Teaching Scotland’s Future
Working in partnership - a strengthened model of professional learning through the
mentoring process
Coaching and mentoring to support professional
review and development/professional update
Dr Cate Watson
Dr Alison Fox
University of Stirling
Mrs Jean Cessford
Perth & Kinross Council
November 2013
Updated May 2014
1
Contents
Executive Summary
3
Rationale and Project milestones
4
Introduction
5
Focus Group findings
5
Developing the training package
6
Trialling and evaluation
7
Dissemination
8
Next steps
8
Evaluation of processes of partnership working
8
References
9
Addendum
Coaching and mentoring to
development/professional update
support
professional
review
A case study. Blairgowrie High School
10
Appendices
14
2
and
Executive Summary
Exploratory discussion with Perth & Kinross, who are currently piloting Professional Update
(PU), indicated a need for greater knowledge, skills and understanding around
coaching/mentoring to support this process. The aim of this project was to develop
materials, including e-resources, for supporting coaching/mentoring within PRD/PU and to
explore pedagogies for enhancing engagement with these materials.
A working group was set up to address the issues raised, comprising staff of P&K (CPD
Coordinator, ICT officer, and two seconded teachers) together with two academic staff from
the School of Education, University of Stirling.
The initial stage involved gathering the perceptions of those undertaking preparation for PU.
A focus group drawn from teachers involved in the pilot training for PU (all of whom had
previously carried out PRD interviews) indicated that those individuals with experience in
coaching/mentoring were more confident to undertake the role, while those with little or
no experience felt some trepidation. However, there was some concern that time to
undertake necessary training would be made available. In addition, differences emerged
over the definition of the terms ‘coaching’ and ‘mentoring’ and the relative importance of
each to PRD/PU.
Following on from this the working group met to devise a training package to support the
development of staff about to lead a colleague through the PU process.
This package focused on developing knowledge and understanding of the place of coaching
and mentoring within the PU process, along with an introduction to the necessary skills.
The materials were designed to encourage the generation of appropriate coaching
questions for use in PU/PRD reviews using fictional exemplars.
A pilot twilight training event was organised for staff about to undertake PU reviews (see
Appendix 1). The materials were trialled with this group. Participants worked in pairs/triads
taking on the role of PRD interviewer/interviewee. The package was supported by
introductory reading prior to the session and discussion within the session. Feedback was
gathered about ways in which the package might be used. Evaluation was positive with
participants indicating that even in the very short time available they had been able to
devise appropriate coaching questions. It was strongly felt that the package was best used
collegially, within departments, schools or across clusters.
The findings from the project were reported at the Scottish Learning Festival
(September,2013), where further positive feedback was received in relation to the materials
developed, and at the National Implementation Board Conference (October, 2013).
A meeting was requested with Education Scotland (ES) to discuss the project and to inform
next steps. It was decided that ES would take forward the project, producing a package of
the materials, including video clips/voice overs, to be placed on the ES website for use by
schools.
3
Coaching and mentoring to support professional review and development
(PRD)/professional update(PU)
Rationale and aims of the project
Exploratory discussion with Perth & Kinross (P&K), who are currently piloting Professional
Update, indicated a need for greater knowledge, skills and understanding around
coaching/mentoring to support this process. The aim of this project was to develop
materials, including e-resources, for supporting coaching/mentoring within PRD/PU and to
explore pedagogies for enhancing engagement with these materials.
Agreed Milestones
1. Initial meeting with P&K partners to identify issues raised by the Professional Update
pilot programme in relation to development needs of coaches/mentors. Work
together to develop project plan under guidance of advisory panel (Dr Morag
Redford, Dr Valerie Drew, University of Stirling, Ms. Anne Pearson, Falkirk Council).
By 31.03.2013
2. Work with P&K partners to explore, with focus groups currently undertaking the
pilot, their perceptions of PRD/PU processes, their role as coach/mentor within it,
and how they may best be supported to undertake professional update effectively.
By 30.04.2013
3. In conjunction with P&K partners, including seconded teaching staff and ICT
personnel, develop coaching/mentoring training for staff tasked with carrying out
PRD/UP, including: consideration of the extent and nature of training to be given;
the development of sustainable approaches to training; and the development of eresources to support aspiring coaches/mentors. By 31.05.2013
4. Pilot these materials with the next cohort undertaking training for PRD/PU to
determine effective pedagogies for developing coaching/mentoring skills, knowledge
and understanding. By 30.06.2013
5. Evaluation of effectiveness of materials and e-resources and impact of these on
knowledge, skills and understanding in relation to coaching/mentoring and PRD/PU
processes. By 20.09.2013
6. Evaluation of processes of partnership working. By 20.10.2013
7. Further refine materials and e-resources. Submission of completed materials and
resources to Education Scotland. By 15.11.2013
4
Coaching and mentoring to
development/professional update
support
professional
review
and
Introduction
Exploratory discussion with Perth & Kinross, who are currently piloting Professional Update,
indicated a need for greater knowledge, skills and understanding around
coaching/mentoring to support this process. The aim of this project was to develop
materials, including e-resources, for supporting coaching/mentoring within PRD/PU and to
explore pedagogies for enhancing engagement with these materials.
A working group was set up to examine the issues raised and devise a response comprising
staff of P&K, Jean Cessford, (CPD Coordinator), Pam Currie (ICT officer), Avril McNeill
(teacher seconded from P&K) and Keri Reid (teacher seconded from P&K) together with Drs
Alison Fox and Cate Watson from the School of Education, University of Stirling.
It was decided that:




A focus group would be recruited from staff undergoing preparation for PU reviews
to gauge the needs and perceptions of the processes involved
A training package of materials would be put together to support the development
of coaching/mentoring skills
The package would be evaluated by the next cohort of staff undergoing training for
PU
Materials would be further developed for use by Education Scotland (ES).
Focus Group findings
The questions put to the focus group were:







What in your experience makes for a good PRD interview?
How has PU affected the PRD process?
What do you think the impact of PU will be on school?
Do you see any tensions in the process?
Is a coaching/mentoring approach appropriate?
Do you feel confident in your role in the process?
What more support might you need to carry out the role?
The focus group emphasised the importance of establishing the correct environment for the
interview; being well-prepared and having sufficient time set aside.
There was a clear awareness of the link between PRD and PU. It was felt that PU provided a
‘bigger picture’, an overview of development over a longer timescale, with PRD being a
‘mini step’ in the process. The actual processes involved were regarded as being the same.
Both PRD and PU were seen as being about identifying strengths. There was also a feeling
that PU would make people ‘take it [PRD] a bit more seriously’.
5
One member reported that PU will enable a more coherent and sustained approach to be
taken to CPD in school, with the impact of CPD being able to be evaluated more clearly.
Different implications were noted for undertaking PU in primary and secondary schools,
mainly linked to resource issues.
At present PU was not seen as ‘high profile’ in schools. It was clearly understood that PU
was not linked to competence procedures, though some members of the group felt it would
make individuals ‘more accountable’.
Some confusion was apparent between the terms coaching and mentoring, though most of
the language used was around ‘coaching’ rather than ‘mentoring’. Whichever term was used
the outcome should be to challenge the reviewee to find their own solutions rather than
providing answers. One member said that developing coaching skills had enabled her to lead
more effective PRD interviews which previously she had ‘dreaded’.
Those with experience of undertaking PRD interviews and particularly those who had
received training in coaching/mentoring felt reasonably confident to undertake PU, whereas
others expressed some trepidation.
Some members of the group who had not received coaching/mentoring training felt that
this would be essential, though they were concerned whether the necessary resources
would be available to all those who needed it.
Developing the training package
Following on from the focus group meeting the working group met to devise a training
package to support the development of staff about to undertake PU reviews. (See Appendix
1).
The GTCS recognises coaching and mentoring as an effective way to approach professional
review and development. The package was developed on the basis of a conceptual framing
which understands coaching/mentoring as ‘learning relationships that which help people to
take charge of their own development’ (Connor and Pokora, 2012, p.8). Within the
approach devised here learning is understood to be a social and distributed activity leading
to the enhanced accumulation of social and human capital. It was therefore agreed to
produce a package of materials focusing on coaching/mentoring to support effective
PRD/PU reviews and which could be used collegially by a school/faculty or department etc
to support reviewers and reviewees to develop coaching/mentoring as part of the process
of PRD/PU .
Key issues were therefore to devise materials that would support development of
understanding and skills of coaching/mentoring; and that could be used/downloaded from
the online environment to enhance flexibility of delivery.
This materials produced made use of the existing P&K PRD/PU proformas (in P&K referred
to as ERD, Employee Review and Development) as a means to enable participants to
develop coaching questions. Fictional exemplars were drawn up for this purpose which
aimed to cover a range in terms of sector, career-stage, stage in PU cycle etc. The exemplars
6
were deliberately designed to raise particular issues and presented somewhat ‘exaggerated’
situations. The package was supported by introductory reading prior to the session.
Questions for discussion within the session about the principles and processes underpinning
PU were also devised (see Appendix 1).
The session comprised:




A number of preparatory tasks including a reading as an introduction to
coaching/mentoring and familiarisation with the processes of PU on the GTCS
website.
An introductory discussion to gauge level of understanding around the purpose of
PU.
During the session participants worked in pairs/triads using exemplar P&K PRD/PU
forms, using these to draw up coaching questions (a prompt sheet was available) and
then taking roles as coach/coachee (and observer for triads).
A plenary discussion and evaluation of the materials.
A group of 11 PU reviewers nominated to undertake PU in their school in the coming session
took part in a twilight event.
No prior knowledge of PU or coaching/mentoring was assumed.
Trialling and evaluation
The materials were trialled with this group and feedback was gathered about ways in which
the package might be used. Participants worked in pairs/triads taking on the role of PRD
interviewer/interviewee using the exemplar materials. The materials were evaluated by the
participants and feedback was very positive. Even in the very short time available
participants were able to devise appropriate coaching questions. It was strongly felt that the
package was best used collegially, within departments, schools or across clusters.
In the introductory discussion participants were asked about their understanding of the
purpose of professional update. Views about the purpose of PU clustered around two
aspects: accountability and personal development. Thus, PU was seen to be about ensuring
standards and improving the quality of teachers and teaching and learning. But it was also
seen as a means for supporting professional development. Little tension was apparent
between these aspects of PU, though one participant spoke of PU as ‘competence related’
and of the ‘tension between the hard line of the standards and the supportive role of PU’.
Training materials and the session were evaluated by means of a PMI
(Plus/Minus/Interesting). Overall, participants valued the opportunity to practice the
coaching skills and the dialogue the exemplars generated. Main problems were lack of time
to prepare for the session, and the timing of the session at the end of a very busy day.
Some felt the exemplars were rather complex and could be simplified.
During the plenary session ways in which the materials could be used in the online
environment were discussed. Overall, it was felt that the materials would best be used in a
7
collegial rather than an individual way. There should therefore be a package available for
download which could be used by a group of teachers working together. This might be a
small group of staff or could involve a whole school, or with teachers working across
schools. The package could include suggestions for different ways to use the materials.
Audio or video clips of coaching/mentoring sessions were felt to be useful.
Dissemination
Dissemination of the findings of the project took place at the Scottish Learning Festival (SLF)
(Edinburgh, September, 2013), where Keri Reid and Avril McNeil demonstrated the role-play
exemplars; and the National Implementation Board Conference (Edinburgh, October, 2013).
Feedback from the SLF indicated that participants would value these materials being
available on the ES website for use in schools together with guidance, including video clips,
demonstrating their use.
Next steps
Following evaluation, the exemplars were further refined to be taken up and used as an eresource by Education Scotland.
A meeting was held at University of Stirling attended by Kate Paton and Jayne Horsburgh
(Education Scotland), Alison Fox, Cate Watson (University of Stirling), Avril McNeil and Keri
Reid (Perth and Kinross Council) to discuss the e-resources produced and the means by
which these might be made available for use by schools. It was agreed that the project
would best be taken forward by Education Scotland who will commission a film company to
produce video clips of Avril and Keri using the exemplar materials in role play scenarios. Keri
and Avril will also ‘talk through’ the materials explaining the rationale behind them. Alison
Fox and Cate Watson will introduce the package, make some suggestions for how it can be
used and raise some issues for discussion.
Evaluation of processes of partnership working.
Overall, the project has achieved considerable impact. Beneficiaries of the project include
policy-makers at local/national level; schools through support for PRD/PU; and the
university through developing closer links with a partner local authority. Impact has been
conceptual, informing current debate around PRD/PU; instrumental through the
development of materials to support PRD/PU; and capacity building in both institutional and
personal terms through the strengthening of engagement between the University and P&K
secondment of LA staff and the secondment of teaching staff to work on the project.
Outputs to support PU/PRD have been developed, trialled and further refined so that they
may be utilised on the ES website. Opportunities for dissemination to government, policymakers and practitioners were created at the Scottish Learning Festival (Edinburgh,
September 2013)and the NIB, ‘Teaching Scotland’s Future’ Conference (Edinburgh, October
2013). It is envisaged that the materials, once available, will continue to impact across
8
schools in Scotland. The work also enabled a critical analysis of the development and
implementation of professional update (Watson and Fox, in press).
Within the partnership there was a sharing of expertise, knowledge and skills to mutual
benefit. The project produced insights into the different perspectives, priorities and
practices of the respective partners and the impact all this has on working in partnership
(Glasby et al, 2011). Overall, however P&K benefitted from access to latest academic
thinking and the University gained insight into practicalities of coaching and mentoring in
the context of Professional Review. Both partners also benefitted from the development of
capacity and capability of personnel with one of the seconded teachers (Keri Reid)
subsequently taking up a post as Teacher Fellow in the School of Education at the University
of Stirling. Time expectations of the project in terms of a completion date within the annual
school cycle and the pilot for Professional Update limited what could be achieved and the
loss of Pam Currie who changed jobs part way through the project impacted on the extent
to which the materials could be developed by the partnership for the online environment.
Overall however this was a very good example of what partnership working can achieve and
a significant amount was accomplished within a very short space of time
While the existence of a good working relationship built up over a number of years between
P&K and University of Stirling was instrumental in enabling the project to go ahead (given
the tight time scale for putting the proposal together) there is no doubt that these
relationships were strengthened as a result of undertaking the project. However, such links
are not between organisations but between people and the loss of key personnel (Jean
Cessford, CPD Coordinator, retires in November 2013) will certainly alter the nature of the
partnership in the short term. This finding supports evidence that successful partnership
working is frequently contingent on local circumstances (Eccles, 2012). Indeed, the success
of the project was in large part due to the appointment of the staff seconded to work on the
project. The project therefore contributed towards building capacity and capability both for
the partnership and for the individuals involved.
References:
Connor, M. and Pokora, J. (2012) Coaching and mentoring at work. (2nd edition). New York:
McGraw-Hill/Open University.
Eccles, A. (2012) Partnerships. The politics of agendas and policy implementation. Pp. 24- 39
in J. Forbes and C. Watson (eds) The transformation of children’s services. Examining and
debating the complexities of inter/professional working. London: Routledge.
Glasby,J., Dickinson, H. and Miller, R. (2011) Partnership working in England – where we
are now and where we’ve come from. International Journal of Integrated Care , 11,
URN:NBN:NL:UI:10-1-101274.
Watson, C. and Fox, A. Professional re-accreditation: constructing teacher subjectivities for
career-long professional learning. (In press, Journal of Education Policy.)
9
Addendum
April 2014
Coaching and mentoring to
development/professional update
support
professional
review
and
A case study. Blairgowrie High School.
Following completion of the main report ES provided additional funding to extend the work.
Two factors emerging from the main report informed this further work.
A key finding from the focus group drawn from promoted staff involved in the pilot training
for PU (all of whom had previously carried out PRD interviews) indicated that those
individuals with experience in coaching/mentoring felt confident to undertake the role.
However, those with little or no experience of coaching/mentoring felt some trepidation
and also voiced a concern that time to undertake necessary training would not be made
available. This apprehension was largely expressed by the PTs, rather than the
headteachers, most of whom had experience of coaching/mentoring staff.
One of the outcomes of the initial work was the development of the exemplar materials,
designed to support a coaching/mentoring approach to PRD/PU, as recommended by GTCS.
The advantage of the exemplar materials (fictitious cases presented on the existing P&K ERD
proforma), over traditional coaching/mentoring training events was their direct relevance to
PRD/PU. This, it was felt, would provide a relatively rapid grounding for individuals which
would enable a foundation of understanding that could then be developed through more
formal approaches, if the reviewer so wished.
These exemplar materials were trialled as part of a twilight event organised for staff about
to undertake PU reviews. Feedback from this group was very positive. One recommendation
emerged from the group indicating that the package would best be used collegially, within
departments, schools or across clusters.
Drawing on these two key findings, the decision was taken to further refine the materials,
prior to their being developed for the ES website, and to work with a group of PTs in a single
school.
Additional funding from ES enabled Ms Bev Leslie, HT Blairgowrie High School, and others of
her management team, to host a training event for PTs, all of whom will be carrying out
PRD/PU interviews in their respective departments. The event included: prior reading on
coaching and mentoring at work; preliminary discussion around PU and PRD; and role-play
in triads (reviewee, reviewer and an observer) using the fictional cases. The schedule for
this event, together with an introduction to the materials, is shown in Appendices 1 and 2.
Reflection on the role play activities
Feedback from engagement with the activities was very positive, indeed one person
commented, ‘Everyone should do this activity’. The exemplars had clearly stimulated
10
discussion around PRD/PU and had been helpful in raising a number of key issues necessary
for PRD/PU to be carried out in an effective and reflective manner. These included:
 The need for preparation:
She was a really difficult reviewee – it made us think about how you really need to prepare
carefully beforehand.

Need to explore in depth:
You really need to open up the closed statements of the reviewee.
 Dealing with difficult issues:
How do you deal with that negativity – I hadn’t expected that.
Who should do your PRD? If there is conflict you won’t get open discussion.
You might end up reviewing someone you have some conflict with.
How do you know that what is put down is valid? You have to make some kind of judgement
about the form and the person’. ‘You don’t necessarily know all your staff that well.
 Having insight into oneself as a reviewer:
You need to be aware of the dangers of preconceptions.

Becoming aware of some of the potentially problematic scenarios:
We had a supply teacher – it made us think about whose responsibility [for ensuring
professional development] this is.
Teaching is so collaborative these days – how can you tease out one person’s contribution?
Evaluation of the training event
The event was evaluated by means of a ‘PMI’ (Positive, Minus, Interesting). Overall, there
was clear recognition of the value of this form of training. The materials were very well
received, with participants saying the exemplars were well prepared, easy to
read/understand, of high quality, and useful in highlighting potentially problematic areas.
Participants also found the role-play useful and engaging. One remarked, ‘The role play was
excellent. This should be CPD every year between PTs’. Several participants remarked that it
was useful to observe others undertaking interviews, enabling them to gain a different
perspective on the process,
Being an observer was very positive. I looked for how reviewer and reviewee were
behaving and all of their non-verbal behaviours which have given me ideas for future
reviews e.g. eye contact.
This allowed me to consider the questioning strategies I would use doing an ERD
11
The collegial nature of the event, providing the opportunity to undertake CPD with
colleagues, was also valued, particularly by members of staff in small departments who may
not get the opportunity to carry out many PRD/PU reviews on a frequent basis.
In relation to the materials most negative comments received concerned the prior reading
which one participant found ‘overwhelming’ and another ‘verbose’; although one
participant had mentioned this as a positive. This may point to the need for differentiated or
at least a range of prior reading.
Many of the evaluation comments centred around concerns/questions over the PU process
itself rather than the training event. Indeed, this further indicated the ability of the
materials to stimulate reflection on the processes and principles of PU. Questions were
raised such as:
What happens if member of staff does not complete PU?
What is the process for signing off PU?
Do people know that ERD does not need to be carried out by a line manager?
How do ERD and competency procedures marry up?
There is no proper answer to the purpose of the ERD process: should it look to identify
weak teachers or should it just be about the reviewee’s development?
How important the relationship will be for PRD to be carried out effectively. How will
every employee have a genuinely positive experience?
Head Teacher of Blairgowrie High, Ms Bev Leslie, commented: It was extremely useful to
have a tutor to lead the session. Moving on, I would like to be able to offer this as an
opportunity for one of the Blairgowrie participants to be the tutor either with subject peers
or with PTs in another establishment. In summary, a very worthwhile session which I hope
will continue to reap benefits in future live ERD/PU processes.
Recommendations
This approach has been clearly shown to provide highly valued CPD for carrying out PRD/PU
reviews. To be most effective space and time during the school day enabling all those
undertaking reviews to work together needs to be made available. Staff also need time for
preparation for the session, being sent clear guidance and materials in advance. While some
prior reading is highly desirable it might be advantageous to ‘differentiate’ the essential
from the merely ‘interesting’. It was our strong impression that compared with the twilight
12
session which piloted the materials, the collegial approach seemed to foster greater
engagement with the materials, probably due to participants being familiar with one
another.
Working in triads is clearly beneficial, enabling a deeper reflection on the processes of
PRD/PU as well as providing a different perspective on approaches to take, questions to ask,
and the importance of monitoring ‘body language’. However, working with one case study
in triads does mean that the role of reviewee is played three times resulting in repetition
which might be perceived negatively (and was commented on by one of the groups here).
This finding also has a bearing on the intention of ES to provide video clips based on these
exemplars on the website. ES should be mindful of the need not to ‘close down’ responses
to exemplar case studies which might suggest that there is a ‘correct’ way to undertake the
review, which would diminish the value of the materials. Thus, vignettes drawn from the
materials which illustrate questions supporting a coaching/mentoring approach might be
more beneficial.
Most importantly it appeared that the professional dialogue around the activities was
crucial. Having an opportunity to talk together about focused, shared reading and activity in
relation to this highly important management function offers a greater chance that this
professional learning activity will do its work. The team now had a platform from which to
develop constructive and effective practices in relation to supporting the professional
growth of colleagues in order to enhance outcomes for pupils.
13
Appendix 1.
Outline of session
Preparatory Tasks:
Participants will have read Chapter 1 from Connor, M. and Pokora, J. (2005) Coaching &
Mentoring at Work: Developing Effective Practice (2nd ed). Maidenhead: OU Press, plus the
GTCS information about PRD and PU (accessed at http://www.gtcs.org.uk/professionalupdate/professional-update.aspx ).
They will also each have read in full, one exemplar ERD form sent beforehand.
9.00 – 9.40
Welcome
Set the scene and share aims of Education Scotland project.
The purpose of this session:
 We discovered that PTs in secondary had had least support with this
part of their remit; and in general felt less confident about
supporting professional learning of colleagues than other areas of
their remit
 We are grateful to you for allowing us to trial the materials in this
format; and will really value your feedback
Map of session:
 Short discussion about ERD/PU and C&M.
 Consideration of your own beliefs and values in relation to ERD/PU
processes
 Using the exemplars: Identify key issues and designing some
questions
 Learning conversations: role play
 Debrief
1.


Discussion regarding knowledge, understanding and experience of
the ERD / PU processes
Stressing that the core purpose of these processes is to improve
quality of learning and teaching in a school; thus outcomes for pupils.
2.
We asked you to read Chapter 1 from Connor and Pokora. This kind of
professional reading is a requirement within the Standard. Middle leaders
are required to ’develop coherent approaches to professional learning which
build and sustain teachers’ practice’ (3.2) and in relation to this are expected
to ‘develop and use knowledge from literature, research and policy sources
to support the processes of leading and developing staff and creating school
14
cultures for the enhancement of practice and decision making’ (3.2.5).
Coaching and mentoring as learning relationships: not ‘teaching or telling or
advising or instructing’ but helping people to:
 Take charge of their own development
 Release their potential
 Achieve results which they value (Connor and Pokora, p.8)
What did people learn about coaching and mentoring from reading the
chapter?


Get a general feel for the level of confidence / expertise regarding
coaching and mentoring colleagues to support the ERD / PU
processes.
Does anyone perceive any potential barriers to this approach being
successfully adopted?
3.
Before moving in to the activities for the session I want you to consider the
following questions
 Has the ERD process been positive and constructive for you in the
past?
 Do you see it as an exciting and important part of our remit, or a
tedious but necessary task to undertake (or something in between)?
 Do you think that the ERD system is highly effective in supporting the
professional learning of teachers, no value at all, or something in
between?
 What are your feelings about the PU process and its possible effects?
 How will your answers to the above questions affect the possible
effectiveness of the processes?
Activity 1
Introduction of materials
Group people (triads) in relation to the ERD form that they have read.
Triads discuss, identifying the key issues for the professional development of
their case study person.
Issue a ‘starter question’ sheet to help with coaching questions, and ask
group to create some coaching questions in relation to the key issues
identified.
10.25– 10.55
Activity 2
In triads, practise coaching process (role play).
15
Each triad should have a coach (reviewer), coachee (reviewee) and observer.
Each person has 15 minutes in each role.
The observer has a list of coaching techniques / points to look for and note.
The observer should also take the time to consider how best to ‘record ’the
meeting.
10.55-11.10
Coffee break
11.10-11.25
Activity 2 continued
11.25
11.55
- Debrief session (including importance of PU within the ERD process)
Next steps for school
16
Appendix 2. Introduction to the materials
Coaching and mentoring to support professional review and development (PRD) and
professional update (PU).
You will find six exemplar self-evaluation Professional Review and Development (or
Employee Review and Development) proformas. These have been prepared by Keri Reid
(Primary Principal Teacher) and Avril McNeill (Secondary Depute Headteacher) who were
seconded from Perth and Kinross Council funded by a grant from Education Scotland.
Working with colleagues from the University of Stirling, they developed these exemplars for
training purposes. They pull out pertinent issues highlighting these in admittedly
exaggerated, stereotypical ways. We have attempted to make them gender neutral. NB Any
resemblance to real people is purely coincidental.
They are available to download and use in whatever ways are helpful to colleagues with
responsibility for PRD/ERD/PU interviews. There are three secondary and three primary
exemplars, with three working within the Standard for Full Registration (GTCS 2012), and
three working within the Standards for Leadership and Management (GTCS 2012). We do
not believe the issues raised are sector specific and therefore suggest that all can be used in
any sector.
Some things to consider and discuss before engaging further with the materials:

Once you have read the short summary profile, consider how that affects your
assumptions about what you are about to read.
o Do you empathise with the person, or on the contrary do you immediately
feel your hackles rise?
In school, you are likely to have preconceived notions about the person that you are
about to review.
o Could this affect the ways in which you go about the task?

the
Before reading the full exemplar, look at the stage the person is at in the
Professional Update cycle (top right hand corner).
o Does this affect the ways in which you will plan for the interview?
Again, in school you are likely to have experience and knowledge of the person’s
professional development at earlier stages in the cycle, though this is not necessarily
case.
o How could this experience and knowledge affect your planning for the
interview?
17

How confident do you feel in your own skills with regard to supporting the
professional growth of colleagues?

Also consider your own beliefs and values in relation to the PRD/ERD/PU processes.
o Has the PRD process been positive and constructive for you in the past?
o Do you see this as an exciting and important part of your remit; a tedious,
necessary task to undertake; or something in between these two extremes?
o Do you believe that the PRD system is highly effective in supporting the
professional growth of teachers; of no value at all; or again something in
between these extremes?
o What do you think about the PU process and its possible effects?
o How will your answers to the above questions affect the possible
effectiveness of the processes?
The six exemplars are as follows:
1. M Bright (Primary principal teacher)
 working within Standards for Leadership and Management (GTCS 2012)
 committed to professional development
 has a thorough grasp of the curriculum
 up to date on current educational thinking
 aware of their strengths and weaknesses
 open to being coached
 demonstrates a good emotional intelligence
 appears to relate well to others
2. H Fulton (Secondary depute headteacher)
 working within Standards for Leadership and Management (GTCS 2012)
 aspiring headteacher
 bright young professional who has come up the ranks fairly quickly
 enthusiastic , energetic and passionate
 focused and ambitious
 good credibility with colleagues
 perhaps slightly threatening to other senior managers
3. V Lowe (Primary class teacher)
 working within Standard for Full Registration (GTS 2012)
 has taught for many years
 interested in ‘winding down’ option
 high opinion of teaching capabilities
18



limited CPD experiences
no interest in professional development
strong opinions about school discipline strategies
4. J Marr (Secondary principal teacher)
 working within Standards for Leadership and Management (GTCS 2012)
 aspiring depute headteacher having been acting depute for some time
 disappointed at lack of success at interview for substantive post
 ambitious and focused
 high level of self-confidence apparent
 poor relationships within department
5. S Ply (Primary teacher on supply following induction year)
 working within Standard for Full Registration (GTS 2012)
 keen to secure a permanent position
 good relationships with pupils, staff and parents
 positive behaviour management
 wide experience of planning and assessment
 limited CPD experiences
 interest in research projects and further study
6. S Smart (Newly qualified secondary teacher)
 working within Standard for Full Registration (GTS 2012)
 late entry to teaching, from industry
 high level of self-confidence
 high opinion of teaching ability
 ambitious and focused
 poor relationships with colleagues and line manager
 high expectations for career
19
20