By Catherine Wilson

According to last weeks’ press coverage, schools are to be given new powers to weed out incompetent teachers and enforce “rigorous” standards to ensure performance is maintained. However, behind the headlines these proposals may be less far reaching in practice than they at first appear.

Poor performance is generally a fair reason for dismissal, irrespective of the business or organisation. However, in practice it is one of the most difficult processes for any employer to manage successfully. This is because unlike a dismissal for conduct or even sickness, the starting point for a performance dismissal is to rehabilitate or retrain the employee, which adds to both the complexity and length of the process.

Surveys in the wider HR community highlight the scale of the problem. In 2008 some 80% of organisations had experienced issues with staff underperforming, but only 8% claimed that their policies and procedures to tackle this poor performance had been successful. With these statistics in mind, it is no surprise that, according to the General Teaching Council, only 17 employees have been “struck off” for poor performance in the past decade.

Employers are generally free to implement their own procedures and standards for performance management. However, schools have been constrained by complex measures which include a restriction of three hours observed teaching each year. Viewed against this backdrop, government proposals can be seen as no more than an attempt to place schools on an equal footing with other employers.

Teaching staff will not be left unprotected. Schools will need to provide appropriate training and support before any formal process is commenced. They will also still be entitled to receive a series of warnings and given a reasonable time to improve before any dismissal takes effect. They will retain their right to appeal, to pursue grievances and, most importantly, to be accompanied by a trade union representative. In my opinion, cries of bullying, discrimination and victimisation are therefore uncalled for.

Aside from the considerable costs associated with Employment Tribunal claims, currently a maximum compensatory award of £68,400, schools will be mindful that a failure to comply with a fair procedure is likely to result in a finding of unfair dismissal. A failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice will also result in a further uplift in any award by up to 25%.

The government has also attempted to halt the practice of “pass the parcel” where by an unsatisfactory member of staff is eased out and gently moved on – so called ”recycling”.  The suggestion is that teachers should be compelled to communicate concerns regarding performance to prospective employers. Not only is this in line with current general practice but it could clearly provide significant benefits to employers and the sector generally. After all, a failing teacher is no real use to their pupils, colleagues or even themselves.