Parish Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 I think I read somewhere that children's levels of attainment on profile points should not be used used as targets for performance management. Does anyone know where I may have seen this or am I just making it up? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Performance Management Target Linked To Scale Points Anyone? Hi I started a post with the above title earlier in the year (sorry don't know how to link!) I would also be interested if anyone knows of anything in writing which supports this as I had my performance management meeting yesterday and they want to give me the target of 87% of children reaching 6 points or more in CLL and PRSN. I said I wasn't comfortable with this kind of target especially since I have not completed my baseline assessments yet and can't even say whether it is even remotely possible and also that my early years advisor said this shouldn't be done. My deputy head had not heard of this before and asked me to find the document which supports this. Deb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest heleng Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 One of my performance management targets is always linked to scale points. All the other teachers have pm targets linked to national curriculum levels. In September I do on entry assessments and then I have my PM meeting just after half term. From that meeting I am then set a target of a percentage of children to achieve 6 points in both CLL and PSRN (all areas) based on my on entry data. When my target is reviewed and the new target set, we look at the children who have exceeded 6 points and ones who haven't reached 6 points and I have to justify why they have/ haven't made that progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mundia Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Have a good read of the guidance here. The difficulty with the wording is that although it doesn't say you must have a pupil progress target any more, it doesn't say you cant either. (and old habits die hard). But what it does say is that the objectives (not targets any more) have to be negotiated, realistic, considering work life balance, can be linked to SDP etc. You do have the right to indicate at your meeting and in writing that you consider them unrealistic. Your school should have a policy on this which should state exactly how PM should work.. might be worth having a look at it. And if you haven't got one, you should have! There is a sample one on the link above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Froglet Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I can't help with any wording but last year I had PM targets of 80% getting 6 points in half a dozen different areas and 50% getting 8 points. I hadn't done any kind of baseline at the time and let's put it this way - they were an 'interesting' cohort plus I had 3 more children join during the year (as well as January intake). This year my head is still setting me targets based on scale points but has decided to leave the setting of them until after I've done a baseline which I do feel a little more comfortable with. Might that be a compromise you could suggest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 Hi Speak to teaching union- esp NASUWT, they told our school rep that you cant have a numerical target. you could say that mpst children will have achieved two scale point sof progress or that most children would be achieving a scale point of 6 by the end of the year BUT they had a doucment which stated you cant give % or actual numbers of children!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts