CAES Planning For School Development

Task 1:  Literature Review

The Development of Effective Teacher Appraisal in England and Wales

Simon Elliott

4th November 1999

Turner,G Clift,P (1988) Studies in teacher appraisal

London: The Falmer Press

This book dates from the early beginnings of systematic teacher appraisal for the teaching profession and thus the authors have little research to base their work on other than their own three years earlier.  The authors therefore carry out further observation-based research on their earlier findings in order to elicit more detail.

They begin with the notion of “effective teachers” and develop this through a discussion of research into what this actually means.  They identified that the term “effectiveness”, when applied to teaching brought up many conflicting conclusions in research that they quote.  They do not get into a protracted discussion of what the term means but simply present the spectrum of views to the reader.  The authors then move on to a thorough and in-depth analysis of the changes in the political environment of Britain and how they shaped teacher appraisal.

The study then moves onto looking at the case studies and begins with a description of the selection process by which they were chosen.  Turner and Clift describe factors distinguishing the different appraisal schemes highlighted and then briefly outline the key factors of each scheme.  At this stage, no analysis is made.

It is in this section of the study that the main problem is raised.  Turner and Clift chose to research six very different institutions and appraisal schemes and, because of those differences, created six totally different research projects which, although they were based on a common initial methodology, required different methods and raised different issues.

As they move onto a discussion of the appraisal system spread over several chapters, they do not use case studies as a whole but instead use selected quotes to justify arguments and provide weight to the direction that they seek to take the discussions.  In several chapters, and in particular that on the appraisal interview, they begin with an introduction containing a strongly stated hypothesis, in the case of the example that the status of appraiser and appraised directly affects the nature of the interview, but then fail to answer it in the conclusion at the end of the chapter.

In the chapter on the purposes of appraisal, the authors refer to their initial perceptions of what they expected to observe however follow with points, as mentioned above, backed up with selected quotations.  What they do not do is set the context for the teachers making these comments as, with the large differences between the schools selected, a positive reinforcement for the argument from one school may not have been made by a teacher from a school with a different context for appraisal.

Where the authors do refer to work other than their own during these chapters, they often over use it (for example “Trethowan, D.M. (1983) Target Setting  Education for Industrial Society” in chapter 6)  and appear then to select comments to confirm or refute its evidence to fit their line of argument.

When they reach chapter 11 Turner and Clift present a range of the views that they encountered in a “for and against” format when looking at teachers’ perceptions of appraisal.  This creates a different atmosphere for the discussion than in earlier chapters as, although they present their views, they leave the reader to decide which way the evidence leads them.  They then finish with a clear and detailed conclusion.

This wider and more balanced selection of views continues further when discussing arguments placing the control with the reader.  They seem more prepared to talk about the weaknesses in their research, both from the point of what it failed to say but also where the increasing rapidity of change in the British education system of the late 80’s overtook the context in which the interviewee’s replies stood.

Finally, the authors summarise their work and the nature of the research.  They describe the methodology of their research and, from this, seek to justify the empirical nature of their work.  They do not repeat conclusions from earlier chapters but, with much reference to their earlier research on school self-evaluation, outline what they see as the major advantages and disadvantages of teacher appraisal.

The overall feel of this book, although it was probably not their intention, is that the direction that the authors take the arguments on appraisal governs the comments extracted from the research observation and interviews.  This would be in contrast to the approach used by those such as Glassman and Paulin where, although again using a small sample (n=10) they present detailed statistical evaluation of their findings and then draw conclusions before stating their personal arguments.

The Appraisal Interview in Day,C Whitaker,P and Wren,D Appraisal and Professional Development in Primary Schools (1987)

Open University Press: Milton Keynes

The context of this chapter is that of a part of in a larger work that seeks to offer the authors’ own thoughts on appraisal set within their obviously strongly felt opinions on the use of self evaluation as an appraisal methodology.

They, in a similar way to Turner and Clift, set the context for the development of an appraisal system in Britain and quote an extensive range of sources however, in contrast with the former, they look closely at the relevant emerging and existing legislative and advisory material and state that the aim of the book is to set a direction from within this for those thinking about implementing an appraisal system.

Moving onto the chapter on the appraisal interview itself, it begins with a very personal introduction on the purposes of the interview (using phrases such as We believe and direct personal approach) and leaves the reader in no doubt that the purpose of the text is to educate and guide – their preferred ethos.

The approach is casual in its language and involves the reader with open questions from the outset in order to direct thoughts to the methodology for appraisal they are seeking to disseminate.  The feeling is one of confidence that the authors have a clear vision and do not need the justification of others when presenting their views.  Indeed, they make no references to other’s work in the whole of the chapter.

The definition of the appraisal interview is a “conversation with a purpose” according to the authors and then elucidate what this purpose is – increased future effectiveness of teachers.  This would seem to tie in well with the ACAS report’s objectives and, indeed, the positive nature of the whole chapter fits in well with the distinction that others were trying to make between the emerging teacher appraisal system and the more confrontational industrial appraisal system.

The authors treatment of the preparation for interview is thorough and well thought out, placing responsibility not only on the appraised but also the appraiser, an approach forgotten by many other writers.  The authors then move to discussing the structure of the interview itself and begin by describing the usual set of questions that many schools use when formulating interviews.  Where they take a step forward is to use the aims behind these questions to develop an interview path that is more conversational but at the same time more guided – myself as a teacher in the classroom, the school and the community – perhaps to encourage more self-evaluaion on the part of the appraised in order to generate more achievable and useful targets.  This would fit in with the work of those such as Wilson and Zeichner and Liston. who argue that reflective self-evaluation is essential to effective improvements in teaching.

Finally, they summarise the chapter by laying down the context in which they see the appraisal record fitting in the teacher-school-LEA-DfEE partnership and then state the case for appraisal interview as a valuable part of the continual discussion that teachers have within schools for ensuring quality.

Overall this is a very positive view of appraisal interviews and, throughout the rest of the book, of appraisal itself.  This is in contrast with the negativity towards appraisal found within many works contemporary to this piece.  The main criticism of the book would be the lack of reference to the large variety of contemporary work leaving the reader to trust the wisdom of the authors.

Bibliography

ACAS (1986) Report of the Working Group on Appraisal and Training London: ACAS

Bunnell, S. Stephens, E (1984) Teacher Appraisal, A Democratic Approach in School Organization 4 (4) pp 291-302

Day, C Whitaker, P Wren, D (1987) Appraisal and Professional Development in Primary Schools  Milton Keynes: Open University Press

Evans, KM (1951) A Critical Survey of Methods for Assessing Teaching Ability in The British Journal of Education Psychology V21,pp. 89-95

Fidler, B Cooper, R Eds. (1993) Staff Appraisal in Schools and Colleges London: Longman

Glasman, NS Paulin, PJ (1982) Possible Determinants of Teacher Receptivity to Evaluation in Journal of Education Administration 20 (2) pp140 – 171

Green, C (1981) Teacher’s Accountability: Towards a Quality Profession in Education 3-13 9 (2) pp 42 – 45

Hewton, E (1988) The Appraisal Interview Milton Keynes: Open University Press

Moyles, R (1988) Self-evaluation – A Primary Teacher’s Guide London: NFER-Nelson

Turner, G Clift, P (1988) Studies in Teacher Appraisal London: The Falmer Press

Wilson, JD (1988) Appraising Teaching Quality London: Hodder & Stoughton

Zeichner, KM Liston, DP (1996) Reflective Teaching, an Introduction New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

CAES Planning For School Development

Task 2:  Short Research Task

Moving Forward

A model for the effective use of appraisal in the special measures school

Simon Elliott

10th December 1999

Introduction

State-funded schools which are judged, through inspection by an appointed team, to be failing or likely to fail to provide an acceptable standard of education are made subject to special measures.

There then follows a regime of termly visits by the School Improvement Team to assess whether the school is addressing the key issues outlined in the initial inspection report and, ultimately, whether the school has improved to the point where it can be judged to be providing an acceptable standard of education.

The source of failure is often the lack of a proper system of monitoring the quality of Teaching and Learning taking place in the school through weaknesses in the management strategies of the school and thus often results in a change of Headteacher.

This short essay attempts to outline an effective model for appraisal in such a school through reference to textual resources on the subject as well as the views of a Headteacher appointed to such a school, gathered through interview, who achieved removal of special measures due to the improvements made in that school.

Views from the inside – a case study.

The discussion took place very shortly after the school had been removed from special measures and could therefore be set in the context of a successful model.

The school had been placed on special measures after being judged to having serious weaknesses in teaching, learning and overall management.  The current Headteacher took over the post shortly before the inspection and was therefore unable to rectify the problems in the time given.

The post-Ofsted action plan outlined key issues to address although most, if not all, were self-evident to the new Headteacher.  What was important was to grasp the problems and change the whole way of thinking in the school from the bottom up.

The Headteacher had a clear vision of the role of a Quality-led approach in succeeding to raising standards in teaching and learning and set about remodelling the school’s hierarchical structure.  Co-ordinators or team-leaders were created to follow through the areas within the action plan and to evaluate the progress, at classroom level, of the Headteacher’s vision for Quality.

For example, the Head would define the system in which the Mathematics coordinator would work with the staff teaching maths to ensure that their lesson plans were appropriate and effective.  They would observe the teaching on a regular basis – every teacher was observed a minimum of once per half-term – and use their observations to build upon strengths and highlight weaknesses or areas for improvement.  Teachers who were not performing as they should were supported in improving their teaching.

The Headteacher relied on the co-ordinators to monitor and evaluate their area of responsibility and then account for that area to the Headteacher within the context of the action plan targets.  The Head did not directly monitor the individual teachers.

The approach described was interesting in that it placed responsibility for the evaluation of teaching and learning as far down the structure as possible.  It also made the evaluation process a continual one and not the formal biannual appraisal interview required by statute, in fact the formal process was not happening at all.  This model closely follows a Quality Assurance one in its use of the practitioner as Quality Manager within pre-defined measures set by the organization – a true TQM approach.

The Headteacher said that all but one teacher were able to improve their teaching to the standard required through support, self-evaluation and training.  Their motivation was due largely to the Headteacher valuing their work in several ways;

Before, INSET days were unplanned and, from the description, seen as time to clear the cupboards out.  This sends a message to staff that treHeaHeadHhhhhhhhhhh

aining is unimportant and therefore undervalues their training needs.  The new approach was to organize external speakers in the morning followed by structured activity in the afternoon to discuss the issues further.  This led to a more reflective approach.

Key roles and responsibilities were created and filled by staff with clear ability who, because of a number of older staff leaving, could be picked for their experience.  These staff were relied upon to put the Head’s vision into practice and, in return, were supported and trained to do so.  The senior management team were taken out of the school to meet and formulate approaches.  This again reinforced their self-worth.

The ethos of the school was changed by valuing the environment of the school itself.  Inappropriate building design and poor decorative order were remedied and pupils’ work and photos of activities were prominently displayed about the school.  Poor behaviour and lateness were no longer tolerated.

Finally the Headteacher summarised the overall approach as one of succession training.  Delegating responsibilities downwards rather than doing everything themselves.  The Headteacher described the importance of training Co-ordinators to be Deputies and Deputies to be Heads.  This had the effect of not only enhancing the skill levels further down the hierarchy but also allowed the Head more time to evaluate and monitor the overall strategy of the school.

Quality and the need for radical change

A school that is placed on special measures can often turn inwards though anger at the judgement of having failed.  This can lead to a delay in the initiation of change and, ultimately a prolonging of the time spent in special measures.

Central to a school achieving improvement is the realisation that improvement is needed and a radical honesty in what needs to change in order to achieve this.  This requires visionary and dynamic leadership from the Headteacher and a thorough self-evaluation of teaching by all staff.  Nothing can be regarded as sacred!  (This is true organizational reengineering)

“Appraisal” becomes an organizational activity and not just the formalised one-to-one approach required by government.  Key to pupils learning is teachers knowing what to teach them and how to do it.  Effective whole school schemes of work translated into individual teaching plans and activities are essential.

In a recent report on schools that have successfully left special measures, Ofsted cite several key areas that the school must monitor and evaluate, a few of which are listed here;

Planning lessons properly should become an accepted routine and not something that is done only when an inspector calls.

Clear expectations at school level of what form lesson plans should take.

Define the learning that is to take place before considering the activities they wish the pupils to undertake.

Effective lesson plans include evaluation noted completed as soon as possible after the event.

With reference to the last point, I would suggest that the evaluation of the Quality of the lesson is something that should be happening at every stage of the lesson itself.  The reflective teacher, as Zeichner comments, considers the event of teaching before, during and after the event.

The model for individual appraisal often used is similar to one outlined by Elliott summarised below;

Identify Focus

Gather Information

Plan for Improvement

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Implement Steps

Evaluate Progress

Redefine Plan

This approach can be scaled up to organizational appraisal where every part of the overall systems is analysed and evaluated through dynamic planning

Bibliography

ACAS (1986) Report of the Working Group on Appraisal and Training London: ACAS

Bunnell, S. Stephens, E (1984) Teacher Appraisal, A Democratic Approach in School Organization 4 (4) pp 291-302

Day, C Whitaker, P Wren, D (1987) Appraisal and Professional Development in Primary Schools  Milton Keynes: Open University Press

Elliott, J (1981) Action Research; a Framework for Self-Evaluation in Schools Cambridge:  Cambridge Institute of Teaching

Evans, KM (1951) A Critical Survey of Methods for Assessing Teaching Ability in The British Journal of Education Psychology V21,pp. 89-95

Fidler, B Cooper, R Eds. (1993) Staff Appraisal in Schools and Colleges London: Longman

Gibbs, G Habeshaw, S Habeshaw, T (1989) Interesting Ways to Appraise your Teaching Bristol: Technical and Educational Services Ltd.

Glasman, NS Paulin, PJ (1982) Possible Determinants of Teacher Receptivity to Evaluation in Journal of Education Administration 20 (2) pp140 – 171

Green, C (1981) Teacher’s Accountability: Towards a Quality Profession in Education 3-13 9 (2) pp 42 – 45

Hewton, E (1988) The Appraisal Interview Milton Keynes: Open University Press

Moyles, R (1988) Self-evaluation – A Primary Teacher’s Guide London: NFER-Nelson

Ofsted (1999) Lessons Learned from Special Measures London:  Ofsted Publications Centre

Turner, G Clift, P (1988) Studies in Teacher Appraisal London: The Falmer Press

Wilson, JD (1988) Appraising Teaching Quality London: Hodder & Stoughton

Zeichner, KM Liston, DP (1996) Reflective Teaching, an Introduction New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates