1. Esther Bushell – School Governance and Workforce Adviser
Education (School Teacher Appraisal) (England) Regulations 2012
A briefing for Heads and Governors
Esther Bushell – School Governance and Workforce Adviser

2. Outline of this briefing
Overview of the new process
Key differences between 2006 and 2012 regulations
Overview of the link between appraisal and capability procedures

3. The new appraisal process – key headlines
Comes into being for any appraisal cycle that starts after 1st September 2012
More formal link between appraisal and capability process
Statutory requirements reduced by 75%
Applies to all teachers in maintained schools

4. Appraisal will consist of...
Formal annual assessment of a teacher’s performance against the Teaching Standards
Formal annual assessment of a teacher’s performance against their objectives

5. The appraisal report will include...
An assessment of the teacher’s performance against the teaching standards and their objectives
An assessment of the teacher’s training and development needs
A recommendation on pay where relevant

6. Key differences between the 2006 and 2012 regulations – The Policy
Governing Body must establish a Performance Management Policy
Governing body must adopt and make available a document setting out the appraisal process
Policy must be consulted on with teachers and trade union representatives
Policy must be reviewed every year
Policy had to include arrangements for the monitoring and evaluation of the policy
HT required to provide a written report annually to the FGB about the application of the PM policy in the school
The policy was required to show the link between the PM process and school improvement and development planning
The policy had to include a classroom observation protocol
Model Policy provided by RIG was “Strongly Recommended”
Model Policy provided by DfE is optional

7. Key differences between the 2006 and 2012 regulations – The Cycle
Twelve months from 31st October -31st October for teachers.
Twelve months
Twelve months from 31st December – 31st December for headteachers
Cycle required to be the same for all teachers excluding heads
For teachers moving post/ school, the HT can decide whether the cycle should start again. All cycles end on 31st October.
HT can decide on shorter or longer cycles to accommodate teachers arriving or leaving a school.

8. Key differences between the 2006 and 2012 regulations – HT appraisal
Performance Management Committee of 2 or 3 governors.
Headteacher is appraised by the governing body.
Where the HT was unhappy with the members of the committee, he could request a change in writing to the FGB
Teachers or staff governors could not review the performance of the HT
Governing body set objectives having consulted the external adviser or SIP where applicable
Governing body must set objectives having consulted an external adviser which they appoint.
Headteacher will be assessed annually against the teaching standards
Governing body will inform the HT the standards they will be assessed against.

9. Key differences between the 2006 and 2012 regulations – Appointment of appraiser
The Headteacher was reviewer for all teachers
The Headteacher is the appraiser for all teachers
The Headteacher could choose to delegate the role of reviewer in its entirety.
The Headteacher will decide who will appraise other teachers
The reviewer had to be a teacher in a line management or higher position in the staffing structure.
Where the teacher was unhappy with the choice of reviewer, they could request a change in writing to the HT.

10. Key differences between the 2006 and 2012 regulations – Setting of Objectives
Objectives must contribute to improving pupils’ progress
Objectives must contribute to school improvement
Performance management planning statement had to include
Objectives
Arrangements for classroom observation
Evidence that will be taken into account
Performance criteria
Support to be provided
Timescales
Objectives must be
Specific
Measurable
Achievable
Realistic
Time-bound
Plan written and passed to teacher for agreement within 5 days
Right of appeal to any of the entries on the performance management planning statement

11. Key differences between the 2006 and 2012 regulations – Classroom Observation
Classroom observation protocol included as part of the PM policy
PM planning statement included planned observations and detailed
Purpose of the observation
Particular aspects of teacher’s performance being assessed
Classroom observation had to be conducted by a qualified teacher
3-hour limit to classroom observation for performance management purposes
Verbal feedback given to teacher within 24 hours
Written feedback given to teacher within 5 days
Teacher could add comments to the written feedback of the lesson observation

12. Key differences between the 2006 and 2012 regulations – Review of Performance
No surprises – review meeting looked at evidence that had been decided upon in the planning statement
Within 5 days of the review meeting, reviewer required to produce a draft and pass to the teacher.
Within 10 days of the review meeting, reviewer required to produce a final version
A written report to be produced after the end of each appraisal period which includes three elements
assessment of performance
assessment of professional development needs
pay recommendation where relevant
Reviewer required to make a recommendation on pay progression where relevant
Teacher had a right to appeal against any entry on their review statement

13. The link between appraisal and capability
Is the teacher performing well throughout the year?
Yes
Continue with appraisal No
Constructive feedback throughout the year, review targets, explain implications of poor performance

14. The link between appraisal and capability
Has teacher made sufficient progress since your initial concerns?
Yes
Continue with appraisal No
Formal capability meeting.
Conducted by HT
Explores professional shortcomings
Decides whether there is a case to answer

15. The link between appraisal and capability
Was there a case to answer? No
Continue with appraisal
Yes
Formal written warning (final written warning for very serious cases)
Sets out actions needed to bring about improvement
Sets out a review date

16. The link between appraisal and capability
Formal review meeting – has sufficient progress been made?
Yes
Continue with appraisal No
Final Written warning
Sets out improvements needed
Sets a date for a decision meeting

17. The link between appraisal and capability
Decision meeting – has sufficient progress been made?
Yes
Continue with appraisal No
Dismissal with notice
Right to appeal

18. The link between appraisal and capability
Formal Capability meeting
Formal written warning
Formal review meeting
Final written warning
Decision meeting
Dismissal

19. Sources of further information
– Teacher Appraisal and Capability Model Policy – 2012 Education (School Teacher Appraisal) Regulations - these slides