The Re-introduction of PRP for Teachers in the UK between the Year 2014 and 2017: A Critical Literature Review

Abstract

The reintroduction of PRP was backed by strong justification for the need to raise the standards of teaching for quality education in England and Wales which has been steadily declining over recent years. Further to the PISA study indicated in the introduction, statistics from the DfE show; ‘Secondary schools in 17 areas fail to ensure the majority of their pupils get five A* to C grades including the core subjects of English and Maths' and in ‘Norwich ... only 45 per cent of pupils leave school with a set of decent qualifications (Harris S. 2014). Coupled with cuts to Government spending, the rationale to pay poor performance at the same rate as good performance as demanded by length of service pay becomes more and more unsustainable. The study aimed to review the introduction of PRP for teachers in the UK between the year 2014 and 2017 and make recommendations how PRP could be effectively evaluated and monitored, using publicly available data (secondary data) to initiate further research. Thematic analysis (Braun &Clark, 2006) of secondary data gathered via peer-reviewed academic journals, blogs, reviews, news articles and magazines highlighted major themes related to Feelings of Inequity (difficulty in performance measurement, pay denial due to insufficient funds, discrimination on BME teachers, part-time workers and women, favoritism), Performance Management (inconsistent feedback, unclear goals, increased workload, unpaid overtime, favoritism, issues with identifying teachers contribution) and Teacher motivation (unattractive rewards and work related stress). Due to the negative outcomes of the findings from this review, recommendations were made on how best to design and implement performance related pay for teachers in the UK.