Gill Haynes

Performance-related pay: the views and experiences of 1,000 primary and secondary head teachers

This is the first of two papers describing a study of the introduction of performance-related pay into the teaching profession in the UK. It reports the views and experiences of a national random sample of 1,000 primary and secondary head teachers in over 150 local education authorities in England who were responsible for implementing one strand of the governments performance-related pay scheme, Threshold Assessment. The second paper describes the views and experiences of teachers who were unsuccessful in crossing the threshold and therefore did not obtain a pay increment. Head teachers did not find it difficult to assess the five standards that teachers had to meet in order to receive their £2,000 additional performance payment, but they were very critical of the training they received, the amount of time they had to spend, and the changing ground rules. The success rate was 86% of all teachers eligible, but 97% of those who actually applied were awarded the additional payment. Most heads dealt with the applications entirely on their own, though one in six, mainly in the secondary sector, shared the task with senior colleagues. Unsuccessful candidates were few in number, but most were deemed to be failing on more than one aspect of their teaching. While those who were successful in crossing the threshold were pleased and relieved, unsuccessful applicants were said to be bitter, threatening action, in several cases leaving the school. External Threshold Assessors had to visit every school. In only 71 cases out of 19,183 applicants in our sample of schools was there disagreement. Three-quarters of heads felt Threshold Assessment had made a little or no difference to what teachers did in the classroom. This is confirmed by our other studies, which suggest that teachers simply keep more careful records, rather than change how they teach. Some 60% of heads were opposed to performance-related pay, but 39% were in favour of it in principle, though most of these were unhappy about the way it had been put into practice.

Secondary headteachers' experiences and perceptions of vocational courses in the Key Stage 4 curriculum: some implications for the 14–19 Diplomas

In an attempt to address the low levels of engagement in post‐16 education and training in the UK amongst some groups at the beginning of the twenty‐first century, and to enhance the skills of the future labour force, the UK government instituted an agenda of reform for the post‐14 curriculum. Part of these reforms was the introduction in England, in September 2002, of General Certificate of Secondary Educations (GCSEs) in vocational subjects, emphasising practical skills and the application of knowledge and understanding. In addition, the Increased Flexibility Programme (IFP) for 14–16‐year‐olds, also introduced in 2002, provided a new opportunity for Key Stage 4 (KS4) students to have access to Level 1 National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs). In order to understand how these qualifications were being implemented and experienced, a survey of 301 secondary schools in England was undertaken. The findings of this survey undertaken in 2005 raise important issues not only for those involved in the provision and delivery of ‘vocational’ GCSEs and NVQs, but also for the new 14‐19 Diplomas introduced in England from September 2008.

Young people’s decision-making: the importance of high quality school-based careers education, information, advice and guidance

This paper explores the decision-making processes of young people aged 13–14 years in 30 consortia across England as they chose their options for Key Stage 4 at a time when a new qualification, the 14–19 Diploma, was being introduced. It draws on data collected as part of a longitudinal national study (January 2008–August 2011) of the introduction and implementation of the 14–19 Diplomas. Few studies of young people’s decision-making have considered in detail the role played by the careers education, information, advice and guidance (CEIAG) provided in schools. High quality, impartial school CEIAG provision has historically proved elusive, yet this is often the main source of information for young people and their parents. The introduction of the 14–19 Diploma provided a critical test of the quality of CEIAG in schools delivering that qualification for the first time from September 2008. Through a series of questionnaire surveys of Year 9 learners in 30 Diploma consortia and in-depth case studies in 15 consortia, we investigated young people’s decision-making in relation to this new qualification and examined how this was influenced by their school’s CEIAG. We found variations in the quality of school CEIAG about the Diploma qualification and, amongst some groups of students, a lack of knowledge and understanding of the Diploma programme of study, and the potential progression pathways. There was also evidence that inaccurate or incomplete CEIAG affected students’ levels of satisfaction with their Diploma course. Only 46% of 477 Diploma students surveyed towards the end of their course believed they had made the right choice in Year 9. Although the 14–19 Diploma has now largely been withdrawn, the findings of this study highlight the issues and challenges facing schools as they take over responsibility for the provision of CEIAG from local authorities in September 2012.

Engaging employers with the 14–19 Diplomas: the employer perspective

While many studies of work-related learning (WRL) in the English 14–19 curriculum have examined the impact on young people of WRL programmes and initiatives, this article explores why employers become involved with WRL, the mechanisms by which engagement takes place and the opportunities and challenges faced by employers and by those who seek to engage them. Drawing on data from surveys of teachers and interviews with employers in 15 Diploma consortia across England, undertaken as part of the national evaluation of the 14–19 Diplomas, we consider the factors which are influential in the foundation and sustainment of employer involvement with WRL in schools and colleges. Although previous studies have considered employer engagement at the level of policy making, there have been fewer empirical studies of employers’ perceptions and experiences of engagement at the level of curriculum delivery. Our findings indicate that employers who had become involved in providing WRL for Diplomas could identify a range of benefits to their organisations. We argue that use can be made of both policy levers and drivers to engage employers but these need to be differentiated to acknowledge that employers do not form a homogeneous group.

Local partnerships: blowing in the wind of national policy changes

Drawing on data from a three-year study (2008–2011) of partnerships of schools and colleges delivering the 14–19 Diplomas in England, this article examines how the dynamics of local partnerships were shaped by a contradictory policy landscape in which some policies strongly promoted collaborative working whilst others reinforced competition between institutions. Semi-structured interviews with 136 Diploma consortium leads and case studies of 30 Diploma consortia were undertaken. Most partnerships founded in direct response to government demands for collaboration were strategically and operationally less effective than those that had been formed earlier as a positive, dynamic response to locally identified interests/needs and had evolved over time. When key levers towards collaboration were removed by the new UK Coalition government (2010) and new policies restated the arguments for institutional autonomy and competition between institutions, the fragility of the ‘enacted’ partnerships became immediately apparent. Although members of Diploma consortia with a history of effective partnership working remained committed to the principle of collaboration, other policy developments such as the introduction of the English Baccalaureate and the recommendations of the Wolf Review on vocational education contributed to uncertainty about whether partnership working could, or indeed should, be sustained.