In 1985, research by Professor Chris James and Joe Newman on the rise of teacher appraisals was front-page news in the Times Educational Supplement - now Tes, of course.

Although teacher appraisal was unpopular at the time, the research found over half the schools surveyed were already undertaking teacher appraisal, and a large proportion of the rest were intending to implement such schemes.

Generally, however, the models advocated don’t fully reflect who teachers are and how they work, which challenges the standard model of teacher appraisal.

That challenge is especially strong around the notion of setting SMART targets - those that are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-bound.

In addition, schools are complex organisations where change happens fast, a feature that can significantly disrupt the appraisal process.

Given this once-a-year target setting may not be appropriate and drawing on past research we have conducted, we argue that the terms used to define appraisals need to change and be expanded to become SMARTER.

Research into teacher appraisals

In the research, we were particularly interested in exploring how the appraisal process reflected the fact that teachers are professionals and the effect of the complexity of the working environment on the appraisal process.

Fifteen teachers were interviewed over two years. They worked in seven different kinds of school. The relevant policies of each school were also analysed.

From this, we found that some teachers dislike targets - especially when SMART targets are used to control teachers, or when the targets are too narrow and quantitative, or inflexible, or used for high-stakes outcomes-based accountability.

Importantly, there were reports of events in the respondents’ schools that meant the targets set at the start of the appraisal cycle were no longer appropriate as the year progressed.

The complexity conundrum

Examples included the appraisee’s management responsibilities changing unexpectedly, an Ofsted inspection drawing attention to much-needed change, and unexpected curriculum changes.

These changes are inherent to teaching owing to the complexity of schools and the fact they are always changing - and those changes impact the work being done by professionals, ie, teachers.

There is a historical dimension to those interactions: they are framed by what has gone on before. Also, social interactions are non-linear in nature - an interaction may have very disproportionate and unpredicted consequences.

For schools, there is an additional layer of complexity with regards to how many “players” there are in the system - students, teaching staff, non-teaching staff, parents and other systems such as Ofsted, the local authority and other schools.

In schools, interactions between those in the teaching system and those in the student system are at the heart of what the school is there to do. Indeed, those interactions are deliberately intended to change those in the student system.

The consequences of complexity are considerable. The most important consequence for us here is that in complex organisations, the future cannot be predicted - even approximately - with any certainty.

Put very simply, stuff happens, which changes things maybe slowly and slightly or perhaps suddenly and substantially. Either way, it means appraisal targets set at the start of the year may not remain appropriate because events have changed their relevance and suitability.

The use of SMARTER targets

Since the research was completed, we have been reflecting on teacher’s responses to target-setting and the use of SMART targets. We have concluded that a new set of SMART targets is required. Targets should be:

• Systemic - they should encourage working with others
• Motivational - acknowledging and respecting teachers’ autonomy, the significance of their work and their professional status
• Action-oriented - they need to be practical and focused on making a meaningful difference
• Relevant - tailored to the teacher’s own development needs
• Timely - to ensure that improvement targets are appropriate for the current context

Importantly, the appraiser and appraisee should meet regularly and frequently to check on progress.

In these check-ups, yes, progress towards meeting the targets and newly developed insights would be discussed, but the targets’ relevance would also be reviewed - ie, are these targets still appropriate? In these meetings, the targets would be engaged with reflectively.

In this way, the process fits with the complex nature of the teacher’s working environment. The new SMART targets are engaged with reflectively - hence the notion of SMARTER targets.

Lessons for appraisal in schools

Appraisal in schools should be flexible and adaptive so that any targets set remain meaningful when used in the complex world of the school. They should also recognise the nature of teachers and their work, and be used as a means of developing expertise.

The SMARTER targets we are proposing are a way of doing just that.

Melissa Hawkins is a lecturer at Northumbria University. Chris James is emeritus professor at the University of Bath