Staff Review at West Island School

Staff review at West Island School is primarily concerned with developing the individual teacher
professionally, in terms of their teaching in faculty or pastoral teams as well as in management roles.

All Teachers: Consideration of Roles

At the start of each year, the immediate line manager of a member of staff will spend time reviewing job
specifications and agreeing upon specific targets or areas of development within the teacher’s role. This
will vary from role to role.
HoF will meet with faculty members
HoS will meet with HoY
HoF/HoS will meet with Senior Management
Deputies will meet with the Principal
The outcomes of the meetings will be agreed and recorded by the HoF/HoS/Deputy. These should be
returned to at least once during the year.

The 2-Year Cycle of Lesson Observations

Once every two years each teacher will be reviewed by an appropriate line
manager.
The line manager (HoF/HoS) will allocate which staff will be seen in any
given year. New staff will be observed in their first term new to a faculty or
pastoral role.
Names of staff to be observed and dates for review will be recorded in the
annual development plan of each team.

The Process

(1) Observations

• The line manager and teacher will negotiate a particular date and class for
observation of a complete lesson.
• The line manager will observe the lesson and record impressions which focus
upon: Teaching, Learning, Attainment, Attitude and Behaviour (the prompt
sheet will aid this process).
• In addition, a sample of students’ work from the class should be part of the observation as well as
structured talking to students about the lesson.
• Out of the first observation negotiated, “strengths and points for development” will be agreed between
the line manager and teacher. These will be recorded on the Lesson Review form alongside the
teacher’s response.
• The second observation should occur in the same year and should focus upon progress relating to the
points for development established in the first observation. This observation should take the same
format as the first observation in terms of student work, student interview and written Lesson Review
form outcome.

(2) Review Meetings

Immediate and brief oral feedback should occur immediately after each
observation.
More detailed feedback and negotiation of areas for development should take
place as soon as possible after the first lesson observation and no longer than
3 days afterwards. At least 20 minutes should be spent in a quiet area
without interruption. The line manager and teacher should arrive at agreed, negotiated areas for
development, and set a specific date for the second observation to occur.
After the second observation, a similar process of discussion should occur with points of development
noted and recorded. Lesson review sheets are kept by the teacher and line manager. In order for SMT to
have an overview of the process and to inform future school development planning, copies are sent to the
Principal and Deputies overseeing the faculty/team.

(3) Review of CMT members

Each CMT member will be reviewed on a two-year cycle.
The SMT line manager will follow the same process of observation of
lessons. In addition, bi-annually a management or leadership focus
will be reviewed.

HoS/HoF members will meet with an SMT reviewer to discuss their

management role.
An area for management evaluation will be negotiated between SMT
and the HoS/HoF
Suitable information/evidence will be gathered, eg questionnaires to staff.
A review meeting of 1 hour will be held after the information is gathered at which points for development
will be arrived at and a review date for progress set in the second year of the cycle.
Written documentation will be given to the teacher and line manager.

(4) Review of SMT members

The Principal will use the same method as above with a management
focus with Deputies.

(5) Review of Principal

The Educational Officer for Secondary Schools will conduct reviews
of the Principal and SMT.

(6) Tracking the Process

The names of who is reviewed annually should be given to the SMT line manager as well as the lesson
review forms to signal completion of the review.

Self-evaluation at West Island School

Self-evaluation at West Island School is concerned with professional development and the improvement of
teaching and learning for all.

The focus of the evaluation will in all cases be linked to the school’s development plan. This will take the
form of responding to a development priority and it should also result in informing future developments.

There are various strands of school self-evaluation. These include an analysis of outcomes through
examination results, ALIS+ questionnaires and a comparison with baselines to determine value-added.
This paper describes the processes involved in a cycle evaluations of and by the school’s teams.

The Four Year Cycle

A four-year cycle of focused evaluations takes place. This is context specific and directly
linked to development and improvement. It is designed to encourage professional dialogue
about teaching, which has been shown to be an essential element in schools that are
improving. It is based on the premise that “organizations don’t change; only people change.” The
SMT and, where appropriate, Education Officers work as a team and work with Faculties/Teams in a
planned and systematic way.

The Process

1. Initial Meeting (1 Hour) – SMT and HoF/HoS meet during a scheduled SMT meeting
to discuss possible focuses and evaluation team members. It is expected that the
HoF/HoS will have made preliminary enquiries with faculty/team members beforehand.
An evaluation team will typically consist of two SMT (normally, though not
necessarily, including the line manager), the Head of Faculty/School, the subject/key
stage/year leader and one or two others, possibly including someone from outside the
school (FMT, other school). The focus should relate to the Foundation, school or team
development plan. The HoF/HoS will approach people to join the team before the next meeting.
One of the SMT members will be designated the lead evaluator who takes the responsibility for
ensuring the evaluation follows the policy and spirit of the policy, and arranges time and
resources.

2. Planning Meeting (1.5 hours) – the full evaluation team. The team will make a draft outline of
the evaluation. This will include answers to the following key questions:
a. What is the evaluation about?
b. Why is it important to evaluate this?
c. What are the indicators of good practice in this area?
d. How will we know what these look like in practice?
e. What are the best ways of finding out?
f. Who will do what?
g. When will we do this?
h. How will we analyse the evidence?
i. What outcomes do we expect from this?

3. Consultation - The draft plan will be circulated to all involved for comment. It is at this stage
that commitment to the evaluation is secured by the HoF/HoS. People should be encouraged to
express their feelings about the evaluation as their commitment is central to the success of the
work. This is the opportunity to ask fundamental questions about the validity of the indicators of
good practice. For example, how do you know that the use of ICT in this manner enhances
learning? In which ways, exactly, does this happen? This is an important stage as it raises
awareness of the aspects of teaching and learning being discussed.

4. The Plan - The HoF/HoS and the lead evaluator prepare the final plan and the
evaluation begins

5. Gathering the Evidence (around 2 to 3 weeks) - The team conducts the

evaluation. Evidence should come from more than one source and be of more than one type. For
example, lesson observations could be supplemented with scrutiny of work and lesson plans and
interviews with students and teachers, as appropriate.

6. Analysing the evidence – This is a difficult process and should have been planned early. Nothing
is more off-putting than ending up with a pile of questionnaires and lesson observation sheets and
not knowing what to do with them. It is important to stick to the focus to start with and ask: What
does this tell us about what we wanted to find out? Do with have other evidence to confirm this?
What about disconfirming or contradictory evidence? It may be necessary to go back to stage 5
with a tighter focus at this stage and check up on a few things which have emerged. Once this is
all done, it is then sometimes acceptable to ask: What does the evidence tell us about other
things?
7. Reporting Back and Action Planning – The lead evaluator and the HoF/HoS coordinate a
written report which distills the key messages from the analysis. This is concise and clear. The
evidence for the findings does not need to be included here but should be kept. This is presented
by the evaluation team at a Faculty/Team meeting and an SMT meeting at which questions are
welcomed.

8. Action – Follow up action is what makes the evaluation impact on teaching, learning and the
school’s effectiveness. The action plan includes ways of making sure that this is followed through.
This may work out over the course of a development planning cycle or be a simple quick fix. It
may consist of a follow-up evaluation in more detail or with a different focus. Whatever it is, it is
vital that it happens. It includes a consideration of the following questions:
a. What are we going to do now that we know this?
b. When is it going to be done?
c. What help will we need?
d. Who is going to do it?
e. Who is going to make sure that it happens?
f. What money or time or resources will we need?
g. How exactly will this make teaching and learning better?