Schools are no longer expected to link pay to the performance of teachers thanks to the Workload Reduction Taskforce. But was it ever a feasible approach? And what are primary school leaders planning to do now? Suzanne O'Connell takes a look
Image: Adobe Stock

The Workload Reduction Taskforce, earlier this year, recommended the removal of performance-related pay (PRP). The government agreed and said that it would be replaced from this term with “a less bureaucratic way to manage performance fairly and transparently”.

In announcing this year’s pay award of 5.5%, the Department for Education confirmed: “Schools will no longer be required to use the PRP system, which can lead to schools and teachers going through an overly bureaucratic process to agree individual teachers’ pay rises. This will help improve teacher workload.” (DfE, 2024a).

However, it is uncertain just how many schools will jettison PRP – and to what extent and how quickly – especially with academy schools continuing to have freedom over their pay and conditions.

General secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, Paul Whiteman, said: “(We have) long called for the end of PRP – it has been proven to be ineffective in education and is a bureaucratic burden on schools, so we are pleased that the obligation to use it will be removed from this September.”

He continued: “Given the timing, schools may need to think carefully about how they implement this change, but we will be encouraging them to do so as soon as possible.”

PRP was introduced in 2013 by the coalition government in a bid to improve performance and retain teachers in schools.

However, the system has not been effective. One study revealed that it has had little impact on teacher retention (Anders et al, 2021) and another (Sharp et al, 2017) highlighted challenges in collecting and reviewing “evidence” and the pressure placed on teachers to meet pupil outcome targets as part of PRP.

It has consistently been argued by education unions that the performance of teachers does not lend itself to the kind of statistical analysis that PRP requires – not least the difficulty of judging teachers on pupil attainment data from any given year (Murphy, 2013). The underfunding of education and the budget cuts we have seen since 2010 also undermines the concept.

Many have said that in order to raise performance, appraisal more closely aligned with training opportunities would be beneficial.

Indeed, the DfE’s updated appraisal guidance (2024b) adds: “The removal of the requirement for PRP is to allow schools to have a greater opportunity to focus on professional development in objectives and appraisals.”

 

Ten years of PRP

Up until 2012/13, there was in the majority of cases automatic progression up the pay spine. But then, after accepting recommendations from the School Teachers’ Review Body, the automatic progression of teachers was scrapped. Instead, the next rung was only achievable if goals were met. The reform came into effect across the board in 2014.

Surveys of headteachers (Sharp et al, 2017) show that by 2015, 99% of local authority maintained schools and 62% of academies had implemented pay reforms. The most common types of evidence being used included pupil progress, classroom observation, the Teachers’ Standards, measures linked to school improvement plans, and pupil attainment.

Less likely to be used were feedback from parents/carers, feedback from colleagues, or things such as teachers’ additional responsibilities.

Most schools created a policy to link pay and performance but the difficulties were clear.

Diane Compton, headteacher of Michael Drayton Junior School in Nuneaton, explained: “We used PRP in-line with policy and while teachers have targets ultimately they are measured against the Teachers’ Standards and supported to achieve them.

“It’s always been a grey area trying to stop someone progressing because of lack of progress towards personal targets – as leaders we need to facilitate and motivate that progress, give them time, opportunity and experience, and only when that is done and not received well do the difficult conversations need to start – but only following support.

“Teachers will progress throughout the main pay scale providing Teachers’ Standards are being met and that’s more about capability (fulfilling the role/standards) than personal performance.

“Upper pay range is different in that I expect a substantial and sustained wider contribution and impact to the school.”

 

Has PRP been effective?

The Sharp et al (2017) report identified a number of challenges associated with the pay reforms:

  • Additional staff time involved in collecting and reviewing evidence for performance reviews.
  • Pressure on teachers to meet pupil outcome targets.
  • The challenge of applying a school’s pay policy fairly in certain situations (e.g. job-shares).

The teacher survey conducted as part of the research found that only a quarter of respondents agreed that PRP helped their school further motivate teachers who were already performing well. However, 66% believed that PRP had added to their workload and 58% thought it made no difference whatsoever to the way they worked.

Furthermore, only 7% of headteachers said that PRP had had an impact on recruitment, while just 33% said the same for retention.

More recently the Education Endowment Foundation has concluded that PRP had “low impact for low cost based on very limited evidence” (EEF, 2021). Key findings include:

  • The impact of PRP approaches is low. Schools might consider other more cost-effective ways to improve teacher performance, such as high-quality CPD.
  • Implementing PRP can narrow the focus of your teachers to particular groups or particular measures.

 

What now?

We now wait to see what will happen at the chalkface. But we must remember that this is not just about how we pay teachers, but about workload. Indeed, the clear reason for ditching PRP is the administrative burden it creates for both leaders and teachers. So schools that are serious about reducing workload will be looking at what reforms they can make to their pay systems.

However, it is likely that PRP will remain in some schools for some time. Academy schools, for example, are not statutorily required to follow the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD) and yet many still opted to deliver PRP in line with the previous government’s policy.

Other schools are also likely to maintain their current systems, at least in the short term, as they consider alternatives.

But teachers’ unions are not easing the pressure. Responding to the Workload Reduction Taskforce, the National Education Union said: “While the link between appraisal and pay remains under performance management policies then there will be an element of PRP that remains – particularly as teachers move to the upper pay scale.

“The NEU believes that progression should be automatic and annual on the nine-point pay scale recommended in the STPCD.” (NEU, 2024)

Back at Michael Drayton Junior, Ms Compton said: “It’s about ethical leadership and your moral compass being aligned – you would never set a pupil up to fail and nor would you do it for a member of your staff.”

So as your senior leadership team discussions continue about how to ensure “a less bureaucratic way to manage performance fairly and transparently”, you now have permission to carve-out a system that works for your school and which inspires, supports and motivates your staff. 

 

Headteacher Update Autumn Term Edition 2024

  • This article first appeared in Headteacher Update's Autumn Term Edition 2024. This edition was sent free of charge to UK primary schools in September 2024. A free-to-download digital edition is also available via www.headteacher-update.com/content/downloads 

Further information & resources