion is being asserted. This can include:
- Consultation: aim to have an effective and collaborative partnership with unions - this is essential to the successful operation of your School or Trust. If you’re considering a change of approach to your current appraisal system, consider dialogue with unions to find common ground and gain early input on the process before formally consulting with your staff. Collaboration and cooperation during the consultation process will ensure greater understanding of your aims and objectives.
- Transparency: be transparent about any proposed changes and their rationale, ensuring that all stakeholders are informed and involved in the decision-making process.
Managing underperforming teachers
In the absence of PRP, schools still need effective methods for addressing underperformance. Except in exceptional circumstances, you should always start with an informal support plan as soon as the issue is identified.
- Early intervention: identify issues early and provide targeted support to help teachers improve.
- Action plans: develop clear action plans with specific goals and timelines for improvement.
- Supportive measures: offer additional training, mentoring, and resources to support underperforming teachers.
Always keep clear records of support plans and the required actions and consider whether having a notetaker at informal meetings is appropriate. This will help to keep accurate records should the underperformance continue.
The teacher concerned should be warned that a failure to meet the targets set during the informal stages of a process to manage a lack of capability may escalate to a formal process. They should also be warned that any pay progression may be halted until the underperformance has been rectified and sustained. You should be clear and consistent about when and how this will be applied.
Making pay progression decision
Schools will also need to ensure that those responsible for making decisions around pay progression for teachers understand the process and any changes implemented, and still have due regard for performance when taking these decisions.
Some questions for your school decision-makers could be:
- Are our pay progression decisions robust and do they withstand scrutiny in relation to equality, diversity and inclusion criteria?
- Where no performance concerns have been identified outside of the standard annual appraisal process, does an employee progress to the next point on the pay scale?
- Is there an unreasonable expectation for an employee to provide evidence of their eligibility to progress to the next point on the pay scale where no performance concerns have been identified?
- Is an employee with performance concerns warned that pay progression may be impacted, and their performance may be managed formally if progress is not made with informal support?
- Is an employee whose performance is managed formally informed that their pay will not be progressing until sufficient progress against set targets are made?
Conclusion
Removing mandatory performance related pay presents an opportunity for schools to hone and even rethink their approach to teacher appraisals. By focusing on continuous improvement, professional development, and supportive measures, schools can create a more positive and effective performance management system that is geared towards talent management and ensuring the most positive outcomes for young people. Engaging with unions and being transparent about changes, along with the circumstances under which pay could be withheld if an individual is underperforming, will be crucial in navigating this transition successfully.
If you’re an existing customer facing challenges in managing your appraisal policy, we encourage you to seek early support from your EPM People Adviser. You can also access our updated Appraisal and Capability Policy on our EPM Customer Hub.
