Appraisal and Pay Progression A new approach to PSP. A Proposal

Transcription

1 Appraisal and Pay Progression A new approach to PSP A Proposal 24 th September

2 Background The SFCA proposals in this paper will, if agreed, establish a new pay structure and pay progression system in sixth form colleges replacing that agreed and introduced in As part of the pay agreement for , it was agreed that a joint working party would meet to discuss issues relating to the pay framework. The working party has met throughout 2014 to discuss the SFCA proposals and the proposals in this document are intended to be consistent with those discussions. 1. The case for change 1.1 The current pay framework was created in 2001 in response to the school teachers framework (featuring the performance threshold and Upper Pay Scale) implemented in Historically the SFC pay framework has closely mirrored the STPCD framework for schoolteachers. This was retained in the broad structure of the SFC framework from 2001 but which also included management ranges for posts of responsibility. 1.2 Since that time the school teachers framework has changed and evolved. It includes TLR payments and a Leadership spine for responsibility posts, which, in colleges, are covered by the management ranges. Schools have seen the introduction of appraisalbased progression on the Main Pay Scale. Finally, the STPCD pay scales for schools are now generally higher than the SFC pay scales, particularly since the 2010 pay agreement (which included a commitment from SFCA to begin to restore pay comparability when possible). 1.3 Since PSP was introduced expectations around college improvement have increased and colleges are looking to revise their pay progression framework to support this process. Other reasons for change include: 1.4 The current pay scales have some difficult anomalies. Points A1, B1 and D1 have pay rates which are less than P3, A3 and C3, so that promotion could lead to less pay. Most colleges deal with this by promoting at the next highest point but this reduces the value of having a pay range to reward improving practice. 1.5 The steps through the current SFCA pay scales are very uneven and range from large hikes above 8% at SP6 and P1 to a low of 1% at E1 (ignoring the negatives at A1, B1 and D1). 1.6 Recruitment of the best new teachers is vital for the health of the sector. Review of the framework allows an opportunity to improve the pay offered at points 1 and 2 above the STPCD rates, as well as at the scale maximum. 1.7 The current framework is not seen as offering a career path for individuals wishing to remain in the classroom, or catering for the circumstances of more senior curriculum/pastoral team and college leaders. 1.8 Many colleges have a large number of posts with additional allowances and/or offscale payments (910 posts in total). These are generally used to pay more senior staff for extra days to cover examination results days and early enrolment in August/September. 2

3 1.9 The current pay framework limits progression to the maximum of the ranges associated with PSP (P1P3) and management allowances (A1 D3) The SFCA s proposals for changes to the SFC framework echo what has already happened in schools. They allow for the restoration of comparability with regard to school teachers pay levels (particularly at the top and bottom of the scales), pay progression and responsibility payments, while retaining specified national pay scales with fixed pay points. 2. The proposals Pay progression and entitlement 2.1 The current structure assumes teachers will progress as an entitlement through the main pay scale (SP1SP6). At SP6, there is the opportunity to apply and be awarded PSP status and then move onto and through the three point PSP range on a twoyear cycle. Management posts, likewise, have a three point range with pay assessment every two years. 2.2 The proposed framework matches the framework now in place in schools by linking pay progression for all teachers to the annual review/appraisal process and to continuing to meet new national Standards. It puts in place a single 9point pay scale without an artificial stepup threshold at point 6, creating a scale which becomes an entitlement subject to acceptable appraisal outcomes, and retaining fixed scale points on a national pay scale for sixth form colleges. The opportunity to secure progression will be annual for all teachers who continue to secure acceptable outcomes in their appraisal reviews and will no longer be dependent on an application process as hitherto. New Sixth Form College Responsibility Allowances (SFCRA) 2.3 The proposal is to replace management grades A, B, C, D and E with a flexible responsibility allowance (SFCRA) system that ranges from 1000 to 10,000. Existing A to D management allowance holders would transfer to SFCRA with a defined payment and performance range equal to A1,A2,A3, B1,B2,B3, C1,C2,C3 and D1,D2,D3. Existing E post holders would transfer to the nearest equivalent points on the Leadership spine. 2.4 For future appointments, the Responsibility Allowance (RA) would be set at a level appropriate to the job description. Colleges would make new appointments either to a spot salary or to a range) to aid performance progression. However, the range would not have to be limited to the existing ceilings at A3, B3, C3 or D3 the framework would allow for further progression through the Responsibility range if this was thought appropriate and justified by excellent and outstanding performance. 2.5 The RA structure would offer scope to provide a career structure which encourages teachers to aspire to be highly skilled expert practitioners. Posts currently paid on Management Ranges C and D could be paid using RAs or on the Leadership spine. Posts paid at range E, which normally involve team leadership at a senior level, would be paid on the Leadership spine. Responsibilities, which are better described as administrative, would be more appropriately rewarded through the Leadership spine. 3

4 2.6 Many of the 910 SFC teachers with additional offscale payments receive these for extra days work. Where such teachers are not employed in future on the Leadership spine, these payments could be replaced by a new responsibility payment. New Leadership Spine 2.7 The proposal is to have a 27 point spine starting at a pay rate equal to existing D1 and rising beyond the maximum of the current E range to encompass also the pay levels now offered to Assistant Principals in the largest colleges. The SFCLeadership spine would therefore provide a structure that could encompass those senior posts currently paid outside the scope of the existing national pay framework. 2.8 The framework proposes the power to vary the working time provisions of the standard contract as required by the post in question. For example, many Colleges currently agree a variation to senior staff terms and conditions by offering an offscale payment to compensate for 5 or 10 extra working days. These days are generally required to provide advice and guidance on results days (midaugust) and conduct admissions processes in late August and early September. An associated new contract for posts on the new Leadership spine would allow this additional working time to be incorporated without the need for offscale or other payments outside the SFC framework. The additional working time would be specified in terms of days and directed time in the teacher s contract. 2.9 The Leadership spine is not intended to encompass Principals; or Deputy Principal and VicePrincipal posts that fall outside the current SFC framework. These latter posts would normally continue to have their pay, terms and conditions determined by the college. Colleges would, however, be free to use the Leadership spine for such senior posts if this was considered appropriate. 3. Proposed pay framework in detail 3.1 The tables use data from the salaries and numbers survey for , based on returns from 78 colleges (84%) and weighted to reflect the total 93 colleges in the SFCA sector. The impact of these changes has been also calculated for each college using SFCA scales and a bespoke transitional spreadsheet for each college would help inform the transition from the current framework to the proposed new framework. 3.2 Table 1 (light green) sets out the current (September 2014) STPCD teachers' pay scales, including advisory points, with the first 12 points on the Leadership spine also shown. 3.3 Table 2 (light blue) sets out the current (Sept 2014) SFC pay scales showing the differentials between the points. It shows the anomalies and uneven steps e.g. promotion to A1, B1 and D1 involves a decrease in pay from the previous range maximum, and the steps range from 2.2% to 8.3%. 3.4 Table 3 (yellow) is the proposed new framework. This provides for even steps through the standard range of 6.6% and then 2% in the leadership spine. The amounts have been calibrated to keep the overall pay bill cost neutral. 3.5 The pay rates at points 13 are higher than STPCD rates and should help recruitment. Although some points are lower higher up the scale than STPCD rates, the new maximum point NSP9 (formerly P3) is higher than the maximum pay rate in schools. The Leadership spine replaces management range E; all other management range pay points are replicated through equivalent allowances within the SFCRA range. 4

5 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Current Salary Structure for teaching Teachers in state schools staff in SFCs Proposed new framework ### Mapping differences (New compared with current) STRB SP Main scale Diff 1 22, ,684 NSP1 22,482 SP1 21,684 NSP1 22, , , % NSP2 23, % SP2 23,401 NSP2 23, , , % NSP3 25, % SP3 25,252 NSP3 25, , , % NSP4 27, % SP4 27,252 NSP4 27, , , % NSP5 29, % SP5 29,409 NSP5 29, , , % NSP6 31, % SP6 31,736 NSP6 31, P1 34, % NSP7 33, % P1 34,382 NSP7 33,069 1,313 U1 34,869 P2 35, % NSP8 35, % P2 35,628 NSP8 35, U2 36,161 P3 37, % NSP9 37, % P3 37,008 NSP9 37, U3 37,496 A1 36,896 NSP9+RA 37, SFC_RA ,000 A2 38,172 NSP9+RA 38,172 0 MIN MAX Management Allowance A3 39,487 NSP9+RA 39,487 TLR SFCL1 44,178 B1 38,635 NSP9+RA 38,635 TLR A1 36,896 SFCL2 45,238 2% B2 39,908 NSP9+RA 39,908 A2 38, % SFCL3 46,324 2% B3 41,225 NSP9+RA 41,225 A3 39, % SFCL4 47,436 2% C1 41,746 NSP9+RA 41,746 L1 38,215 B1 38, % SFCL5 48,574 2% C2 43,019 NSP9+RA 43,019 L2 39,172 B2 39, % SFCL6 49,740 2% C3 44,337 NSP9+RA 44,337 L3 40,150 B3 41, % SFCL7 50,934 2% D1 44,178 NSP9+RA 44,178 L4 41,150 C1 41, % SFCL8 52,156 2% D2 45,312 NSP9+RA 45,312 L5 42,175 C2 43, % SFCL9 53,408 2% D3 46,599 NSP9+RA 46,599 L6 43,232 C3 44, % SFCL10 54,690 2% E1 47,066 SFCL4 47, L7 44,397 D1 44, % SFCL11 56,002 2% E2 48,339 SFCL5 48, L8 45,421 D2 45, % SFCL12 57,346 2% E3 49,655 SFCL6 49, L9 46,555 D3 46, % SFCL13 58,723 2% L10 47,750 E1 47, % SFCL14 60,132 2% L11 48,991 E2 48, % SFCL15 61,575 2% L12 50,118 E3 49, % SFCL16 63,053 2% SFCL17 64,566 2% SFCL18 66,116 2% 37,836 SFCL19 67,703 2% 38,784 SFCL20 69,327 2% 39,752 SFCL21 70,991 2% 40,743 SFCL22 72,695 2% 41,757 SFCL23 74,440 2% 42,803 SFCL24 76,226 2% 43,957 SFCL25 78,056 2% 44,971 SFCL26 79,929 2% 46,094 SFCL27 81,847 2% Table 5 Table Cost of transition Current Pay cost Proposed Pay cost Protection costs Transition costs ,559 3,819,833 3,960, , ,986 5,095,103 5,220, , ,062 6,483,846 6,564,908 81, ,891 7,485,924 7,489,815 3, ,813 8,942,491 8,841, , ,913 21,432,173 20,941, , ,133 21,921,144 21,084, , ,204 21,954,353 21,731, , ,098,725 67,714,502 68,813,227 1,098, ,780 9,424,413 9,608, , ,796,503 8,796, ,740,156 22,740, ,890,719 5,890, ,391,361 5,391, ,292,561 20,292, ,095,398 4,095, ,108,874 5,108, ,732,716 15,732, ,746,135 1,746, ,648,451 3,648, ,120,472 14,120, , , ,789 7, , , ,835 3, ,769 5,122,240 5,131,009 8,769 8, ,589, ,589,716 1,652,063 1,652, % % 0.57% 0.57% 5

6 3.6 Table 4 maps the existing pay points to those on the proposed new framework and shows the cash difference based on pay levels. For teachers on Management ranges A1D3, the table reflects the assimilation proposal to match their current pay by combining P3 (NSP9) with a responsibility payment set at the appropriate level, with progression expectations preserved (ie a teacher at B2 would transfer to an equivalent salary on the new scale ( 39,908) and could expect to progress to 41,225 subject to acceptable performance). 3.7 Table 5 shows the number of posts at each point nationally, the cost of transition to the new scales at each point, the current pay costs at each point and the proposed pay costs of the new scales. The green highlighted box indicates that the net cost of these changes will amount to 582. This represents % of the national salary bill so effectively cost neutral. 3.8 Table 6 shows the potential cost of protecting pay in cash terms at each point. There are only 6 points where current teachers would transfer to a lower pay point. The total cost of protecting these would be 1.65 million which is 0.57% of the national salary bill. The proposal envisages that where any individual college deemed immediate implementation of the new framework unaffordable in the current climate, movement to the new scales could be staged by a phased transition over a number of years calibrated to be cost neutral (see section on Transition and Implementation). 4. Summary of the SFCA view of the proposed new framework 4.1 It creates a coherent logical pay scale which has even steps, no anomalies and is easily adaptable to meet the levels of responsibility found in the SFC teaching workforce. 4.2 It replaces the 6 and 3 point scales with a 9 point scale without the stepup threshold at point 6, creating a scale which becomes an entitlement subject to acceptable appraisal outcomes but bases progression on the requirement to show acceptable appraisal outcomes in annual reviews. 4.3 It resolves the differentials between the SFC and STPCD pay frameworks by offering new entrants a competitive starting salary and career opportunities in both teaching and management and restoring comparability of the pay framework at both the minimum and the maximum of the scale. 4.4 In terms of the national paybill, it is effectively cost neutral and could be implemented with modest pay safeguarding and transitional costs at individual, institutional level. 5. Teacher Standards 5.1 Consultation with colleges in the summer of 2013 strongly supported adopting the new Teachers' Standards for schools, suitably adapted for the 1619 phase, in place of the standards agreed in 2001 which are now felt to be outdated due to developments over the period since then. 5.2 Proposed standards are set out in Appendix 1. It is not expected that teachers will achieve all the standards immediately and for many standards some phasing will be appropriate. The primary purpose of the standards is to provide a consistent and 6

7 transparent set of criteria and professional behaviours to underpin individual college annual reviews and appraisal systems. 6. Process for Annual Appraisal and Pay Review 6.1 The expectation behind the framework is that every teacher should perform at an acceptable level, as measured and judged through the College s own annual Self Assessment Report (SAR) and staff appraisal systems. Teachers who fall below this expectation will be set objectives to improve. Teachers who consistently show no or little improvement will normally be considered through the College s capability procedures. 6.2 For the purposes of pay progression, teachers who meet the standards as evidenced by acceptable appraisal outcomes will be entitled to pay progression where they are eligible. Teachers will not have to apply for progression (unlike PSP) but as part of the review process will be required to complete an Appraisal record (Appendix D), which incorporates the authorisation for additional pay from the Principal. No further evidence will be required from teachers whose appraisal record has been signed off as acceptable. 6.3 Teachers whose appraisal record indicates concerns will have opportunities to address those concerns and may be required to provide evidence that their performance is acceptable before pay progression is authorised. Any teacher eligible for pay progression whose appraisal evidences unacceptable performance will be aware of both the reasons for pay progression being withheld and what they will need to do to improve and the support available for this required improvement. 6.4 The underlying principle underpinning the review and appraisal process is that teachers are assumed to be performing at an acceptable standard unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise. There is no requirement to provide evidence for every standard, or indeed any standard, unless there is a concern over performance. If a line manager has a concern, this should be raised with the teacher when it arises. The line manager should explain the concern and the teacher should then be invited to provide evidence that the standard is in fact being met. If that evidence is not forthcoming then the teacher and line manager should agree and record actions to remedy the situation such as CPD and other supportive measures. Any decision not to recommend pay progression has to be based on clear evidence that the standards are not being met and that the teacher has been given every opportunity to put things right. 6.5 Colleges conduct annual appraisals at different times of the year. This is not an issue for this process provided the College is in a position to make decisions about pay progression for September 1 st of each year where appropriate. 6.6 However, there could be a problem if the data for Standard S1.2 (a) is based on the previous year s teaching (e.g. student outcomes for informing decisions about pay progression in September 2016). This clearly will not work for teachers in their first year of teaching and may extend into the second year if a teacher is only teaching 2 year linear courses. It may also be considered demotivating if a teacher has shown improvement inyear and cannot be rewarded for that until after the results and their impact on teaching grading s are known (after September 1 st ). We recommend, therefore, that Colleges decide to make a progression payment retrospectively i.e. dated from 1 st September but not authorised until the data has been analysed (usually not before October or later). 7

8 6.7 Teachers in their first year have no data on which to base effective learning judgements. However College managers can assess the impact and quality of teaching based on observation and other evidence. This should be used in the first and possibly second years of teaching to decide progression payments. 6.8 Responsibility and Leadership spine allowances are specific to individuals and their job description. Pay progression should depend on meeting the national teaching standards and any responsibility or leadershipspecific targets set the previous year at the appraisal/annual review meeting. Colleges could also devise their own responsibility allowance and Leadership standards and use these to assess suitability for performance progression payments. The management standards used in the existing PSP framework are listed in Appendix E and can be used as a starting point for agreed targets and standards specific to each responsibility and leadership role. 6.9 Decisions to withhold pay progression are subject to appeal. The appeal process regarding decisions over pay is set out in the conditions of service handbook (the Red book). 7. Transition and implementation 7.1 Although the proposed new framework itself is, overall, cost neutral, the costs of implementing it in individual colleges will range from 3,600 to a little over 35,000, with the average being 18,000, if individual teachers pay is to be protected in cash terms. 7.2 The framework requires that teachers whose salary is decreased in the transition from the old to the new pay framework will have their salary protected until it catches up through natural pay progression. Teachers who move to a higher rate are normally expected to benefit from that increase unless the college wishes to consult over applying limited rises to help cushion the cost of protection. 7.3 Example In College A, 10 teachers are at P1 and to protect their salaries a sum of 1,249 will be added to their new salary of 32,739 to protect the old salary of 34,042. This costs 12,490. The college may seek to offset this cost by capping the pay increase for 25 teachers at P3, who would otherwise gain 657, to just 157 (saving 12,500). 7.4 For most teachers not at the top of their scale, there will remain opportunities to progress provided they meet the new standards. This should accelerate the transition process to the new framework and reduce the extent of protection eg a teacher at P2 will receive 302 protection initially but, if moving to NSP9 the following year, will then receive a higher salary than under the old pay framework and will no longer need any protection. 7.5 Notwithstanding the example above, the amounts required to maintain pay protection are relatively small and the recommendation is to make these adjustments in one year. Colleges may consider that the time required and the complexity of making staged adjustments are outweighed by the relatively small cost of making these changes in one year. 8

9 Appendix A: The Standards Standard 1 Effective Teaching and Learning A teacher must: 1.1. Set high expectations which inspire, motivate and challenge students establish a safe and stimulating environment for students, rooted in mutual respect set goals that stretch and challenge students of all backgrounds, abilities and dispositions demonstrate the positive attitudes, values and behaviour which are expected of students. S1.2. Promote good progress and outcomes by students be accountable for students attainment, progress and outcomes be aware of students capabilities and their prior knowledge, and plan teaching to build on these guide students to reflect on the progress they have made and their emerging needs demonstrate knowledge and understanding of how students learn and how this impacts on teaching encourage students to take a responsible and conscientious attitude to their own work and study. S1.3. Demonstrate good subject and curriculum knowledge have a secure knowledge of the relevant subject(s) and curriculum areas, foster and maintain students interest in the subject, and address misunderstandings demonstrate a critical understanding of developments in the subject and curriculum areas, and promote the value of scholarship demonstrate an understanding of and take responsibility for promoting high standards of literacy, articulacy and the correct use of standard English, whatever the teacher s specialist subject S1.4 Plan and teach wellstructured lessons impart knowledge and develop understanding through effective use of lesson time promote a love of learning and young people s intellectual curiosity set homework and plan other outofclass activities to consolidate and extend the knowledge and understanding students have acquired reflect systematically on the effectiveness of lessons and approaches to teaching contribute to the design and provision of an engaging curriculum and scheme of work within the relevant subject area(s). S1.5 Adapt teaching to respond to the strengths and needs of all students 9

10 know when and how to differentiate appropriately, using approaches which enable students to be taught effectively have a secure understanding of how a range of factors can inhibit students ability to learn, and how best to overcome these demonstrate an awareness of the physical, social and intellectual development of young people, and know how to adapt teaching to support students education at different stages of development have a clear understanding of the needs of all students, including those with special educational needs; those of high ability; those with English as an additional language; those with disabilities; and be able to use and evaluate distinctive teaching approaches to engage and support them. S1.6 Make accurate and productive use of assessment know and understand how to assess the relevant subject and curriculum areas, including statutory assessment requirements make use of formative and summative assessment to secure students progress use relevant data to monitor progress, set targets, and plan subsequent lessons give students regular feedback, both orally and through accurate marking, and encourage students to respond to the feedback. S1.7 Manage behaviour effectively to ensure a good and safe learning environment have clear expectations and routines for behaviour in classrooms and take responsibility for promoting good and courteous behaviour both in classrooms and around the college in accordance with appropriate college policies manage classes effectively, using approaches which are appropriate to students needs in order to involve and motivate them maintain good relationships with students, exercise appropriate authority, and act decisively when necessary. These standards will be evidenced by Observation Records and any other documentation as appropriate, e.g. CPD Records, Individual Learning Plans, Tracking and target setting documentation, schemes of work, lesson plans, student perception surveys etc. Standard 2 Professional Characteristics A teacher is expected to demonstrate consistently high standards of professional, personal and professional conduct. The following statements define the behaviour and attitudes which set the required standard for professional responsibilities and conduct throughout a teacher s career. S2.1 Professional Responsibilities make a positive contribution to the wider life and ethos of the college develop effective professional relationships with colleagues, knowing how and when to draw on advice and specialist support deploy support staff effectively 10

11 take responsibility for improving teaching through appropriate professional development, responding to advice and feedback from colleagues communicate effectively with parents/carers with regard to students achievements and wellbeing. S2.2 Personal and Professional Conduct Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside college, by: treating students with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher s professional position having regard for the need to safeguard students wellbeing, in accordance with statutory provisions showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs ensuring that personal beliefs are not expressed in ways which exploit students vulnerability or might lead them to break the law. Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the college in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality. Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the contractual frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. This standard will be evidenced by a statement of compliance by the teacher and endorsed by the appraiser/ line manager on a default model. i.e. evidence will only be required where there is a potential issue over that standard. See appendix D for documentation to support this. Removal of Standard 3 Effective Learning The existing PSP scheme includes a value added standard requiring two whole classes, when measured against the ALPs subject median performance at AS and A2 based on the complete SFC dataset, to fall within half an A or AS level grade of the median. It also includes a retention element with a standard set at the mean for SFCs of 90% for A2 and 80% for AS. The proposed scheme does not include a specific nationally prescribed standard in relation to student outcomes which fall within section 1.2 of the Teacher Standards above. Instead, colleges will use their own range of measures to determine whether performance has reached an acceptable level in terms of student outcomes. To support these judgements, SFCA will establish a new set of Sixth Form College benchmarks with ALPs and with other suppliers of valueadded measures which will incorporate all subjects at A level, AS level and BTEC classes and set the standard at acceptable teaching. This will rely on collecting a full data set from all SFCs and will also include a retention element. This will be basic and nationallyrecommended point of reference for such judgments. Colleges may, however, wish to include and incorporate other valueadded performance measures which they use and have developed for QA and appraisal purposes (e.g. ALIS, 6dimensions etc). 11

12 Appendix B: Management Criteria (reproduced from the existing nationally agreed PSP manual) To meet the management criteria, a teacher with management responsibilities will need to demonstrate some or all of the following, according to their specific role in the college. 1. Managing People To meet this criterion, teachers with management responsibility must demonstrate the ability to: 1.1 Recruitment and induction of staff e.g Involvement in selection process Arrangements for induction and mentoring 1.2 Develop others e.g. Team Build to match /meet strategic objectives Coach others to develop skills Properly apply staff appraisal systems Provide staff development & training 1.3 Communicate with others e.g. Chair /contribute to meetings Clear strategic and operational statements / reports Action ensured through appropriate delegation, motivation or instruction. Be able to represent team issues to other audiences e.g. Governors, parents, students and staff. 1.4 Manage others fairly e.g. Ensure equal opportunities for all staff /applicants Care for others through the application of Health & Safety procedures Confidence & competence to challenge poor standards of work through college procedures. Appropriate application of recognition/ rewards 2. Managing Other Resources The manager should demonstrate that they are committed professionals who by their support and leadership ensure that the resources provided to them are used to the greatest possible effect in improving the learning of the students in their area of responsibility. To meet this criterion, teachers with management responsibility must demonstrate the ability to: 2.1 Effectively utilise the physical resources available to them. 2.2 Ensure the quality of the learning environment e.g Quality of displays Quality of learning materials available Updating and ensuring the maintenance of the equipment ICT 2.3 Participate in the construction of a budget and account for its use e.g. Submission of costed plans for resource allocation 12

13 Accurate record of spending 2.4 Demonstrate their commitment for value for money e.g. Expenditure records Comparisons carried out in relation to benchmark data Costed replacement policy 3. Team Achievement To meet this criterion, teachers with management responsibilities must demonstrate the ability to ensure the achievement of individual and team objectives, including progressing staff on the teachers main scale towards the PSP criteria and when eligible to apply, ensuring that members of the team meet the defined standards. 4.Planning and Managing Change To meet this criterion, teachers with management responsibility must demonstrate the ability to: 4.1 Develop a view of the future e.g. Identify issues, gather and analyse data. Share knowledge and understanding with team members Facilitate participation and discussion Agree a vision with the team which balances appropriately stability and change 4.2 Plan to achieve the change e.g. Identify strategic options and their strengths/weaknesses and feasibility Select the chosen option identifying aims/objectives, targets and PI s within given timescales. Share the plan with the target audience Work to and meet deadlines 4.3 Effective Management of change e.g. Identify duties and allocate them clearly to the team Encourage performance monitoring Monitor, evaluate and adjust the plan, in light of performance, negotiating as required 13