Management Information Sheet

Upper Pay Spine Progression - UPS3

MI Sheet Type	Action
To Be Completed By:	19/11/04
MI Number:	203/04
Publication Date:	06/11/2004
LA Contact:	Bob Hedley (01603 222418)
Audience:	All Schools
Links:	mi_190-04.htm

Upper Pay Spine Progression - UPS3

Upper Pay Spine Progression - UPS3

From 2004, teachers who met the threshold standards and

· moved to point 1 on the upper pay spine ’UPS’ with effect from 1^st September 2000 and

· moved to point 2 on the same scale from 1^st September 2002

must be considered for movement to point 3 effective from 1^st September 2004.

There will be other staff who have reached point M6 on the salary scale later than September 2000 and these staff, in common with those first considered, will become eligible for consideration for the award of an additional point once they have been on their existing point for two years.

This letter sets out the arrangements which you should follow and constitutes my recommended approach to UPS3.

In giving this advice, reference has been made to the contents of the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document 2004 and the previous advice I issued in October 2002. I have also consulted with the Norfolk Teachers’ Panel and they have indicated that they are content with my proposal to re-issue the advice I gave in October 2002 ’then on movement to UPS2’ as the basis. My advice on movement to UPS2 as follows:-

Although schools may determine their own process for performance and pay review following consultation between the Headteacher, staff and Governors, and in accordance with national pay and conditions legislation, this advice is subject to ongoing discussion with the Norfolk Teachers’ Panel which represents all the teacher trade unions. I commend it to you as a basis for the process of progression on the upper pay spine.

The Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document requires that, when making a determination on the salary of a post-threshold teacher, no award can be made unless:

· there has been a review of performance;

· the achievements of the post-threshold teacher and his/her contribution to the school have been substantial and sustained.

The post-threshold criterion of:

· substantial and sustained achievement and contribution to the school requires a maintenance of threshold standards.

Specifically the DfES guidance states:

The relevant body will be expected to use the outcome of statutory performance or appraisal reviews to inform decisions on pay progression, but they can also draw on other relevant evidence. The Secretary of State would expect the relevant body to consider the totality of a teacher’s work when reaching its decisions, bearing in mind the breadth of factors in the threshold standards. Objectives or targets for action form an important framework for assessing performance but there is no automatic link between meeting objectives or targets and the award of a pay point. A teacher who has made good progress on, but not quite achieved, a very challenging objective or target may have performed better and made a more significant contribution than a teacher who has met in full a less stretching objective or target .

Therefore, the evaluation of post-threshold performance should include the following aspects of the teacher’s work:

· maintenance of each of the 8 threshold standards;

· progress towards the areas for further development identified in the threshold process;

· subject to contextual factors, performance objectives agreed or set under performance management.

What does the Headteacher need to do?

Review the documented evidence that will have been produced during the two years, i.e. 1^st September, 2002 to 31^st August, 2004, of the post-threshold period. ’It is the Headteacher’s responsibility to collect this - teachers should not be asked to collect evidence for the Headteacher’. This might include:

test and assessment data;
records of teacher’s observations;
records of attendance on training;
Ofsted reports;
any external reviews;
work sampling records.

My advice is that it is this recorded evidence which should be drawn upon in making decisions. Where evidence has not been recorded but is part of the Headteacher’s knowledge of a teacher’s work, there will be difficulties in citing such unrecorded evidence if the Headteacher’s decision is that the individual should not progress.

In reaching the decision, take account of achievement or progress towards each teacher’s performance management objectives.

Having reviewed the evidence and taken account of progress towards performance management objectives, consider these to inform his/her judgement about substantial and sustained achievement of the threshold standards as set out above and inform the teachers concerned and the Governing Body Pay Committee.

Note that headteachers are responsible for making professional judgements about the performance and effectiveness of individual teachers, and the role of the Governors is to satisfy themselves that the recommendations are evidence-based. Governors should not normally become involved in the detail of performance assessment.

Satisfy him/herself, accordingly, that sufficient and appropriate evidence has been used during the review to secure an accurate judgement about teachers’ performance and be prepared to demonstrate this, if required to do so by the Governing Body’s Pay Committee.

Recognise that teachers will have a right of appeal. The process of appeal will need to accord to the present arrangements for salary appeals under the school’s pay policy.

Cases of teacher absence or periods of employment of less than one year

Note that absence from school or a period of employment at the school of less than one year does not disqualify a teacher from progression on the upper pay spine. ’Missing at least one year would appear to rule out making a reasonable assessment of a teacher’s contribution’.

Where a teacher has worked at the school for less than a year, the Headteacher is expected to make every effort to contact the previous school to seek confirmation that the teacher’s achievement in the previous post met all the threshold standards for the relevant period. In some cases, teachers may themselves provide written evidence from the previous Headteacher. It is important to note that although it may be in the teacher’s interest to seek to provide evidence themselves when they move mid-year, it is the current Headteacher’s responsibility to compile the necessary evidence.

In making a recommendation for progression, the Headteacher is required to satisfy him/herself that a teacher has continued to perform at the required standards. Only in periods of exceptionally prolonged absence might it be deemed impossible to reach an informed judgement about performance and in those circumstances, it is left to the Headteacher’s judgement to determine whether or not sufficient evidence is available to enable a judgement to be reached. In such circumstances, I would advise that the Headteacher takes soundings from the school’s Review & Development Adviser and Personnel Consultant.

Teachers who are employed on short fixed-term contracts of less than 12 weeks’ duration are not covered by the statutory performance management regulations. This may not be a problem, however, as the DfES has made it clear that if performance management procedures are not in place ’or do not cover a particular teacher’, this does not mean that he/she cannot be considered for pay progression. As long as a review of the teacher’s performance shows that he/she meets the sustained and substantial criteria, he/she can be recommended for pay progression.

In the case of a teacher with part-time posts at more than one school, the award does not commit another school at which the teacher works to award a point. That school should make its own assessment, points only become portable when teachers move between schools.

Notification

I am attaching a simple proforma which you may find useful as a means of notifying Education Personnel Services and the Pay Committee.

Salary Support Grant

Schools will receive a grant, via a formula based on the number of eligible staff, allowing some of the costs to be defrayed, as set out in Sara Rope’s letter of 19^th October 2004 ’MI 190/04 refers’. Please return the grant form referred to in that letter no later than 19^th November 2004.

If you have any queries or concerns about the content of this letter, please contact your school’s Personnel Consultant in the first instance.