Provincial Principals Forum The Integrated Quality Management System

Provincial Principals’ Forum The Integrated Quality Management System Encore Conference Centre, Northlink College, Panorama (IQMS) 10 February 2011

Overview • Refinements of the 2011 IQMS process • Administration Challenges • Non-Compliance • Refusal to be evaluated • Dealing with Non-compliance • Moderation • The link between Performance and Development

Refinements of the 2011 process • A revised Summary Composite Score Sheet (QA 7) was disseminated to schools. ü ü Alignment Standardized format Benefit to school’s administration / educators Reduced error margin at school and Head Office • Pay Progression for 2010 was done programmatically – resulting in much fewer queries.

Challenges • Poor Administration • Non-Compliance • Refusal to be evaluated • Moderation • The link between educator performance and development

Administration Challenges • Despite having sent the new QA 7 and instructions to schools, many still submitted the ‘old’ QA 7. • Some did not read the Explanatory Notes before completing the QA 7 which resulted in numerous mistakes being made on the QA 7. • Schools failed to use the drop-down menu for Post Levels on the new QA 7, with the result that the pre-programmed rating codes did not appear. • Post Levels were not arranged from 1 to 4, as instructed, but muddled up.

Admin. Challenges - continued • In some cases the formula is deleted and the incorrect coding is recorded. • Some schools do not understand REQV (Relative Education Qualification Value). • Post levels for principals are filled in incorrectly. i. e. PL 1, 2 & 3 Principals.

Admin. Challenges - continued • Learning Support (LS) educators are still being left off school QA 7 s (Human Resource Management Minute 8 of 2011). • Some educators still use corrective fluid on the QA 5 s. • Documents are not verified by relevant stakeholders (SDT Coordinator, Principal & IMG).

Non-Compliance • Late submissions of Summative Score Sheets (QA 7) without any apology or explanation. • A large number of principals received ‘ 0’ for PS 1 -4 as they do not teach. Some educators say that they also do not want to be evaluated on certain Performance Standards. (HR Circular Minute 6 of 2008) • Failure to submit the Internal PM Moderation Report. • Failure to submit SDT details for 2012.

Refusal to be evaluated • Partial compliance: Some teachers refused to be evaluated on Performance Standard 7 because they do not participate in extra-mural activities. • Non-compliance: Some teachers refused to be evaluated because they are on their maximum notch and do not receive the 1%. (Resolution 5 of 2006) • Non-compliance: Educators aggrieved with internal IQMS processes that refuse to be evaluated.

Dealing with Non-Compliance 1. Principal determines reasons for non-compliance. (Educator has the right to lodge grievance). 2. Principal guides, encourages and advises compliance with CA 8 of 2003 3. Continued refusal – Principal issues written instruction to comply (Progressive Discipline). 4. Refusal of instruction = Insubordination. 5. Matter referred to Labour Relations i. t. o Misconduct. 6. DLR enforces compliance.

Moderation • Moderation of the process and not scores. (Circular Minute 10 of 2007) • If there is no evidence to support scores, it should be referred back to the DSG. • Scores that appear inflated, without supporting evidence will be referred back to the school by the IMG.

Link between Performance and Development • IQMS is still regarded as a once off exercise at many schools. • There is not enough emphasis on continuous performance management throughout the cycle which includes personal and professional development (Human Resource Management Minute 9 of 2011)

The End Thank You !