Teach Secondary - Issue 14.6

stress and asking for ‘patience.’ It’s walking into those classrooms and helping out. It’s picking up a whiteboard marker and teaching. It’s understanding what 32 teenagers look like after lunch on a rainy Tuesday in November, and still finding joy in it. Morale is a culture Many of us will have seen this play out in our schools’ policies. A new onboarding program is adopted, a wellbeing champion is appointed, and sometimes there’s even a fortnightly cake rota. Yet real morale comes from meaningful interaction, not manufactured celebration. When new staff join, they don’t just want to be welcomed with a branded mug and lanyard; they want to know their leadership teamwill stand with them during hard times. There’s more to it than simply cheering from the sidelines. Take the practice of onboarding, for example. Many schools will start strong, with induction days, mentor pairings and informative safeguarding briefings. But when a new teacher is left alone to manage a difficult Y9 class with no behaviour support in sight, that initial morale boost will quickly disappear. Staff morale isn’t maintained by having a great first week. It’s built day after day, through consistent and visible support from leadership that sends a clear message of ‘We’re in this together’ . Many of us will have sat through those staff development sessions – all dimmed lights, soft music and montages of motivational quotes over images of mountain climbers, Olympic athletes and OprahWinfrey. It’s not that inspiration has no place in schools, because it does. But motivation derived from performance art is fleeting. Teachers don’t need reminding that their job matters. They need their leaders to show that they matter. Here’s a common experience. Following a 90-minute session on THE END OF PERFORMANCE- RELATED PAY In September 2024, it was announced that schools in England would no longer have to link teacher pay progression to performance outcomes. The change was formalised in the latest School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document (see tiny. cc/ts146-TM1) and supported by non-statutory guidance from the DfE. Why was it removed? People had long criticised the use of mandatory performance-related-pay (PRP) within the profession for its administrative burden, questionable impact on teaching quality and the stress it placed on staff. The government’s Workload Reduction Taskforce and other subsequent reviews concluded that PRP often failed to deliver on its intended outcomes, while contributing to further teacher dissatisfaction and attrition. What’s changed? While PRP is no longer mandatory, schools still have the discretion to retain it in full or in part. Crucially, the statutory requirement to appraise teachers remains in place. Pay decisions must still follow the completion of this annual appraisal cycle. Schools must ensure that their pay policies clearly outline how progression decisions will be made, and whether or not these are linked to performance. Risks and opportunities The removal of mandatory PRP doesn’t amount to an abandoning of accountability. If anything, it presents schools with opportunities for reimagining their performance management processes, in ways that are more supportive, developmental and equitable than before. Without careful planning, however, schools risk creating systems that are either too lax – leading to automatic pay progression without merit – or too opaque, which could invite challenges from staff and unions. Redefining appraisal systems Schools must ensure that their appraisal processes remain robust, fair and focused on professional growth. This will involve setting clear, consistent and measurable objectives aligned with school priorities, and ensuring that appraisals are evidence-informed, but not overly bureaucratic. Pay progression criteria Even without PRP, schools must still define how their teachers will move through different pay scales. This could include annual progression – assuming no documented performance concerns – or staggered increments, to manage budgets while still rewarding excellence. Schools should also set transparent criteria for upper pay range applications and progression. With the shift away from PRP, there ought to be a greater focus on providing CPD tailored to both school-wide and individual needs. Peer reviews, coaching and mentoring will additionally help to foster a culture of collaboration and improvement. Accountability without punishment Schools should avoid replacing PRP with other punitive systems. Instead, they should use appraisal outcomes to identify support needs early, and use capability procedures only as a last resort, rather than the default. The end of mandatory PRP presents schools with a chance to build accountability systems that are fairer, more supportive and better aligned with the realities of teaching. By focusing on clarity, consistency and development, schools can ensure that they maintain and even enhance standards in this new era. Lirette Mill is head of HR advisory at the education and public sector support provider HR Connect; for more information, visit hrconnect.org.uk 48 teachwire.net/secondary