Why is this? I can only surmise, but perhaps it's because teachers work in an industry that is about right and wrong, the big cross in red pen on our work that leaves us feeling less than adequate and that we were wrong. Or perhaps a teacher has had a horrid experience and associates the process with performance management, “I could lose my job here. I have a mortgage to pay and a family to support.”
Whatever the reason, it is vital for education that we tackle these fears and encourage every teacher and school leader to take on a growth mindset. The quality of teaching is a significant contributor to student learning as supported by Hattie’s research.
Teacher quality is one of the most significant factors affecting student learning. Effective teachers are those who can create positive relationships with students, provide clear and constructive feedback, and engage students in the learning process” (Hattie, J. Visible Learning, 2008).
If we are genuinely passionate about our students, we should be focused on getting better at what we do for them. Professional growth is promoted firstly by effective feedback, and secondly, a teachers’ response to that feedback.
When giving feedback to a teacher about their practice, in my experience as a school principal, few people have the skills to give feedback in a way that promotes growth. Coupled with a skill gap, most supervisors of teachers (e.g., Heads of Department and senior staff) do not want to risk upsetting a colleague because they sit with them in the same staff room and socialise with them on the weekend, so the feedback is about praise and ‘ticking the appraisal box.’
The other problem with appraisal systems for schools is time. With the best of intentions, a well-formed policy and procedure and highly skilled practice in the art of giving feedback, schools have found that a truly effective process is extremely resource intensive and not sustainable.
Back in February 2011 the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) released the National Professional Standards for Teachers (NPST). This ground-breaking document provided a framework to measure good practice to support teacher growth. Is a particular teacher at a Graduate, Proficient, Highly Accomplished or Lead level of practice?
With the introduction of the NPST schools were left to design tools and mechanisms for appraising staff. Some schools have done this, many have not. Enterprise Bargaining Agreements (EBAs) used the NPST to create a form of performance pay. If a teacher were successfully assessed and met the standards of either Highly Accomplished or Lead, they would be paid more.
Most of the nation’s teachers sit at the Proficient level, even teachers with 20+ years of experience. Worryingly, very few teachers have applied for, and been acknowledged as Highly Accomplished or Lead. Why is this? Again, perhaps it is because teachers are fearful of feedback and failure, or maybe the process is so difficult, costly and time consuming that most balk at it.
Personally, I find it a nonsense that we have a policy of paying a teacher additional money because they are Highly Accomplished, a nonsense not because of the notion of more money for teachers, but because I believe it sends a message of mediocracy. Why should we accept “Proficient” as acceptable for a professional who has been working in the classroom for more than seven years? Surely with the qualifications they have, the years of experience, coupled with feedback to promote growth that they ‘should have been receiving’, they should be Highly Accomplished? Maybe the missing piece in this equation is the quality of feedback and the support a teacher receives?
Interestingly, there is not a lot of research around teacher’s perceptions and experiences of a performance and development process. Kerry Elliott contributed to the little work there is with her PhD thesis on the topic, completed in 2019 at the Melbourne Graduate School of Education. Elliott begins her thesis makes this statement:
Despite policies and guidelines introducing teacher performance and development systems at a local, national, and international level, current findings would suggest there is limited evidence that existing systems support teacher performance and development or that the major intentions of performance and development are the reality for some teachers.
Elliott did a multi-case study. Her research took place in three government primary schools in metropolitan Melbourne. The study took place in Victoria because that State’s Department of Education mandated a performance and development process for all its schools following the introduction of the NPST. Appraisal for Victorian government schools has become the norm not the exception.
Elliott’s research has some limitations. It was carried out in primary schools and not secondary schools. It was a limited sample, and it was looking at the perceptions of teachers who work in a school where appraisal is the norm.
These limitations aside, Elliott’s research has several highly relevant findings for any school wanting to support their teachers’ growth and progression as professionals. The main contributors to the success of an “appraisal” system are: the culture of the school; the validity of the appraisal system; and, the trust the teachers have in the principal that the process is about helping them improve rather than being punitive.
Trust is the key to the successful implementation and success of a system to support a teacher’s growth and progression.
My own PhD research into trust and leadership uncovered many things including this finding about trust in someone (e.g., the principal): It is not a matter of whether you are trusted or not, but rather, how much you are trusted. For an appraisal system to do what it intends the teachers must have a high level of trust in their principal and the school must have a culture of trust, otherwise, teachers will revert to a place of fear and conspiracy, “what is the boss going to do with these results about my performance?”
All of this highlights the complexity of a highly effective system of growth and progression for teachers. Teachers need to want to grow. Teachers need to trust that the true intention of an appraisal system is for their professional growth and career progression. An appraisal system needs to be valid and helpful. People tasked with giving feedback need to be skilled and highly trusted. The feedback given needs to promote growth. Teachers need to take feedback on board and respond accordingly. Principals must focus on building a culture of trust to ensure everyone feels safe to take risks, be open to feedback and feel personally supported as an individual who is passionate about their students.
The team at Vivedus is keenly aware of all these complexities because we are teachers, and we are researchers. We have experienced the best, the worst, and the absence of feedback systems. As a principal I received five-yearly 360-degree performance reviews carried out by a consultant that determined if I would be given a new contract or not. As a result of our experience and understanding we are passionate and committed to supporting teachers’ growth.
Vivedus’s system of growth and progression is about providing a teacher with real-time feedback that acknowledges and encourages their growth. The system is about reducing the stress of feedback and making it a positive experience. The system cuts out the risk of feedback being given poorly and supports school leaders and principals to build a culture of trust, so you feel safe and valued as a professional.
Your personal growth and progression is vital for the learning of the students in front of you. What is holding you back from getting better at your job?
If you have any comments or experiences you would like to share, we would love to hear from you.
