Arguments which may assist in challenging the use of simplistic data driven targets when setting objectives for performance management.

Analysing data to inform pedagogic practice is now routine in schools. In principle there is no objection to linking performance management objectives to data. However, there is likely to be a tendency in some schools to set simplistic performance criteria against which the success of a teacher in meeting their objective will be judged using a simple numeric i.e. 75% of pupils will gain the following XXX. Objectives should focus on enhancing practice and the process for doing this. If they do not how can necessary CPD and support be put in place as required by the performance management regulations? Exam achievement is individual student achievement and subject to a number of influencing factors most of which are not in the direct control of the teacher. Performance management is about enhancing and developing the professional performance of teachers, reducing this to a simplistic arithmetical figure is not appropriate. Setting objectives should be underpinned by a professional dialogue between the teacher and their reviewer and in this dialogue teachers should challenge any insistence that an objective or other evidence should have a performance (success) criterion that has a simplistic, data driven numerical target. The following questions should help in making the necessary challenge.

• How will the reviewer help you to achieve such an objective? • What CPD will be offered to support the achievement of this objective? • How will lesson observations be focused and other evidence assessed

when the only criteria will be a figure that will not be known until August?

• How will the use of such a simplistic numerical target fit in with the emphasis on a continual dialogue and support the regulatory requirement that in the review meeting there should be no surprises at the meeting? Progress, in respect of any objective, must be clear throughout the performance management cycle - if all aspects have gone smoothly a reviewer cannot just say you have failed to achieve because of the August result.

Performance management is not a microcosm of the school’s targets and should not be interpreted as such. Data helps identify collective issues and trends but practice and process is the key to setting objectives with support to move teaching and learning forward. A simplistic data driven objective, with a success criteria that is purely an arithmetical figure/percentage, is unacceptable and does not conform to the ethos of performance management was intended to develop. These issues are also important considerations in other contexts where judgements are made about the performance of teachers. In particular, it is essential that data is used appropriately in setting objectives and assessing the performance of Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs) as part of the induction process. Similarly, when teachers are subject to capability procedures, arrangements for monitoring and tracking progress in their practice and performance should not be based on the imposition of simplistic data-driven targets.