1. To make the EPMS tool work for us as ROs, in...

2. ...shifting perspectives...

3. ...by focusing on IMPACT instead of quantifiable outcomes only

Questions:

1. How do we seek to grow officers who may not desire to?

2. How do we give more 'weight' to competencies during appraisal/ranking?

Challenge:

1. Same as my 1st question

·       Seek more information to fairly gauge an officer's competencies

·       Focus on development

·       Change from outcome to impact

2 questions you have

·       How do we measure impact?

·       How do we fairly compare impact between officers if they both are doing work to affect the same level e.g. level impact for both, whose impact is greater? This can be so subjective.

1 challenge you may face

·       Fairly assessing an officer’s impact

1) It's about impact, not quantity

2) Developmental approach - look within the grade band and above to plan development (use ARC model)

3) Self-PD is a given

2 Questions:

1) Is the determining of competency achieved cumulative? If one has been determined to possess a certain level of competency for one year due to evidence, e.g. involvement in large impact activity, does it reset to 0 the next year of assessment?

2) I have no other questions for now.

1 Challenge:

I don't see any challenge for now as this new system is supposed to make performance review easier.

A. Deploy officers according to their competencies

B. Easier to match the competencies yet tougher to close the gap/identify the opportunities for growth

C. Professional development for SELF is CORE, therefore will not be appraised for that

2 Questions:

A. giving opportunity to perform (sub-Grade) VS competencies VS willingness VS well-being

B. how to bridge the gap when the mismatch between competencies and tasks occurs (if only realised at the later stage, ie. appraisal)

1 Challenge:

To lead and motivate the JHs who wants to be a HOT resonate with the importance of the competencies and work towards it

1. KRA --> the What

Competencies --> the How

BI --> serves as a guide for the competencies

2. Use strengths of competencies of an officer to give them opportunities to apply in terms of stretch assignments

3. More than 1 BI under each competency may be identified from an officer's work

2 questions:

1. If i don't work directly with my JH in different areas of their work, will I be able to accurately pick out the Competencies / BI? Or will they have to identify it clearly themselves?

2. How can we ensure that year to year the officer is still being developed in the relevant competencies and what other support is there in place for their development other than courses which may not be applicable for some competencies?

1 challenge:

How can we ensure this is used fairly and accurately in appraisal as well?

• Deploy to succeed.

• Coach to finish well

• Focus on personal growth and satisfaction in education.

2 Questions

• Not sure how JH will take to the new approach - and want to just hear about the appraisal part and what they need to do.

• Not sure how to align the departmental tasks allocated to them for their department if they are not in my department. And sometimes roles deployment, as an RO how much influence do I have?

  
  

1 Challenge

• Full development plan for JH - alignment of subjects/ levels/ roles - which I have little influence. So how to help JH development in other competencies not related to T&L areas. Should deployment of teachers be done with the competency developmental plan identified with the JHs?

As an RO, I need to change my mindset. Don't just focus too much on appraisal, the whole conversation should be majored in developmental, and support JH to find satisfaction in their growth and targeted competencies.

Deploy to their strengths/beliefs.

Have conversations and check ins regularly.

Be understanding.

2 -

When deploying to strengths/beliefs - a teacher can be very competent in class routine/student management, and we always deploy such teachers to the classes with highest needs, as compared to a teacher who has not demonstrated competency in this basic area. Are we never giving the teacher with strong class routine a rest to go the longer mile?

When deploying to strengths in terms of committee/projects, after years, the same person may feel bored/stagnant or there is no succession planning/handover. Or when no one believes in a certain project or CCA's impact on students, we will have a slow deteriorating program on our hands.

1 -

Challenges are dealing with basic human behaviour at work - Comparisons and self-perceived biasness such as outspoken colleagues who knows how to self-advertise vs those who do great work quietly. We can be understanding, but work isn't.

1. What --> expectations (KRAs). Serves as the basis of work assessed. Quality of work (in terms of impact) matters more than quantity of work.

2. How --> identify 13 competencies that JHs demonstrates or can be developed. For deployment based on strength, stretched assignments can be given to realise JH's potential. For development of JHs' competencies, provide guidance and opportunities to learn and explore.

3. Ranking remains to be relative due to finite resources e.g. funds.

Two questions

1. How do we determine who gets the stretched assignments? JHs may feel left out.

2. Will JHs who are at their current grade for a long time, be promoted to their next grade based on timeline or CDG approach?

One Challenge

1. Nothing at the moment

• Using the EPMS work review session with the officer as a development session instead of just focusing appraising the officer which KRAs he/she has met.

• Using competencies to guide the officer through their areas of strengths and areas of improvements rather than focusing on what the results are

• There is a conscious effort from the HR now to relook at GEO 5 officer's KRAs from level-wide impact to up to cohort level so that the officers do not need to worry how they can impact the level.

2

• How do we eventually marry the conversation that we have with the officers to a ABCD grade?

• Will the change in approach in EPMS session with the officers send sufficient signals to them should the officers are at-risk?

1

• ROs are seen as people who rank JHs. How do we convince the JHs that the conversations are developmental and not judgemental?

Be an active listener and refrain from judgement

Engage JH and talk about competencies that he/she can acquire which are possibilities for growth.

Q2 How do we determine who can be stretched?

-be more familiar about the competencies

-identify the competency in play

-importance of impact

2 questions

-how can the form be reviewed or revised so as to reduce the need to write (disadvantage the officers who are less proficient in writing)

-how can appraisal/ranking be reviewed and revised to reflect the shift towards competencies

1 challenge

-to calibrate the scope of officer

The enhanced model is a self-development tool; it is a formative rather than summative tool. focus on growth.

KRAs (Key Result Areas) serves as the "WHAT"; the competencies serve as "HOW". It is still same same and different. shift in conversation and emphasis.

Skill set of RO: Identify JH competencies and help formulate a growth plan  

1 Challenge: 

RO and JHs may be in the old model mindset - what we are concerned is at the end of the year, there will be a summative evaluation of ranking of officers. 

1 Question: 

And if shift is on competency and formative/process, does it mean that there needs to be more check-ins and more guidance needed to guide officers so as to close the gaps. 

(2) The new system encourages teachers to reflect on their practice and take even greater ownership of their professional growth. In my role, I can cultivate a culture where teachers engage in self-reflection, peer feedback, and continuous improvement in their approaches to CCE.

(3) With the emphasis on competencies, it is essential to guide teachers toward student-centered pedagogies - promote inquiry-based learning, discussions on real-world issues, and the use of cooperative learning strategies to deepen students’ moral reasoning and civic consciousness.

(2) What is another common teacher development and appraisal system used by other countries?

Teachers are at varying levels of readiness and mindset shifts. I will need to meet them where they are and help move them along the development continuum.

• Developmental focus

• Impact instead of outcome

• Identifying and having conversations based on the competencies.

  
  

2 Questions:

• Would the change in appraisal shift the perspective of teachers' mindset towards ranking and appraisal?

• How can we measure impact while minimising bias in the evaluation process?

1 Challenge:

• To encourage JH to continuously seek growth and improvement even when they are satisfied with their current position.

• Accurately identify both strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes, a strength can also become a weakness.

1. EPMS is shifting from a summative tool to a developmental and reflective tool aimed at self-improvement

2. The focus is on meaningful conversations, emphasizing on quality of work rather than quantity of work.

3. Competencies outline the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities that are important for the job while BI show us what these competencies look like

2 questions

What can we do to ensure that work review conversations remain constructive and developmental rather than evaluative?

Will things be even more subjective during appraisal?

1 challenge

Adapting to the mindset shift from a summative assessment to a developmental process might take time

(1) EPMS serves as both an appraisal and development tool. However, there is a heavy emphasis on the appraisal part more than the development part. As such, the changes made to EPMS is meant to balance out both areas and shift mindsets.

(2) Understanding how to use competencies to guide conversations with JHs. This will make the conversations more fruitful and useful for teachers.

(3) It is important to deploy officers to their competencies. This not only allows an effective way to develop officers, but it also promotes staff well-being as staff finds it less taxing to carry out certain tasks as it was catered to their strengths.

2 questions I have:

(1) How to quantify impact (for appraisal) when responsibilities of staff can vary?

(2) How to gain buy-in from staff to see EPMS as developmental? As the appraisal part still exists, it will probably take some time for the mindset to shift.

1 challenge I may have

(1) Identifying the competencies of JH requires careful communication with key stakeholders involved in the project. It will take time to gather and consolidate the necessary information to gain a comprehensive understanding of JH’s strengths and areas for improvement.

• More emphasis placed on developing the competencies of an officer (focus more on the processes)

• How we should provide stretch assignments to officers with higher CEP and additional support to officers at risk so that they can be more fairly assessed based on their competencies

• Difference between KRA and competencies

2 Questions:

• How to convince officers to focus on self-development (or develop an abundance mindset) when they will eventually be ranked at the end of the day?

• I only have 1 question.

1 Challenge:

• How can we, as RO, better scope and assign work to officers so that they can develop competencies in a safe and less-stressful environment?

2. We need to work together with the JH to strengthen the competencies. There will be more in depth conversation with JH.

   
   

3. EPMS is more developmental and reflective.

2 questions

1. How do we conduct EPMS session to be more developmental and evaluative. We may not be agreeable with the competencies part.

2. It may be difficult to measure impact. There may be outcome but the impact is hard to quantify.

1 challenge

1. How do we measure the impact across all the officers in the school? Use rubrics?

2 questions

• how do we support JH who need more support but is resistant to it

• How to measure impact

1 challenge

• how to make a fair comparison across different job scope

1. focus on impact and not outcome

2. quality of work

3. conversations on strengths and AFIs

2 questions

1. How do we measure impact?

2. How do we measure quality?

1 challenge

Will appraisal be revised in line with the new EPMS?

1) A formative assessment that serves to be more developmental

2) More processed-based focus vs results-based

3) Competencies more clearly worded

TWO

1) How do we use this new EPMS to better align with the current ranking process?

2) How can RO engage JH in meaningful conversations using the new KRAs?

ONE

1) How the new EPMS can better align with the current ranking process

1) Focus on impact and quality. Not the quantity.

2) Its developmental

3) Application on PD.

2 Questions:

1) How to better make sense of this 'impact' and translate to the officers?

2) How to convince officers and balance their mindsets on ranking and appraisal?

1 challenge:

'Impact' can be subjective. Sometimes, 'impact' in Education is hard to measure. We may not see the impact now so soon but years later.

1) Enhanced EPMS is both appraisal and developmental as a tool, more than it being a "result slip".

2) Continues to be reflective, although portion of PD of self is removed. PD is made now more intuitive than being included as part of reporting.

3) HQ has looked into and reviewed the portion of impact with the enhanced EPMS for GEO5 officers. The KRAs are going to be pegged to the officer's level of comfort in terms of impact, rather than termed it as "level-wide", "'school-wide", etc. This negates the necessity of the school to assign and officers' "need" to lead a project/team that impacts "level-wide".

2 Qns:

1+1) How to measure impact then? Nation-wide vs cluster-wide vs school-wide vs level-wide? Sometimes, in the course of our work, the impact is not instantaneous, or within the reporting year, how to "credit" these officers? Sometimes, the impact is felt only after a few years, when another officer has taken over, do we still credit the predecessor?

1 challenge:

With everything new, it is about buy-in and later "re-training" and/or "re-wiring" of the mindsets to accept & follow this new set of appraisal system. Different officers have different readiness on new systems. Have to mentally prepare that there will be teething issues and getting used to, in the first 2 years.