When performance management was introduced in schools in 2012, it came with significant controversy. Then in 2014 the Department for Education allowed performance-related pay tied to these targets, escalating tensions further.
As a main-scale teacher, I experienced first-hand the draconian practices that many leaders adopted. For instance, I was constantly strategising how to ensure that my Year 11 geographers achieved grade Cs because that was the benchmark for meeting performance management targets.
The rise of academisation only amplified the obsession with data. Targets became king, and the true purpose of education - to nurture and inspire students - was sidelined.
It sucked the joy out of teaching and learning for both teachers and students. I resolved that if I ever became a headteacher, I would take a different path.
Performance management without number targets
When I did become a headteacher, I stuck to my conviction and removed numeric targets from performance management. While performance management remains in place, I focus on holding staff accountable through the prescribed Teachers’ Standards rather than arbitrary figures.
Numeric targets often set staff up to fail. Imagine a scenario where a student faces a significant personal challenge - a bereavement, illness or safeguarding concerns - and doesn’t meet their target grade. Should their teacher be penalised for factors beyond their control? It’s nonsense.
I remember my own frustration, as a main-scale teacher, when I was asked to account for results that didn’t meet the vague criteria of “vast majority” achieving target grades. Arguing over whether 54 per cent constituted a “vast majority” was a waste of time and energy.
Similarly, Progress 8 brought another layer of complexity, with schools setting targets based on FFT data that could be manipulated in countless ways. It was clear to me that a different approach was needed.
More on staff management:
At The Wensleydale School we use performance management as a tool for growth, not punishment. Line management is central to this, with regular one-to-one meetings between staff and leaders.
These meetings focus on knowing the strengths and areas for development of each teacher, and fostering open and honest conversations. Poor attendance, misconduct or underperformance are addressed through specific policies, not arbitrary targets.
This approach allows us to tailor our CPD sessions to address specific needs, ensuring that staff feel supported rather than scrutinised. For example, if a teacher struggles with classroom management, we provide targeted training and mentoring. The emphasis is on improvement, not blame.
The results
The impact of this approach has been remarkable. In the past five years we have had no union disputes or management concerns. Staff absences are rare, and our team is stable and committed.
We’ve also seen a four-year upward trend in GCSE results, achieved without the pressure of numeric targets. This stability and success means we don’t rely on supply teachers, and every subject is taught by a specialist.
By prioritising the love of teaching and learning, we’ve created an environment where staff are inspired to do their best. And when staff thrive, so do students. Teachers’ enthusiasm spreads through their classrooms, leading to better outcomes for everyone.
A philosophy that works
Removing numeric targets from performance management hasn’t made us soft. It’s about being fair.
It’s about understanding that teaching is a human profession, full of nuances and challenges that data points can never fully capture. Our approach is built on trust, collaboration and a shared commitment to excellence.
For me, this isn’t just a strategy, it’s a philosophy. When teachers feel valued and supported, they bring their best selves to the classroom. And that, ultimately, is what benefits our students the most.
Julia Polley is headteacher at The Wensleydale School in North Yorkshire
For key school and trust leadership insights delivered every month, sign up for the Tes Leaders’ Briefing newsletter