Focus Group Meeting
Performance and Development in schools
Proposed enhancements for 2014
22/11/13 ( Photos attached)
Presented by Carmel Akerley
This process is seeking feedback and ideas to enhance performance and development
( Weighted score, consistency across the state, focus on development and stretching- growing.)
They want to build on current practice and to build on capabilities.
Greater emphasis development planning and feedback
Conversations around differentiated performance ( including a performance rating scale)and greater focus on capability building.
General discussion about different review processes in regional schools.( Strong emphasis on showing personal growth and tying it all back to the school's strategic plan)
Carmel wanted to know from us if the new process ( from the Department's New Directions document ) will best fit all sizes of school.
The balanced scorecards were discussed.( We felt the term 'scorecard' was a blocker)
There is a huge variance between school performance and even between performance in individual classrooms in schools.
Cascading performance expectations consist of inputs (eg resource management) and outcomes ( eg professional knowledge ) and aligns school priorities with teacher development
The enhanced PD cycle is ongoing and reflective and personal/ school goal driven.
Two elements include the standards ( meeting the requirements of your role) and meeting the goals of the school through the AIP.
Starting assumption is that PD culture is performing well.Research says that the process shifted schools to embed practices but there were disconnects.- in many schools there is not a strong culture of targeting the improvement of practice.We need a consistent format.
There was a feeling that there needs to be more emphasis on development.
Principal class performance domains:
1.Capability development and quality teaching
2.Strategic resource management
3.Relationships and system engagement
4).School student growth outcomes
We had a robust discussion about some of the terminology, ( use of the term productivity was questioned) and having goals in each domain.
Guide on weighting:
weighting would be 10% for domain 1, 10% domain 2, 10% domain 3' domain 4 50% with a discretionary weighting of 5% increments.
When beginning the review process there would be an opportunity to allocate preferred minimum and maximum weight to each domain.
Teacher performance domains consist of:
1. Student outcomes
2. Professional knowledge - know how students learn, know the content and how to teach it.
3. Professional practice - planning for effective teaching and learning, assessment, reporting on student learning
4. Professional engagement- engage in professional learning, engage professionally with colleagues, parents/ careers and the community.
Teachers would identify a goal from each domain.
Guide on weightings:
Teacher weightings 15% domain1, 15% domain2, 15 % domain 3 and 40% domain 4 with 15% discretionary weighting.
Each domain must have an allocated weight range.
Some concerns that the weighting in the first 3 domains should lead to success in domain 4 ( it is a product of the others) therefore it should not be worth 50%.Questions about data sets - multiple sources of data to be used at our discretion. Likewise domain 1 is the most important domain and should be higher.
At the end of the cycle we would be looking at the differentiated performance assessment ( In the mid cycle review we are looking at whether we need to provide more support) At the end of the cycle they propose a five point scale
1- not meeting
( below achievement of the goal)
3- at or above
There will be an overall rating using the indicative scale. We were asked about whether we liked the scale and the wording for it.
A concern that staff will see this as a compliance checklist. Concerns that it doesn't support team work and collaboration within the school.
The debate was robust. The process is due to be rolled out early next year.