APPRAISAL CASE STUDY
Changing the Culture of Unachievable Numeric Targets
By Andrew Baisley, Camden NUT Divisional Secretary
November 2013
Sections
1.
Case Study for union representatives and officers
Appendix 1. Examples of Non Numeric Pupil Progress Targets
2.
Why 3 Levels of Progress is a very silly measure.
This case study should be read in conjunction with the NUT guidance SETTING APPRAISAL
OBJECTIVES and the joint NUT/NASUWT appraisal policy checklists for England and for
Wales, and joint NUT/NAHT/ATL model school appraisal policy in England and Model
Performance Management Policy for Schools Template in Wales. You can find these, as well
as guidance on teachers’ standards, at
www.teachers.org.uk/campaigns/appraisal
It may also be useful to consult your association and officers as well as they will be aware of the
appraisal policies used in local schools.
Case Study for Union Reps and Officers On Opposing Numeric Targets
INTRODUCTION
This case study is based on an approach that has been used with some success in Camden
schools to empower teachers and school groups to improve appraisal targets, and in one school
the rep used this advice to go even further and stop the use of numeric targets. The introduction
of the link between pay and appraisal means realistic and achievable objectives are even more
crucial so it is important to spread good practice to other schools. The case study below is a
school with a long tradition of organising but the most important thing, in any school, is to start
the process.
STEP 1
The rep used the NUT guidance on Setting Appraisal Targets, along with the joint
NASUWT/NUT policy checklist to identify and highlight the school’s policy of using
unreasonable numeric appraisal targets.
STEP 2
document11
The NUT and NASUWT reps met to discuss the matter and to agree a common approach, and
the documents in the NUT/NASUWT joint campaign on appraisal were used as a starting point,
along with the NUT/NAHT/ATL model policy to discuss the matter with the head teacher.
STEP 3
The reps presented their arguments to the head teacher and requested that the numeric target
requirement be removed from the policy. The head teacher rejected this request so the reps
informed the head teacher that they would consult with members to discuss what action they
wished to take. The reps informed members of the head teacher’s decision and distributed the
relevant documents to them, before calling a Union meeting.
STEP 4
The reps decided against separate Union meetings as they felt a joint NUT/NASUWT meeting
would work best in their school. The meeting was publicised widely (email, notes in trays and
most importantly by word of mouth) giving advance notice with a choice of dates to ensure high
attendance.
STEP 5
Following an open discussion, a motion to the meeting was put by the reps, which after
discussion was passed unanimously.
“This union group notes that the national NUT/NASUWT does not believe numeric targets
are appropriate for appraisal. We believe that they are not appropriate at this school and
we are opposed to their use”
STEP 6
The reps then distributed the following statement on Union headed paper to all members to be
handed to the appraiser during the target setting meeting if the appraiser insisted on a numeric
target. The head teacher was informed of this action which indicated that a union-backed
dispute/grievance was being initiated.
The school’s Appraisal Policy states that:
The objectives set for each teacher, will be S.M.A.R.T: Specific, Measurable, Achievable,
Realistic and Time-bound and will be appropriate to the teacher’s role and level of
experience. I believe that the numeric objectives I have been set are not in line with this
Policy.
STEP 7
No numeric targets were set so the reps were then in a position to negotiate a permanent
change to the appraisal policy to remove the numeric target requirement in order to resolve the
dispute.
Andrew Baisley November 2013.
document12
APPENDIX 1
Numeric targets usually specify a percentage of pupils achieving a particular grade, for example
“90% of my GCSE class will achieve A*-C” and are described by SLG as “aspirational”
Examples of non-numeric pupil progress targets
These suggestions should not be copied verbatim, they are a guide to give appraiser and
appraisee ideas of ways in which you can demonstrate pupil progress and increased attainment
without setting numeric targets.
Target
How
Performance Indicator
To have a much greater
level of pupil engagement in
my Year 9 lessons.
Include more interesting
starters. Include more
group discussions and
active learning strategies.
Use the traffic light system
as a plenary.


More pupils will be
engaged in their work
(observation)
Student survey
To raise the achievement of
my GCSE Gifted and
Talented pupils
To plan effectively using
AfL so that I can target this
specific cohort.
Differentiated tasks and
homework extensions


Lesson Planning
Exam results
To track the progress of my
SEN pupils in my Yr….
class to raise attainment.
To have read their action
plans and spoken with their
key workers about their
needs and to plan
effectively around those
needs. Differentiated tasks.
1-1 reviews.
To make homework more
meaningful and use it to
increase the engagement
and achievement of
students in my Yr….. class.
Ensure students record
homework tasks in diary
and use pastoral/admin
support system to inform
parents of any issues.
Level all homework and use
to track attainment to TMG.
Use written feedback to link
it into class work.





Lesson Planning
Improved attainment in
subject tests and
majority improving their
level.
Homework record books
Increase in completed
homework
Increased parental
involvement
Majority of students
reaching TMG
document13
Why 3 Levels of Progress is a Very Silly Measure
by @henrystewart
Published by Local Schools Network
Increasingly schools are being encouraged, by the Department for Education and by Ofsted, to
focus on achieving three levels of progress for every student. (Three levels represents going
from Level 3 at age 11 to a D at GCSE, level 4 to a C and level 5 to an A.) The flaw in this
approach became clear this week when Ofsted criticised schools where students who achieved
a level 5 in SATs only reached B at GCSE, even though this represents the desired 3 levels of
progress.
3 levels of progress (also termed “expected levels of progress”) sound fair and equitable, being
based on individual value added and expecting the same of all students. But a quick analysis of
the statistics shows that the level of progress to be expected depends on the starting point of
the child. For those achieving a 5a in Maths, fully 99% make 3 levels of progress. But for those
starting with a 3c, only 16% made 3 levels of progress in 2012.
The transition matrices include two tables for transition in each of Maths and English, one based
on SAT levels for the student in that subject and one based on SAT levels across English,
Maths and Science. This post originally included only the latter, but now includes both. Thanks
to @giftedphoenix for this work on this, including showing the full transition tables.
Across England, percentage of students making 3 levels of progress – by SAT level (in
that subject)
SATEnglishMaths
3c 40%
25%
3b 56%
42%
3a 70%
60%
4c 51%
56%
4b 71%
76%
4a 85%
90%
5c 70%
67%
5b 92%
86%
5a 99%
96%
Across England, percentage of students making 3 levels of progress – by SAT level
(average of English, Maths, Science)
SATEnglishMaths
3c 33%
16%
document14
3b 49%
26%
3a 66%
45%
4c 45%
44%
4b 64%
68%
4a 82%
87%
5c 66%
68%
5b 88%
92%
5a 98%
99%
A Perverse Measure
Imagine two teachers in a school which sets for Maths:
In Teacher A’s top set, whose students all achieved 5a and 5b, 80% are on target for 3 levels of
progress and to get a B at GCSE. Only a handful are on target for more than 3 levels of
progress.
In Teacher B’s lower set, whose students all achieved 3b or below, only 50% are on target for 3
levels of progress.
Imagine a performance review based on the 3 levels of progress. Teacher A would receive lots
of praise for the 80% achieving the target and, under performance related pay, expect a rise.
And it is clear that Ofsted would regard it as very wrong for Teacher B, with only half the class
achieving the 3 levels, to get any rise at all.
document15
The 3 levels of progress measure suggests Teacher A’s class is performing well above national
average and Teacher B’s class are performing well below it. The reality is the opposite. Teacher
A’s class are progressing below the national average for students of their ability and are an
example of this week’s Ofsted criticism of too low expectations for high attainers. On the other
hand Teacher B’s class are performing well above the average for students of similar ability
across the country.
Let’s Abandon the 3 Levels Measure now
Sir Michael Wilshaw is right to say that most students who achieve level 5 at age 11, and
certainly those starting on 5b or 5a, should be expected to achieve a grade A or better at
GCSE. So let’s abandon the measure of 3 levels of progress, used by the DfE and in the Ofsted
Data Dashboard, that sets an expectation of level 5 students achieving only a B. 3 levels of
progress is too low a target for high attainers, while being a very tough target for less able
students.
There have been many dubious measures that have come out of the DfE over the years but this
is possibly the silliest.
Date Source
Key Stage 4 results, and transition tables: Taken from Raise Online library – with thanks to
Heather Leatt
document16