This is an HTML version of FAX and MEMO to Suffolk NUT Reps
From Suffolk NUT January 2001
Threshold Assessment
The first few weeks of threshold assessment have thrown up a problem of the assessors wanting individual evidence from the sample of applications selected for "moderation". The only relevant evidence relates to the 2-3 year period ending in June 2000. We are getting reports of members spending hours of their own time seeking evidence for the assessors and being asked to substitute "new" evidence.
This is contrary to instructions for applicants last summer, which was to hand in the form without evidence. The headteacher would let you know if any evidence was needed, during the rest of the Summer Term. CEA told the Suffolk NUT on 7th July 2000: "It is perfectly acceptable for heads to verify the accuracy of evidence. However, it is not considered acceptable for heads to require teachers to collect documents together to support every piece of evidence cited in their application for them. Most evidence will be based on documents with which headteachers will be familiar. It should only be the odd piece which needs specific checking and a senior member of staff could be designated to do that by speaking to the teacher.
Headteachers cannot ask for portfolios of evidence, but can quite legitimately ask for specific evidence against assertions in application forms..... This is predominantly a workload issue and we are suggesting to headteachers that this needs to be handled with great sensitivity."
That was in July and advice re. headteachers. CEA have now forgotten that advice and have provided a pro forma which actually invites assessors to request detailed evidence from the unfortunate teachers who have been selected as the sample. Suffolk NUT has protested to CEA about this and NUT Headquarters is aware.
Ideally, CEA should instruct their assessors only to ask for evidence from individual staff where it is absolutely crucial to the assessment (i.e. where the headteacher "failed" an applicant but there is no evidence to support the reason for failure.) We are asking CEA to put this right and to point out to assessors that there are alternative means of verification set out in the CEA Assessors’ Handbook, including "focussed discussion". It should not be necessary for an assessor to interview the applicant or to observe teaching: although this is included in the CEA’s instructions, it is only to be used in cases where something has gone very wrong.
In the meantime, assessors will be using their pro forma and asking for evidence on individual teachers: teachers in the sample will not wish to be seen to be uncooperative with the assessment process, in case it rebounds on themselves, and their colleagues.
Suffolk NUT therefore advises NUT Representatives to share this FAX with the headteacher and, where (s)he is required to provide evidence to support individual’s applications, the headteacher should explain to the assessor that (s)he is not prepared to add to the workload of staff in the sample by passing on this request. The assessors are under the same instruction not to create extra work for staff. In extreme cases, the DfEE has set up a procedure for headteachers to complain about the assessor.
We are also getting our first reports of the first teachers being deemed to have "not yet reached all the standards". The procedure for review (appeal) has just been published although is still subject to consultation. Appeals have to be lodged within 40 working days of the reasons for failure being given in writing. Any NUT member who is not successful in their application should contact the Division Secretary for advice. It was the NUT alone which gained the right to appeal and to take cases of discrimination to a Tribunal.