As the current round of HT performance management is over (or should be!), I have been pondering on the criteria for giving HT's a pay rise. The guidance is quite clear that such a rise is dependant on HT having delivered 'sustained high quality of performance' (often quoted as Sustained Outstanding Performance SOP, so that's the phrase I shall use), yet I hear of many HTs around the country being given automatic pay rises by their governors without having delivered SOP.
For me, sustained outstanding performance goes beyond both business as usual and PM - I expect them to deliver more than was asked and can be expected over the whole year. Having moved away from the automatic progression that has plagued the public sector for so long, we now need to recognise that increases in remuneration are properly awarded for delivering more than the day job and for developing one's capability more than might be expected each year. The pay rise will then be a recognition of this contribution and development rather than just occupying a post and delivering the minimum required.
Any governor who agrees to a rise in circumstances other than where SOP has been delivered is corrupting the system and weakening the position of those of us who operate within the guidelines that took so long and so much effort to thrash out at national level. Had they wished for a automatic rise, or one linked purely to PM then STPD/RIG could have said so - they chose a more difficult hurdle so what good do so many govs think they are doing by reducing the height of the hurdle? Would they let pupils get an A* for just delivering the basics?
How do your PM governors deal with this - are the submissive or are they holding your HT to account as rigorously as the HT should be holding their pupils to account?
1 comment:
Michell Taylor
OK I think there is a particular issue here, in that the meeting with the SIP (scool Improvement Partner) is ussually done on the one day with the PM governors (Performance Management. As they have not had any contact with the SIP previoously then the points that the PM governors would like to be considered is very much dependent on what the SIP has in mind and not what governorss want.
for example I had listened to the rest of my governing body and there had been rumblings about clear lines of communication and this is something I had wanted to raise as part of the PM meeting, however as it is such a large subject and although essential it had not been considered by the SIP at all and so they were ill prepared for putting together this as an objective.
What I would really like to see are numerous meetings between the SIP and the governors (specifically the cahir and the PM governors), but this is just not done. This objective was not part of the heads PM this year and I feel that some more work needs to be done on this, but if the SIP doesn't consider this again for this years I doubt it will be part of the heads PM again this year, adn this tyoe of target is essential and the bvery basis of every operation of running an effective school.
Post a Comment