Professional Update annual evaluation 2023-24

Reviewees

Professional Review and Development (PRD) discussion

Of the 692 Reviewees who answered, 92% confirmed that they had a PRD meeting as part of the PU sign-off process. Of the 529 who reported on how useful their PRD meeting was, 24% stated that their PRD meeting was not very useful or not useful at all.

Reviewees were also asked ‘Please tell us which factors prevented your opportunity to discuss your self-evaluation, professional learning and evidence of impact and plan future development needs as part of the PRD process?’. Many factors were mentioned with the most common related to issues with the reviewee’s line manager; illness; lack of time; lack of support for supply teachers; and personnel changes within the school which impacted on the process.

Graph 14: Tools used by reviewees to prepare for PRD discussion

Graph 14: Bar chart showing tools used for school improvement and professional development—Professional learning record=80%, development/school improvement plan=71%, reflections on evidence of impact=54%, HGIOS=34%, other=4%.

Graph 14 (n=621) shows the tools used by reviewees in order to prepare for their PRD meeting with the highest percentage of respondents (80%) using their professional learning record and 71% using their department/school improvement plan. More than half of teachers (54%) indicated that they reflected on evidence of impact to prepare for their PRD meeting. This percentage is relatively low and suggests that further work could be done in this area to encourage reviewees to reflect more deeply.

Graph 15: Focus of PRD discussion

Graph 15: Horizontal bar chart showing focus areas—Career planning: main focus=8%, some focus=42%, no focus=50%; School/department priorities: 34%, 59%, 7%; Needs of pupils: 45%, 48%, 7%; Impact on practice: 35%, 59%, 7%; Professional learning and future needs: 52%, 43%, 5%.

Graph 15 (n=529) shows the main areas of focus for PRD discussion. For 50% of respondents, career planning was not part of the discussion. The registrant’s professional learning and future development needs scored highest (95%) with 93% of respondents also discussing their school/departmental/organisational priorities/issues, the needs of the pupils and the impact of their professional learning on themselves and their practice.

Respondents were asked to reflect on the balance of support and challenge at their PRD meeting. Graph 16 (n=529) shows that 84% of reviewees felt there was just about the right balance of support and challenge.

Graph 16: Balance of support and challenge

Graph 16: Pie chart showing perceptions of balance—84% about the right balance, 14% too much challenge not enough support, 2% too much support not enough challenge.

Graph 17: Balance of support and challenge compared to coaching and/or mentoring approach

Graph 17: Bar chart showing balance of support and challenge compared to coaching/mentoring approach, respondents were asked “Was a coaching and/or mentoring approach used?”—Right balance: large extent=26%, some extent=50%, not very much=18%, not at all=6%; Too much challenge: 7%, 32%, 38%, 24%; Too much support: 9%, 64%, 27%.

Graph 17 compares the responses of those from graph 16 with their thoughts on whether a coaching and/or mentoring approach was used. It shows that 76% of those who thought there was the right balance of support and challenge also thought that a coaching and/or mentoring approach was used to a large extent or to some extent. This shows a relationship between the perceived use of a coaching and/or mentoring approach and the right balance of support and challenge.

Standards

Of the 621 reviewees who responded to the question ‘To what extent did you use the Professional Standards for your self-evaluation in preparation for your PRD meeting?’, 12% did not use the Professional Standards very much or at all. The respondents were then asked which Standards they used and to what extent, and the responses are shown in graph 18. The Standard for Career-long Professional Learning was most used with 85% of respondents using that Standard to a large extent or to some extent. The Standard for Full Registration was second highest at 69%. It should be noted that the low percentage of respondents using the Standard for Lecturers in Scotland’s Colleges could be indicative of a lower percentage of college lecturers responding to the survey compared to schoolteachers and should therefore be treated with caution.

Graph 18: Standards used for PRD preparation

Graph 18: Bar chart showing extent to which standards are met—Full Registration: large extent=31%, some extent=38%, not very much=11%, not at all=20%; Career-long Professional Learning: 45%, 40%, 9%, 5%; Middle Leadership: 18%, 27%, 10%, 45%; Headship: 15%, 5%, 4%, 76%; Lecturers in Scotland’s Colleges: 2%, 1%, 2%, 95%.

Respondents were asked which factors had helped or supported their engagement with the Professional Standards to self-evaluate and plan professional learning. Three factors scored a rating of over 50% with 73% of respondents stating the PRD meeting helped or supported their engagement with the Professional Standards, 57% citing professional dialogue with colleagues and 54% citing time to read and reflect on the Professional Standards. The results are shown in table 6 (n=547).

Respondents were then asked which factors may have limited or hindered their engagement with the Professional Standards to self-evaluate and plan their professional learning, as shown in table 7 (n=547). 46% of respondents said that no factors had limited/hindered their engagement with the three highest limiting factors being other factors more relevant/appropriate for their self-evaluation (26%), other priorities (21%) and not having time to fully engage with the Professional Standards (18%).

Professional Learning

Reviewees were asked how they had recorded their professional learning, as shown in table 8 (n=484).

Respondents were asked what the focus of their professional learning was. Fifteen options were available to select and the top 5 selected as the main focus are shown in graph 19 (n=484).

Graph 19: Professional learning focus

Graph 19: Horizontal bar chart showing focus areas—Social/emotional/behavioural/SEN: main focus=45%, some focus=55%; Leadership: 48%, 52%; Pedagogical expertise: 47%, 53%; Subject knowledge: 46%, 54%; Curriculum area/development: 59%, 41%.

Graph 20 (n=484) indicates the types of professional learning reviewees engaged in with 50% of respondents identifying collaborative learning with others and attendance at PL course/event as the main type of engagement.

Graph 20: Professional learning types

Graph 20: Horizontal bar chart showing levels of engagement—Further academic study: main engagement=43%, some engagement=57%; Practitioner enquiry/research: 43%, 57%; Leadership activity: 45%, 55%; Collaborative learning: 50%, 50%; Attendance at PL course/event: 50%, 50%; Other: 48%, 52%.

Respondents were asked ‘Thinking about the professional learning you have engaged in this year, please rate the extent of your agreement with the following.’ Results are shown in graph 21 (n=484) with 91% of respondents feeling they had ownership of their professional learning to a large extent or to some extent and 91% also feeling their professional learning had been relevant to their development needs.

Graph 21: Professional learning value

Graph 21: Bar chart showing agreement with professional learning statements—I have had ownership over the professional learning I have engaged in: large extent=52%, some extent=39%, not very much=7%, not at all=2%; My professional learning has been relevant to my development needs this year: 39%, 52%, 7%, 1%; My professional learning has challenged my thinking and practice this year: 24%, 61%, 13%, 2%.

Of 480 respondents, 76% reported that they had gathered evidence of the impact of their professional learning. The extent of the impact of reviewees’ professional leaning is illustrated in graph 22 (n=484). The biggest impact was on pupils with 92% of respondents stating that their professional learning impacted on their pupils to a large extent or to some extent and 91% stating that it impacted on them to a large extent or to some extent.

Graph 22: Professional learning impact

Graph 22: Horizontal bar chart showing the extent to which 4 groups are affected: "Your school," "Your colleagues," "Your pupils," and "Yourself." Each bar is segmented into 4 categories: "To a large extent," "To some extent," "Not very much," and "Not at all." Percentages are as follows — Your school: 22%, 59%, 14%, 5%; Your colleagues: 14%, 55%, 25%, 6%; Your pupils: 34%, 58%, 6%, 2%; Yourself: 43%, 48%, 7%, 1%.