Accountability for 12%
The interim review phase of leadership reminded me to search out a bookmarked social media post from Thomas Rogers.
Targets (I implore you to not use that term “aims / objectives”) were set back in October. We are approaching internal and external assessments and as yet we do not have any terminal performance data to assess what has been learnt. As we reach the half-way point in the review process, we are looking for progress towards those targets (aims and objectives) sadly, this is how many (if not most) schools manage teacher performance for the majority of their teachers. The final review including the terminal results of internal or external exams.
When using student performance targets, as many schools still do, I would highlight that –
- Approximately 88% out-of-school factors affect GCSE results (52% heritability and 36% environmental / social)
- Approximately 12% within school, or school factors (including class sizes, budgets, teaching quality for example).
- English student total contact time: approx. 3%.
There is little evidence to suggest we can link the performance of a teacher to a set or sets of exam results whereas there plenty of evidence to suggest hereditary and environmental factors have the dominant impact.
If you insist on using student performance targets, use benchmark performance aims intelligently, consider the education experience of the students this year, and if using Y11, of their academic career. The impact of the previous teachers is a lasting impact.
Preferably – find a better way to build trust and confidence in your professional relationships and performance reviews.
This summary is attributed to Thomas Rogers – from a social media post I booked marked back in January. Thomas also wrote a full post for the TES. @RogersHistory