Summary

Completion of the Professional Update sign-off process every five years is a requirement of all fully registered teachers in Scotland and analysis of the responses to the annual evaluation can provide some insights for GTC Scotland and the wider education system. The following insights are noted from the Professional Update 2023-24 annual evaluation:

• The varied employment circumstances of those completing by direct submission was evident. Although that in itself is not surprising, it was interesting to note that the responses indicated that some teachers working as a supply teacher completed their sign-off by direct submission.
• The percentage of males compared to females acting as reviewer was higher than the relative percentage on the Register of Teachers.
• The percentage of respondents across all three cohorts who considered themselves to have a disability was much lower than the percentage of respondents from the March 2024 Report on Equality survey of provisionally registered teachers.
• The GTC Scotland website was the most used source of information by respondents across all three cohorts to keep informed about Professional Update and respondents also found it the most useful source of information.
• Over 80% of reviewees who used MyGTCS found that the system met their needs, although those who encountered difficulties cited issues with unreliability and fear of losing data.  
• A fairly high percentage of reviewees (24%) felt that their PRD meeting was not very useful or not useful at all and a variety of reasons were given for this finding.
• A very high percentage of reviewees (84%) found that their PRD meeting had the correct balance of support and challenge with 76% of those respondents recognising a coaching and/or mentoring approach, showing a relationship between these.
• A very high percentage of reviewees (85%) used the Standard for Career-long Professional Learning to prepare for their PRD meeting. This was the most used Standard by some distance. On the other hand, almost a fifth of reviewees (18%) declared that they did not have time to fully engage with the Professional Standards when self-evaluating and planning their professional learning.
• More than half of reviewees (59%) identified the curriculum as the main focus of professional learning and this is the area that scored highest. Importantly, a very high percentage of reviewees (91%) also felt they had ownership of their professional learning and that their professional learning had been relevant to their development needs.
• A very high percentage of reviewers (93%) used the Professional Standards to prepare for their PRD meeting with their reviewee(s).
• There was a mixed response when reviewers were asked if they had had training in coaching and mentoring approaches with only 50% declaring themselves as having had training and being confident in this area.
• More than half of reviewers (66%) felt they provided about the right balance of support and challenge at the PRD meeting with 31% feeling they had not offered enough challenge. This contrasts with only 2% of reviewees who felt they had not been challenged enough and suggests a potential difference in perception depending on role.
• A large percentage of direct submission respondents (75%) indicated they did not have a PRD meeting. A number of potential reasons for this were identified when asked about factors that hindered their opportunity to discuss their self-evaluation, professional learning and evidence of impact and plan future development needs, and these included working through agencies as a supply teacher.
• A very small percentage of direct submission respondents (less than 20% for all questions) answered when asked about engagement with the Professional Standards and this could be indicative of a lack of opportunity to engage with the Professional Standards for that cohort.
• It is also noticeable that direct submission respondents did not engage as much in collaborative learning with others as their main type of professional learning when compared to reviewees. Fewer also thought that their professional learning had challenged their thinking and practice and that their professional learning had had much impact on their school.