Guidance for Members and School Representatives
Objectives for Performance Management
Guidance sheet 01 Performance Management Objectives - principles and examples
This explains why percentage and levels based objectives for performance management must be challenged and rejected. It gives some examples of appropriate objectives and provides advice to members about how to reverse objectives that are percentage or levels based agreed or imposed in the current cycle.
TWO ACCOMPANYING TOOLKITS TO GO WITH THIS RESOURCE ARE AVAILABLE BELOW.
PM Objectives EXAMPLES (issue 02) SEP17.[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [460.3 KB]
Solihull NASUWT has developed two toolkits for members to use where their professionalism is blighted by the misuse of performance management objectives. Toolkit 01 can be used to challenge adverse decisions about pay progression and threshold arising from the misuse of percentage and levels based objectives in performance management (appraisal). Use Toolkit 02 to challenge unfair judgments from lesson observations. To download the toolkits go to the links below. The toolkits are editable for individual use (xlsx format) in Microsoft Excel 2010 or a compatible programme.
Use this to challenge unfair or misleading decisions arising from performance management (appraisal)
Teacher Performance Challenge.xlsx
Microsoft Excel sheet [29.9 KB]
Use this to challenge unfair judgments arising from lesson observations
Lesson Observation Challenge.xlsx
Microsoft Excel sheet [25.7 KB]
Guidance for members on the practice of work trawls in schools
Guidance sheet 02 Why we reject work trawls
Work trawls should provide a focus for school leaders and learning mentors to have informed discussions with individual students about learning, challenging, when necessary, inadequate work, insufficient effort and poor application in order to address the consequential impact on progress.
The practice is discredited and unhelpful when it is serving the wrong purpose by focussing on the mechanics of marking and used to form spurious judgements of teachers rather than on pupil engagement, effort and responsibility.
Work Trawls (Issue 01) NOV2017 GS02.pdf
Adobe Acrobat document [398.7 KB]
Guidance for members on workload and the interventions phenomenon
Guidance sheet 03 'Workload and the interventions phenomenon'
This article explores the notion ‘intervention’ explains the legitimate, justifiable aspects and lays bare its myths and misconceptions.
Teachers provide opportunities, they facilitate, indeed, the teacher in the classroom is the intervener and teaching is the normal intervention that expedites learning.
Interventions (Issue 01) NOV2017 GS03.pd[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [613.3 KB]
Model Assessment Policy and Marking Guidance
The Solihull NASUWT Model Assessment Policy and Marking Guidance document is presented so that very little modification is needed at schools level. It is fully in-keeping with the Teachers’ Standards, the specified guiding documents listed on page 8 of the model policy, including the Report of the Independent Teacher Workload Review Group: Eliminating unnecessary workload around marking (Dfe March 2016), Ofsted’s Clarification for Schools and the NASUWT Action Short of Strike action Instruction 27 along with the accompanying guidance to members.
The ‘Report of the Independent Teacher Workload Review Group: Eliminating unnecessary workload around marking’ stems from the National Workload Challenge initiated by the Secretary of State. Classroom teachers, school leaders, Unions and Ofsted were all represented on this review body.
SOLIHULL NASUWT MODEL ASSESSMENT POLICY [...]
Adobe Acrobat document [362.0 KB]
A Microsoft WORD version of this document is available to members on application by email to: email@example.com.
Please state your full name and place of work when requesting your 'Word' version of the model policy
The Solihull NASUWT model policy includes in places additional explanations and examples to aid clarity in negotiations; and so, these types of additions to the text may be altered or deleted upon consultation between schools and union representatives. Alternative wording to individual clauses would be acceptable provided such editing does not alter or remove the key principles on which the model policy is based.