“X per cent of pupils to achieve age-related expectations”
“X per cent of children to make accelerated progress”
Sound familiar? You’ll probably have targets like these burned into your brains. It’s also likely that a pay rise is dependent on whether you meet them or not.
Are you a better teacher for having been set them? No, says one deputy head in the north of England.
Here’s everything that’s wrong with the practice of setting data targets:
- The purpose is unclear: are they developmental? Or is the aim to ensure good results?
- It doesn’t help teachers to grow professionally. What can you learn from a set of targets while waiting for a review meeting? Not much.
- It doesn’t help the teacher to get the kids to achieve.
- It can encourage cheating - teachers are a trustworthy bunch, but the threat of failing performance management can encourage grade inflation.
- It assumes there are no other influencing factors on children’s achievement.
- Nerves and unfamiliar formats don’t always lead to the best results - should they really be the basis of whether or not a teacher passes their performance management?
- It doesn’t focus on what really makes the difference - it’s actions, not the targets that have an impact on learning outcomes.
- It’s a short-sighted view of what is measurable.
- SLT are absolved of responsibility. Leaders are paid to shoulder accountability - performance management should reflect this.
- They drive teachers to leave the classroom for good.
