ROYAL INSTTTUTUE OF MANAGEMENT

Review of Teachers’ Individual Work Plan (IWP)

Submitted for the partial fulfillment of Post Graduate Diploma in Public

Administration

Research Supervisor: Professor Dhanapati Mishra

Submitted by: Jamyang Chophel

Student ID: 2905

2018 PGDPA

Contact Address: jyangphel@gmail.com

II

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................................. I

Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………………………………………II

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1-3

1.2 Problem Statement .......................................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Research Question........................................................................................................................... 3

1.4 Research Objective ......................................................................................................................... 4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 literature Review .......................................................................................................................... 5-7

2.2 Respondent details ....................................................................................................................... 8-9

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGNS AND METHODS ..................................................................................... 10

3.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 10

3.2 Data Collection ............................................................................................................................. 10

3.3Sample Size and Population ........................................................................................................... 11

3.4 Sampling Method .......................................................................................................................... 11

3.5 Ethical Consideration .................................................................................................................... 12

3.4 Limitations and Future Scope ....................................................................................................... 12

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ................................................................................................... 14

4.1 Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 14

4.1.1 Perception of Policy Formulator ........................................................................................... 14-16

4.1.2 Perception of Policy Implementer ......................................................................................... 16-21

4.1.3 Perception of Teachers .......................................................................................................... 21-25

4.2 Discussions .............................................................................................................................. 26-31

4.2.1 Reasons for not likeing IWP ...................................................................................................... 32

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 33

5.1 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 33

5.2Recommendation ...................................................................................................................... 34-35

References .............................................................................................................................................. 36-38

Annexture .................................................................................................................................................... 39

II

ABSTRACT

This study was aimed at looking at the issue of IWP usage in the education system. With a

qualitative research approach, information was gathered from the representative sample of policy

formulator, policy implementer and, the influenced stakeholders using purposive sampling

techniques. A structured set of a questionnaire was used for each group of informants. Thematic

analysis was adopted to analyse some of the reasons behind the teachers IWP issue. The study

uncovered that the problem isn’t with the IWP system. It was found that the challenges lie in the

Moderation Exercise, which is one of the components of IWP. On the other hand, policy

implementers don't perceive any reason for IWP to end up as an issue for teachers.

Keywords: Performance Management System, improvement plan, Moderation Exercise, Annual

Performance Agreement, Teaching Resource Centre, Accountability, Alignment, Differentiation,

Evaluation.

II

Acknowledgement

“Man does not live in isolation, we depend upon each other,” said Lailah G. Akita. The nature of

interdependence runs through any accomplished work since it requires help and support from

myriad stakeholders. An age old adage goes, “Gratitude is a powerful trait” I do have will in taking

it to my heart and thank everyone who have invaluably contributed to writing this study that

deserves the utmost appreciation and recognition. Firstly, the management of Royal Institute of

Management be worthy of my deepest appreciation for giving us an opportunity and platform to

do this study and instil research skills in us which would come so handy in the future.

It gives me great pleasure to thank everyone who all are on my gratitude due list. Those who

strongly played a key role in ensuring the writing of this research are as follows:

Professor Dhanapati Mishra, I humbly thank you for your guidance, support and encouragement

that generated strong confidence in me throughout this research period. I would like to thank you

for mentoring this research and providing necessary direction till the end.

I would like to thank Mr. Phurpa Tshering for helping me in the field work data collection and

Miss Tshering Zangmo for helping me to find secondary data and their valuable suggestions.

Professor Michael Watkins, Mr. Sangay Wangchuck and Miss Kezang Choden for teaching and

reminding me on how to carry on with the analysis. I would also like to thank Royal Civil Service

Commission, Thromdey Education Office and all the schools in Thimphu for your kind

cooperation and rendering necessary help while gathering data.

I can’t forget to reserve enough space in my heart to thank all my course mates and our Program

Assistant Mrs. Sonam Choden for all the support and essential materials you all have provided me

in duly completion of this research. You all are incredible and it’s just amazing to have you all by

my side at this time to end my work successfully in peace.

II

List of Table

Table 1. Respondent Profile ............................................................................................................ 8

List of Figures

Figure 1. Number of Respondents .................................................................................................. 8

Figure 2. Number of Respondents .................................................................................................. 9

II

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

PMS: Performance Management System

IWP: Individual Work Plan

RCSC: Royal Service Servant

SIP: School Improvement Plan

SPMS: School Performance Management System

QQTC: Quantity, Quality, Time and Cost

TRC: Teaching Resource Centre

ModEx: Moderation Exercise

MoE: Ministry of Education

MED: Moderation Exercise Division

M@X: Managing Excellence

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

The Royal Civil Service Commission (RCSC) had been executing Performance Evaluation

rating until 2014 when the commission distinguished Performance Management System (PMS) as

one of the areas of change with the end goal to study the suitability and practicality of existing

PMS. Consequently, RCSC with the end goal to reinforce existing PMS, attempted to initiate

strategies that strengthen performance, organising, observing and assessment by creating the

authentic mechanism.

The principal and the subordinates mutually build up the Performance Appraisal Form to

sort out and oversee individual exercises to successfully add to accomplishing the six key areas of

the School Improvement Plan (SIP). The evaluation of individual performance is directed at

utilizing the Performance Appraisal Form is an input to the moderation exercise for the task of

final rating. This Performance Appraisal Form is utilized to detail the school outputs,

identify/create exercises, set target value and recognize competency behaviour of the employees

in the schools.

The School Performance Management System (SPMS) is the reason for building up the

IWP of the principals, teachers and support staff in schools. While creating IWP, a government

employee needs to distinguish individual activities that will add to the accomplishment of the

output. The indicators shape the SIP can be utilized for guideline while defining activities. Every

action must be identified with one of the outputs and just those activities having contribution to

the accomplishment of the general school output ought to be incorporated into the IWP. Every

action will have set target values that justifies a rating of level 4/level 3/level 2/level 1. Either a

blend or any four elements must from QQTC framework ought to be reflected in each target values.

To assess the quality part of the performance of the person which incorporates qualities

and aptitudes to carry performance target demonstrated in segment B of the performance

evaluation form (Competency Behaviour), it carries 30% weightage. The school performance

categories are controlled by following the Agency Categorization Framework based on School

performance report. Schools will be grouped depending on the Teacher Resource Centre (TRC).

2

The Education Monitoring Division gives school cluster performance report. Moderation exercise

is led dependent on the TRC report.

This IWP centres on the six key result areas in schools. This IWP was started all together

to oversee and assess performance in the civil service for improving office’s general performance

by separating the performer from the non-performer and place accountability among different

levels of the organisation chain of command. It is expected to assist an individual with organizing

and overseeing everyday activities by aligning their performance objectives to the association’s

key objectives or visions. However, this research paper was an attempt to investigate the

application and the feasibility of IWP framework to the education sectors, especially to the

teachers.

Earlier, a similar evaluation framework called School Improvement Plan (SIP) was at that

point being utilized in schools was getting ready yearly plan, block plan and everyday lesson plan.

The SIP depends on the six key result areas of the school performance system of the education

ministry for the most part viz. (i) Leadership and Management Practices; (ii) Green School domain;

(iii) Curriculum Practices: Planning and Delivery; (iv) Holistic Assessment; (v) Broader Learning

Domain; and (vi) School Community Vitality (Royal Civil Service Commission, 2018). It

expresses that the principal and teachers would mutually build up the Performance Appraisal Form

to sort out and oversee individual activities to accomplish six key result areas of SIP, while the

form would be utilized for measuring person’s performance which will be input to the moderation

exercise for the task for the last evaluation.

However, the execution of this new IWP framework rather appears to have caused burdens

and ineffectiveness in precisely measuring teachers’ performance. In spite of the fact that IWP

would give a chance to teachers to reflect their roles and non-academic contributions and for the

principals to evaluate each teacher’s workload at hand and in like manner redistribute the works,

teachers have raised their worries over the procedure being irrelevant and unrealistic. Firstly, it is

on the grounds that the IWP was intended to be applied to the general civil servants, and applying

this framework to assess teachers’ performance under similar domain is by all accounts very

irrelevant. This is on the grounds that just two key outcome regions are pertinent for them to align

individual objectives to the organisation’s vital goals/visions. As indicated by most teachers who

addressed Kuensel, the Bhutanese national news media, they shared that despite having introduced

3

IWP with a good intention, the other procedure and criteria on which they are assessed is

unrealistic and out of line. An educator from Zhemgang remarked that IWP is unfair since the

failure of a student in the class is specifically reflected in the teacher’s IWP under performance, in

this way, risking the quality of education when teachers purposely upgrade the students’ results

(Kuensel, 2018). Besides, the very procedure of assessment is, in some cases, exposed to nepotism

and bias based on the principal’s relations to teachers. Hence, as indicated by most teachers, this

IWP framework is regarded ineffective in measuring their performance. In actuality, it rather

undermines the quality education that teachers can give when they need to divide their time among

academic and non-academic activities.

1.2 Problem Statement

As of late the teacher’s attrition rate continued rising and it ended up as one of the country’s

worries. The issue turned out to be considerably more serious when educators shared their

complaints to the news Media with respect to the Individual Work Plan. Be that as it may, the

version of a story from RCSC was again different towards the point of view of teachers. Along

these lines, this contradicting issue provoked to pick the issue and study what was the underlining

explanation behind this very policy in the system.

1.3 Research Questions

For this research, the following research questions were developed in order to shed light on the

aims and objectives:

1) How has it become unrealistic?

2) How it became irrelevant?

3) Does it achieve the goal of PMS?

4) Why are teachers unhappy?

5) How do managers view this issue?

6) What changes can be made?

4

1.4 Aims and Objectives:

main purpose of this study was to explore and establish teacher’ perceptions regarding the

effectiveness of the appraisal system. The research also intends to explore the objective and

subjective perception of teachers on the evaluation system conducted by their supervisors.

These above aims to raise the following objectives:

• To certain the cause of the problem in the implementation of IWP.

• To determine the effectiveness of the teachers’ performance appraisal method.

• To identify the potential impacts of IWP in teaching and assessment methods.

• To suggest the improvements of the system as a whole.

5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 literature Review

During the past decade, the Performance Management System has turned out to be

perceived as the overwhelming result gauging strategies in numerous organizations all through the

world. Beer and Ruh (1976) coined the phrase performance management in 1976 and after that

later on perceived as an unmistakable approach in mid 1980s. Aguinis, (2009) defines

“Performance Management is a consistent procedure in which performance of identifying,

measuring and developing the performance of people and aligning performance to the vital goals

of the organization”. For managing effectively with the pressures and changes in the current

circumstance, the organizations look for effective management systems (De-Waal, 2007). Over

the world in many nations, managerialism has been a critical neo-liberal technique supposed most

appropriate for the successful and proficient management of public sector organizations

comprising schools (Simkins, 200; Tabulawa, 2003). Ingrained in the start of managerialism,

governments embraced performance management from the private sector to make workers, for

example, teachers “more proficient, more effective and more accountable” (Down, Hogan, and

Chadbourne, 1999).

After the PMS was embraced into the public-sector from private sector, public schooling

frameworks were incorporated. Neo-liberal policies advanced the utilization of private sectors

practice in the schools to make them all the more efficient and responsible for their execution

(Dawn, Chadounne, and Hogan, 2000). The point of PMS was to restructure and re-culture

schooling along the line of corporate management with the expectation to increase accountability

and productivity of teachers’ work (Down, Chadbourne, and Hogan, 2000). As per Ingram and

McDonnell (1996), assessing the employees’ performance is an essential undertaking as it enables

a firm to have a record of current organizational activity with the end goal to judge on their progress

and help refocus strategy. Performance review gives an image of past performance and empowers

to make arrangements for the future. Armstrong (1991) found that the performance management

system empowers people to approach and talk about their work with their administrators and

supervisors in a peaceful atmosphere without dread and favour. In actuality, giving individuals

feedback about their performance will positively affect their future performance (Taylor and

Puncture, 1999, Van Dyne et al., 2000). Performance management for such a long time was seen

as a standout amongst the most basic areas of human resource development and human asset

6

management (Cardy and Dobbins, 1994). The challenges are to set up a powerful performance

management framework that kills the negative significances and produce the positive ones for

individual and organization (Lawler, 1994; Nankervis and Compton, 2006). This assists in further

development and enhancement for employees (Armstrong, 2003).

There is a high failure rate of the PMS and a large portion of them happens amid the

execution stage. As per McCunn (1998), as referred to by Bourne et al. (2002), the failure rate of

the PMS implementation was around 70 percentage. The failure rate has likewise diminished as

the years have cruised by. In a later writing, the disappointment rate has said to lessen to 56 percent

(de Waal and Counet, 2009). This is a good sign by still a major part of the PMS are ineffectively

implemented. Practical studies of teacher appraisal and performance management show that the

impact of appraisal on teaching and learning has not been extensive (Chadbourne, November

2000). The literature on teacher appraisal shows that it can be very complex, involving a number

of factors that can either impede or support teacher effectiveness (Malongwa, 1995; Bartlett, 2000;

Campbell, Kyriakides, Muijs & Robinson, 2003). Teacher appraisal is receiving attention

worldwide as governments place more importance to examine educational provision critically to

ensure that it is relevant and appropriate to the needs of the youth (Monyatsi, Steyn, & Kamper,

2006). Therefore, teacher appraisal is of great importance since its main objective is to improve

individual performance and motivation (Bartlett, 2000; Danielson, 2001; Donaldson & Stobbe,

2000; Lam, 2001; Painter, 2001; Wanzare, 2002).

Considering the above one should, however, appreciate that quality education can only be

accomplished by means of an appraisal system that is based on the improvement of individual

performance, which in turn leads to improved working relationships and development of the

individual’s career (Everard & Morris, 1996). Individual performance can be enhanced through

the identification of one’s strengths and weaknesses which is a key purpose of appraisal. Goddard

and Emerson (1995) further argue that the basis of appraisal is the belief that educators wish to

progress their performance in order to improve the education of students. Teacher appraisal as

described above is an intervention which aims to benefit both the individual and the school in

pursuit of quality education. According to Poster and Poster (1992, p.2), “appraisal is one of a

number of techniques for integrating the individual into the organization”. The feedback provided

during appraisal process remains important to inform all those involved in the organization about

7

what ought to be done in order to map the way forward. This will evolve the effectiveness of

teaching and students’ learning and, ultimately, the quality of education (Abraham et al., 2001).

Stronge (1991) in Mo, Comers and McComick (1998) highlights the importance of purpose

by arguing that “if an appraisal system does not have a clear purpose, it will just be a meaningless

exercise”. Mullins (1996) contends that appraisal is one way in which to evaluate the performance

and potential of staff. During the appraisal, course data are collected by regular observations, not

only to measure current performance, but also to support strengths, identify deficiencies, give

criticism and the necessary recommendations for changes in future performance (Bartlett, 2000;

Monyatsi, 2003; Haynes, Wragg, Wragg & Chamberlin, 2003; Wanzare, 2002). The questions

remain as whether such reforms which have proved suitable in developed countries can be

applicable to less developed countries (Hughes, 2003).

Although performance measurement in Bhutan may appear to be a relatively recent

phenomena but is already implemented in countries such Sinagpore, United States and Malayasia.

The unique thing about the PMS project in Bhutan is that it was not planned and implemented by

a group of foreign consultants but the brightest bureaucrats were involved from the start to the

finish. It was important to ensure that the PMS system adopted by our government is suited to the

local ground realities, and is above all, implementable, fair, transparent, and flexible to changing

human resource needs (The Bhutanese , 2018).

However, teachers have raised concerns on the introduction of IWP saying that it was

unrealistic and irrelevant for the education sector. Equally IWP was made for general civil

servants, teachers also need to be guided by these domains. Unfortunately, only two domains are

applicable for them to align individual performance goals with the organization’s strategic

goals/visions. Most teachers Kuensel spoke to on the request of anonymity shared that although

IWP was introduced with good intention, the main issue is the moderation process, which has

unrealistic criteria. Due to this, teachers are encumbered with an additional workload that deviates

their attention from providing quality education to students which is very dangerous for the

education system. Therefore, this paper aimed to uncover whether the problem lies with the system

or in the implementation process or with the implementer of the IWP appraisal system.

8

2.2 Respondent Profile

Table 1. Respondent Profile

Sl.

no

Types of

Respondents

Policy

Formulator

(RCSC)

Policy Implementer

(Principals)

Policy follower

(Teachers)

1. No of respondents 1 5 9

2. Gender Male: 1 Male:3 Female:2 Male:6 Female:3

3. Year in service 6 years 1) 23years

2) 19 years

3) 17 years

1) 26 years

2) 17 years

1)10 years

2)5 years

3) 7 years

4) 5 years

5)11 years

7) 5 years

1) 14 years

2) 9 years

3)14 years

Figure 1. Number of Respondents

The above graph provides information on total number of respondents and their gender wise

participation in the study. One group is from the agency level, another one from the management

level and the other one is from the schools.

0

2

4

6

8

Policy Formulator Policy Implementer Policy Follower

Nu

mb

er o

f p

arti

cip

ants

Profession of the participants

Number of Respondents

Male female

9

Figure 2. Number of Respondents

The above graph shows all three types of informants differentiated by their years completed in the

service.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0-4

5-9

10-14

15-19

20-24

25-29

Total numbers of respondents

Year

s C

om

ple

ted

in t

he

Serv

ice

Number of Respondents by Years in the Service

10

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION

3.1 Methodology

The relevance of the methodology contrasts from every researcher based on various

explanations behind their studies (Corbin and Strauss, 1990). A qualitative methodology was

embraced for this study since generally little research has been conducted about the experience of

teacher’s implementation of Individual Work Plan in schools. A qualitative research method that

provides the researcher a chance to communicate with and assemble information specifically from

their research participants to comprehend a phenomenon from their viewpoints (Gay et al, 2009).

3.2 Data collection techniques

The study adopted a qualitative way to deal with social inquiry. Subjective research

approach produces the thick (nitty gritty) description of members’ feelings, opinion, and

experiences; and deciphers the implications of their activities (Denzin, 1989). Qualitative

information is solid top to bottom and interprets the particular to a larger populace.

For this case, the phenomenon under study was the exhaustive comprehension of obstacles

to the job of school supervisors and teachers as implementers of the Individual Work Plan in their

schools. The primary resource for the study has been considered as data gathering process.

Essential information was gathered through an interview. The secondary data of study were

gathered from web sites, writings, research papers, and reports. Qualitative approach was utilized

to break down the gathered information. Eye to eye interviews was chosen over different types of

information gathering, for example, polls or mail survey. One advantage of face to face interviews

was that the interviewer would be guaranteed that the people responding were the ones for which

the interviews were intended (Allan, 2003; Berends, 2006). Data analysis was through a coding

framework whereby before genuine coding process, all the recorded tapes’ transcript and afterward

started with coding phrase by phrase or sentence by sentence (Strauss 1987, 1998) depending upon

the content. Finally, through the thematic analysis, gradually came up with the findings and

conclusion.

11

3.3 Sample size and population

Populations of this research are of three types:

1. Policy makers (RCSC): It includes the view of personnel who are involved in the policy

formulation. They are the policy makers.

2. Principals of the government schools: They are the implementers of IWP, to see how they

perceive and find IWP.

3. The general teachers of the schools: They include those who had undergone some

performance appraisals. It mainly includes the government teachers who are bounded by

RCSC rules and regulations.

3.4 Sampling method

A purposive sample was generated by obtaining a large list of a larger population of

teachers and then selecting, at random, a certain number of individuals to comprise the sample.

With a purposive sample, every member of the larger teacher’s population has an equal chance of

being selected. There are two types of respondents in this study namely the population from the

management and implementing institution, and the other population from the teachers’ category

(principals and teachers). At the management and implementing institution level, no sampling was

necessarily needed because of the presence of only few personnel while the effectiveness is

measured more from the other population. For the population from teachers, the purposive sample

selection method is implied. Therefore, survey was conducted from the schools below High school

grades, specifically focusing on the primary, junior and high school levels, in Thimphu region.

Two schools were selected each from primary, junior and high school level of education. From

each school, approximately 14% of the teachers’ population was randomly selected. There is no

cap on what number of informants should make up a purposive sample, as long as the required

data is obtained (Bernard 2002). Seidler (1974) studied different sample sizes of informants chosen

purposively and discovered that somewhere around five sources were required for the information

to be reliable. Thus, 15 respondents of both male and female teachers whose year in services ranged

from 5-26 years were interviewed.

12

3.5 Ethical Consideration

No ethical issues were confronted all through the interview process. As made reference to

in the ethical assent letter, the research followed each method carefully that served a legitimate

direction in completing the study.

• Abstained from the intervention and refrained from employing coercion and manipulation.

• Haven’t stigmatized, discriminated against or excluded as a consequence of the proposed

intervention.

• Weigh proportionately from both angles of individual and social issues while asking

questions.

• Properly selected every single participant being benefited through participating in this

research.

• Refrained from breaching the rules and regulation of RCSC.

• Didn’t infringe respondent’s privacy while taking an interview.

• Respected their say and gathered all the information’s without any provocation.

• Objectively analyzed all the information’s collected through my samples under the study.

• Sought proper consent from the respondents to record their interviews.

• Gathered only required and appropriate information from the interviewees.

• Every data obtained was strictly maintained confidential and genuinely respected their

privacy.

3.6 Limitations and Future scope

As of now, the nation has 8,644 government teachers deployed across the nation for 419

government schools. There are 771 private teachers teaching in 36 non-public schools in our nation

(Ministry of Education, 2017). Fundamentally IWP is bound to just government schools and still,

after all, that number of the teachers are in schools which was unquestionably impossible to go

and meet every one of them because of time and resources constraint. In the interest of time, the

study has been focused within Thimphu Thromdey region in gathering data for the study.

The study would have been subjected to bias and preferences of the respondents. Thus

100% accuracy can't be guaranteed. Since the study was conducted in a limited capacity to focus

time, wherein the researcher could not widen the study. The study isn’t generalized because of the

13

way that researcher has embraced individual interview technique. The time constraint had been a

real issue that obstructed from gathering information from different Dzongkhangs. Another

significant challenge was with the budget shortage that continued holding back from a gathering

bigger sample. This is a room whereby future researchers can take it to develop on this study by

creating broader sample size from all of the schools across the country.

14

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Findings

4.1.1 Perspectives of policy formulator/regulator towards teachers’ IWP

RCSC accepts the significance of measuring performance since it will improve the quality

of education. In the earlier system single supervisor appraised every one of the teachers under him

which had a danger of being unfair since there were chances where an individual connection with

him/her would matter. It was not as systematic as it had more scope for discretion at the hands of

supervisor. There wasn’t check and balance in the past framework and the likelihood of biases in

rating grade was very high. Schools had six key result areas on which they can base their target

setting before different offices had APA, and there wasn’t proper linkage between organisations

goals and individual plan.

The fundamental explanation behind presenting IWP is they observed a couple of

downsides in the previous framework. When they did an exercise to evaluate the effectiveness and

efficacy of the current PMS it was discovered that all are appraised outstanding with the average

rating of 3.82 out of 4. By and large very liberal ratings were given by the principals. There were

likewise issues of the specific organization not doing great but rather the civil servants getting

great evaluations, demonstrating an immense disparity between them. Every teacher didn’t have

proper target and there wasn’t an appropriate time management as everybody prepared their

Performance Evaluation rating structure when the promotion was due. RCSC received the

complaints expressing a few people don’t perform their duties on time and more often than not

they go to play archery leaving empty office. They even discovered that teachers filled their PE

form towards the end of the four years whereby at that time the majority of them and their

supervisors will in general overlook what they really did before. They only did it for satisfying the

prerequisite.

Presently with the new framework, the scrutiny of the IWP is made more professional.

Individual’s performance is properly linked to the agency’s performance. This change had

considered everybody accountable and guarantees differentiation between active and lazy

employees. This new framework measures the performance better in light of the fact that the

performance appraisal depends on the output and coming to the moderation exercise there is no

space for blind rating. This will also bring positive improvement in the quality of education. For

15

that reason, it will enable them to take responsibility as rating relies upon taking obligations and

initiatives.

They don’t take it as a burden as claimed to be by teachers. RCSC said that it should be

done in the earlier system yet they simply ignored it. That is the reason they felt it as a burden but

it was something which must be done by teachers using any and all means. So far RCSC hasn’t

received any formal complaints with the exception of the one presented by Ministry of Education.

The fundamental issue they raised is in regards to Moderation Exercise which is done at the group

level. Another thing is tied in with collecting evidence which is troublesome and add up to their

remaining task at hand.

According to them as far as anyone is concerned, most of the teachers are happy yet those

few ones are the ones who make complaints online anonymously via web-based networking media.

Teachers shared to RCSC that they are clear about what they should do. They feel that they have

proper sense to follow the objective they have to accomplish and are also appropriately directed

towards their goals. Now they are happy as they are more centred on their work and, performance

is measured simply based on their contribution. This system has forced ranking, segregating them

under outstanding, very good, good and need improvement, not at all like past PE rating

framework. This rating depends on 70% teaching and 30% on competency behaviour (co-

curricular activities). It has turned out to be more competitive when grade is measured based on

performance than face value. The principals have a common opinion of “Guideline for the rating

is clear now than at that point”. Those who perform well are granted incentives with the

meritorious promotion before actual promotion date while the individuals who fall under need

improvement classifications consecutively for two times are terminated from the profession or

allowed to improve and perform better for the first time in the future.

RCSC felt that it is probably going to have few sorts of people who go against with when

any new framework is set up. It is unquestionably difficult for them to make everybody glad as

they said to have around 26,000 government employees however by and large they are convinced

that the greater part is happy.

The policy implementers don’t believe in the negative effect of IWP on teacher’s attrition.

They said they don’t see any co-connection among IWP and teachers leaving the system.

According to their statement teachers are leaving since they discover better open doors in different

16

organizations. The other reason is that they get and a chance to go to Australia. RCSC is waiting

for MoE to make a presentation on the application submitted by them. They discovered a few

proposals which were implementable inside their service and even enabled them to continue with

it. After the Ministry’s presentation relying on the availability of resources, they are wanting to

start awareness campaigns for the principals and teachers.

The small chunk of respondents felt that for the most part teachers are content with IWP

change. Since best-performing teachers are recognized and rewarded. They share that with this

framework set up they are clear about what they should do. They feel that they have proper sense

to read a compass and the target to accomplish is also properly channelled. The issue isn’t with the

system as a whole yet particularly the Moderation Exercise part isn’t being ideal for teachers.

Indeed, even the individuals who firmly support and content with the framework are not happy

and satisfied with the Moderation Exercise process having a fixed number of the teacher in the

particular category.

4.1.2 Policy Implementers’ Perspective towards IWP

Although performance measurement is a broad subject, according to the IWP implementers

(Principals and Vice Principals), they feel performance measurement is vital 1) to see how teachers

are performing, 2) To know how many teachers need their support and what kind of support is

needed, 3) For promotion, 4) for segregating star performers from non-performer, 5) to improve

the quality of education and gauge teachers’ performance.

The rating for the teachers in the past was very broad. The civil servants regardless of their

job the nature of work they performed was uniform all through the nation. It gorged the overall

performance of the civil servants which was generic yet for teaching fraternity there was need of

a specific target. The activities they decided in the beginning were never measured or never

questioned. Most the civil servants could manipulate their evaluation form towards the end. There

wasn’t a review phase in the middle. In any case, the beneficial thing about it was in the schools,

it was principals who chose whether teachers performed or not, and the power eventually rested in

his grasp to rate/promote. Limited justifications were required. By then they didn’t need to sort the

teachers under different categories while evaluating their final scores. There was flexibility in

exchange of duties under unavoidable conditions where one teacher could replace another

17

teacher’s role as they didn’t have to document their deeds. They could make changes to their

mentioned activities in IWP any time which was convenient, as things happen off and on, now and

then. Everyone got their promotion on due and indeed it was easy to get promoted irrespective of

the completion of individual output at the end of every four years.

RCSC has changed the previous framework to IWP on the grounds that they need to

express certain criteria clearly and evaluate every teacher more holistically. Going by the norms

that the RCSC has come up, unlike the earlier days where everybody got promotion automatically,

IWP was brought in place to segregate people based on their performance. They needed to reward

individuals who perform dedicatedly and improve the individuals who slacked in their

performance. They wanted to bring everybody on the toe. It is a sort of approach where there is no

space for non-performers. With the change in time, RCSC wanted to bring changes in the

framework. It would have forged RCSC to introduce IWP to extract more from civil servants. The

defect lied in the rating whereby everyone was rated outstanding paying little heed to their

performance. Some of the interviewees stated, “What I feel was, with the past PMS framework

everyone got promoted.” There was no separation among performers and non-performers, and

everyone got the same kind of reward. The relationship with their principals played a major role

in grading system which made biases obvious.

With the IWP in place, teachers got to specify their targets and are properly guided through

planning and mid-review phase. Presently there is proper separation among performers and non-

performers and rewards the individuals who deserve. Individual’s objectives are made to align

with the organization’s objectives. The 70% weightage in academic is high enough pertaining to

the nature of job that teachers shoulder upon and that itself speaks the volume for the importance

given to education. Teachers feel important on the grounds that their work is given due significance

accordingly they take care the teaching profession which has a positive bearing on the quality of

education they impart. The planning phase and review phase guided the teachers to be more

specific with what they teach in the class. It has made teachers really focused now. Almost all are

certain that this new system measures the teachers’ performance in a better way. It brings everyone

on the boat. All are monitored strictly and identifies performers from non- performers and

accordingly awarded incentives and punishments. IWP has even brought vast positive changes in

the attitude of teachers. Everything is made specific, measurable, accountable and effective in

18

delivering their services. IWP going on the web, “it has turned out to be more helpful for instructors

with the paperless method” said a Primary School educator.

Since IWP mandates them to work hard with sincerity it has a default included advantages

towards the enhancement of education quality. Sincerity and hard work in teachers will see more

activities and creative exercises in the field of teaching, learning and co-curricular activities. It

would bring positive change in the life of students and fill in as a motivating and inspiring factor

for them to perform better in their studies. Another principal shared that IWP is serving the purpose

to remove those dormant or non-performing government employees from the system since they

are basically there and putting pressure on the government. Those couple of idle teachers are

occupying the space where different ones could perform better job. She even shared that some

government workers do come to the office and get passed the day without doing anything besides

enjoying all the facilities and privileges of offices like training and so forth.

In their view as well, most teachers are unhappy due to the moderation exercise having to

categorize into different groups. Particularly it wasn’t fair to list somebody in need improvement

category in light of the fact that no teachers will leave their students unattended. It wasn’t

reasonable for having a same rating system for teachers and other civil servants alike in spite of

their distinctive nature of work. The heavy workload is the thing that many teachers’ uproars

against the IWP framework. Few percent of them felt that segregation in one way it can be

motivating factor but then again when everybody is placed equally or set under the different

category in the wake of putting the same effort in the same job, many teachers get demotivated

and instead of working hard they tend to leave the profession.

The greatest challenged faced by the teachers are coming to the Moderation Exercise

(ModEx). According to the ModEx, they have maintained a fixed qualifier number for every

category viz. exceptional in school having grade ‘A’, outstanding/star performer from school

having grade ‘B’ and there must be no less than one in need improvement categories using any

and all means. Many good performers don’t have the opportunity to be in outstanding because of

their pyramid-like structure of evaluation system. It is a demotivating factor for teachers and

additionally, supervisors are confronting hard to grade in light of the fact that there are many star

performers and can’t confine to fixed number kept up by RCSC. “No one deserves to be in need

improvement when everyone equally toils and sweats throughout the year”, a secondary teacher

19

said. To date, 252 government employees were appraised outstanding and 99 were evaluated need

improvement in the education sector (Kuensel, 2018).

The second major challenge is with regard to their workload. Since the implementation of

IWP, their workload is continuously encumbered having mandatory to teach and focus on other

activities. In the first place teaching alone is very cumbersome and heavy task which keeps them

engaged and now with the 30%, co-curricular activities keep digressing their attention making

them so tiring. One of the principal points out that “Doing well is to be bad by evidence as every

work are not tangible and see-able in case of services.” It was hard on their part to balance between

work/duty and, thinking of IWP and preparation of IWP. Failing to perform well in the activity set

in their target would negatively impact their rating. Gradually it would also affect the education

quality when they have to divert their attention towards other activities. Many teachers felt that

they don’t get what they deserve.

Second major challenge is concerning their increasing workload task at hand. Since the

implementation of IWP their workload is continuously encumbered having mandatory to teach

and focus on other activities at the same time. In any case teaching itself is extremely cumbersome

and heavy task which keeps them engaged every time and now with the 30% co-curricular

exercises continue deviating their attention is making them exhausted. One of the Principals calls

attention to that “Doing well is to be bad by evidence as every work is not tangible and see able in

case of services.” It was a panic for their part to adjust between work/obligation and, thinking of

IWP and preparation of IWP. Failing to achieve the activity set in their objective would also affect

their rating. Gradually it would likewise affect the education quality when they needed to redirect

their attention to different activities. Though most of them find potential and gleam of hope in IWP

to bring positive change in our education system, because of its sub-segments, in the present

situation it is affecting teachers in a negative way. A few teachers openly specified, “If given a

chance I also like to resign from my profession.” And the reason underlined is they are not content

with the manner in which they are evaluated regardless of pouring heart and soul in playing out

their obligation. They feel they are by and large least recognized group and lacks transparency in

the reviewing process. They don’t get the rating what they are owed to get.

Principals conceives that they should acknowledge and change the state of mind towards

change. They feel it is people’s nature to respond negatively when any new system is brought in

place. A large number of them are persuaded that as of now many teachers resigned or changed

20

teaching profession on account of a heavy workload at hand and moderation exercise putting them

in different categories. Nonetheless, a few have the opinion that teacher wearing down issue isn’t

a direct result of IWP. They leave the profession since they want to pursue their life-long dream.

Some want to proceed with their study and go abroad. Few of them also felt that talking the

teacher’s attrition isn’t the thing caused by low remuneration or the workplace problem yet it is

something to do with the long-lasting dreams that they have cherished. Along these lines, IWP

implementation can’t stop or increase teacher’s attrition rate. A principal of Secondary school

made reference to, “This will attrition will continue in light of the fact that everybody looks for a

greener pasture to satisfy their dreams and wishes.” They too feel that teachers resign as they get

a better job in other agencies and some wanted to go abroad and study or do business, especially

in Australia.

According to the recent former governments’ drive of taking responsibility for IWP,

teachers have mixed responses towards it. One of the Principals stated, “I was really excited it

came out in the media and social forums whereby former Lyonpo Norbu Wangchuk having to tell

the teachers that henceforth it would be taken by the Ministry.” Few others mentioned that right

now everything is in mess and every year teachers are leaving their profession because the only

reason is IWP. One of the Principals felt very excited when former education Minister came forth

and shared about taking charge of IWP which she felt would definitely bring positive impact on

them.

But most of the principal don’t support this move. As per them it isn’t sound decision since

education people come and go through there are good and in addition not effective people also. At

this moment RCSC is a central authority, IWP being tackled by them is much better. RCSC is the

highest decision-making body for civil servants and right now different streams attached to it are

taken care by them. On the off chance, if MoE takes control over the IWP of teachers, all of those

different projects need to delink and one needs to think about its consequences.

School principals want RCSC to let managers decide whether ‘need improvement’

category is really required or not. If everybody is performing well in their duty, there isn’t any

question of listing need improvement category since teachers’ output is clear through students’

performance. It is fairly a new system introduced and it should be reviewed on yearly basis so that

new relevant changes can be incorporated and something that is punitive must be removed. Indeed,

even some good things which are available in the old framework must be incorporated. To retain

21

teachers in the system may be RCSC can reduce their workload either by doing away with the

having to produce documents and provide little autonomy for schools to decide regarding how

many to place in outstanding categories.

4.1.3 Teachers’ Perception towards IWP

Those teachers to whom were interviewed felts that it is vital to measure their performance

in light of the fact that the work of the teachers will really affect students. It empowers them to

realize what they are doing and that gives them a chance to amend/enhance if something isn’t right

in their performance if not good things can be carried forward. The other prime reason can be for

the enhancement of quality of teaching and education. Accordingly, IWP empowers teachers to

think of the better activities to teach their students. This encourages them to think out of the box

and facilitate setting the target of their advantage and up to their capacity. This bit by bit enlarges

the learning condition which delivers better school result and their objective set could be

effortlessly accomplished. Other minor explanations behind measuring teacher’s performance

were for promotion and to make teachers accountable. At the point when IWP expects them to set

and satisfy their objectives, it will consequently let them be more responsible for playing out their

obligations.

The beneficial thing about previous Performance Evaluation framework is that they didn’t

need to maintain records for proof. It was beneficial for some lazy teachers because of the same

ratings were given to everybody. Although it was academic-oriented, they say that there wasn’t a

proper target setting and it drove the teachers to go carefree. Since there wasn’t separation among

performer and non-performer everybody is promoted irrespective of their output. One of the

Higher Secondary teachers reacted, “For most of the teachers it was just copy and paste in filling

up the PE rating form and that was not okay.” It creates unfairness amongst performers and non-

performers. In this manner, some of them didn’t know why change occurred but rather others felt

with change in time RCSC needed to bring reforms in the system. This also helps their mandate

of having small and compact to ensure efficiency. This must be the other purpose behind changing

the prior framework.

They also felt that the former system was more of an academic-oriented which directed

them to deal only with academic activities in contrast to what current system requiring them to

fulfil 30% in competency behaviour. It was also a summative evaluation as the submission of

documents and grading all are done at the end of the given duration. During the course of PE

22

rating, there wasn’t any mid-review and face to face consultation between principal and teachers

over the fulfilment of goals and targets. PMS basically focused on how effective he/she can

appraise rather than how well each performs their duty. One teacher felt changing to IWP is like

“An old wine in a new bottle.” Most are unaware what happened to the previous system but they

are assured that it was the plan of RCSC to introduce IWP.

Now with the reform (IWP), this system could keep track of all the teachers tactfully and

everything is properly organized. Excellent performers are rewarded with the meritorious

promotion and awarded the gold medal whereas low performers are reminded and brought on the

same boat. This system is more or less like carrot and stick approach because they are aware that

well performers are awarded and if they fail in their duty then their rating would be affected. Most

of them are happy with the rating done through a committee which has made more transparent and

fairer grades in the system. Moreover, since their activities are backed by the documents as

evidence nothing can be changed and they get what they deserve. Some teachers are happy with

the reform because they feel they are properly guided and they can go forth with the specific target.

It has even encouraged them to work harder to move from good to very good and then to

outstanding by performing well in their duty.

Despite being it more effective than the former system they are much aggrieved in the

current system due to increased workload and having to digress their attention from teaching

towards documentation and competency behaviour activities. Time-bound for them having to do

things at a specific time without undue delay has a positive impact which will keep them on track.

But it is also a challenge for them when having to do many other things related to teaching and

non-academic at the same time that requires enough time and, failing to do any duty on time will

affect their rating. Everything they do is not possible to document because their nature of work is

service oriented and without having the documents as proofs also affects their IWP rating. A few

percentages of them claims that in fact, it creates biases in rating performance. Although teachers’

job is to teach but when coming to rating those who have a better record in co-curricular activities

(competency behaviour) are given better grade which is irrelevant.

A majority of the teachers are not happy with IWP due to moderation exercise. Failing to

score high in overall school rank demands them to manage to keep someone in need improvement

which they feel is illogical when everyone equally spares their time in teaching and guiding

23

students. Even they don’t have the slightest autonomy to manage star performer as per their

discretion when it was bound by rules to list only fixed number in this category. Even

documentation took a great mental toll on them and had to toil hard physically apart from teaching.

It was not user-friendly and there were many formalities that teachers need to fill up which is

bureaucratic in nature. After the implementation of this reform, lots of chaos were created amongst

the teachers and schools. They felt that in some schools the moderation exercise is not done

objectively. When hard workers don’t get what they deserved then it harms the system by

demotivating teachers from delivering their service and it boils down to shy away from their duty.

Gradually it adds on the teacher’s attrition rate. They feel it is unfair to get placed under different

categories after all doing the same work, committing to the same responsibilities, teaching the

same amount of time and bearing equal tension with the rest of the teachers. Teacher’s duty

becomes tedious and, in the process, sometimes no matter how much they do they can’t manage

to show the evidence. Most of them are frustrated as they couldn’t maintain evidence on what they

have done since being service industry everything they do can’t be seen proven with the document.

They are given more to do and provided less recognition.

According to them this very reform has brought all the teachers both active and lazy alike

on the toe and due to this, it will definitely bring positive changes in the education system. This

also develops an ambiance to think out of the box and be more creative in delivering their service

that is teaching. Active teachers with better initiatives could enhance professionalism and bring

positive change in education. Teachers felt that they didn’t face any challenges so far. They are

comfortable following this new system and further, it has inspired them to work harder. They felt

that they got more freedom to discuss and express in performing their duty. Unlike in the past, it

is now online and paperless. This has helped teachers a lot for becoming convenient to work with

it. They too feel that since being time-bound they are brought on toes and attached strictly with the

timings which have a positive bearing on the system and the overall result. According to some of

them, teachers working hard can definitely improve the quality of education.

Thus, it does have potential to improve the education quality but ironically when they are

given more to do and deprived of many privileges like training, professional development skills

programs and educational tours, everyone is demotivated. That is why the system cannot retain

teachers and it is a loss for the education system as most experienced and seasoned teachers are

24

leaving and changing their profession. This, on the other hand, is a disaster for the MoE on the

path of promoting education quality in our country. As the system provokes competition it is a

blessing for someone who takes it positively since it gives them an opportunity to discover their

weakness and improve it, but it also has a great risk of demotivating them and gradually shy away

from their duties and finally leave their profession. Since it is very time-bound and if they can’t

fulfil within the given time then it would again hamper their rating.

Teachers are also happy with the MoE choosing to take charge over the responsibility for

IWP. They believe that the Ministry would be in a better position to deal with their IWP since they

are directly linked with other Ministries. And further, it was stated that they would understand

them better in light of the fact that a large portion of the employees in MoE were teachers. And

furthermore, the Ministry is directly connected with the schools and takes a seat in a better position

to redress teachers concerns and answer to their plights. RCSC being at the helm of civil servants

as a central authority, IWP being handled by them is much better. They don’t intend to undermine

the Ministry’s capacity yet by taking control over the ownership of IWP. Then something should

be done about alternate parts like training, professional projects and more streams connected to

IWP. How might they handle every one of those is in question. Thus, it isn’t insightful or good

enough to take ownership by the government.

Be that as it may, there are few people who said there won’t be any change in the framework

since the job of teaching is same whether IWP is in place or not. In case if they can remove the

prerequisite of having somebody in ‘need improvement’ and give certain flexibility to decide how

many and who all to be put under star performer then it will ease a lot of their complaints. They

likewise felt school and different offices are totally different with different outputs and there must

be different means to measure their IWP not at all like at par with rest of the civil servants.

Since many of them are not happy with respect to ModEx it has obviously been

demonstrated through the increasing rate of teacher’s attrition rate. In 2016 alone, 365 teachers left

the profession, the highest in the decades, more than the total number of teachers who left the

teaching job in the most recent eight years (Kuensel, 2018). So far 2,346 public school teachers

have resigned from the profession which is about 3.6 percent of the teachers have left the teaching

25

career every year and at least one resigns the profession each day (Ministry of Education, 2017).

Many even shared that they are prepared to leave their profession whenever given an opportunity

and the reason they spell out is basically that of a heavy workload at hand for having to report each

activity to prove towards the end as an evidence. Indeed, even they feel the moderation exercise is

not transparent and extremely disappointed with the injustice in rating grade. In spite of working

hard throughout the year, the grade they get is poor and falls under the ‘Need Improvement’

category, which is risky of landing ousted from the profession.

They wanted to make teachers profession be made more attractive in terms of their

workload and environment in which they work by reducing the number of teaching periods and

provide various incentives to boost their morale to teach better. Provide better facilities in schools

and more freedom should be provided to teach in a way they like. MoE must recruit principals

having good leadership. “How to lead is the how you do?” stated one of the teachers. Principals

make a lot difference in performance may be of 50% can depend on them. They don’t want RCSC

to restrict to a fixed number for listing teachers in the outstanding category and have certain liberty

do decide upon by school committee. Teachers wish that IWP could lead them to focus more on

teaching than other activities and accordingly rating should be done solely based on teaching. They

want workshops and advocacies to be done for every teacher rather than on selective few because

thinking differs from each other and so will differ interpretations. They want RCSC to make

teachers profession to be made more appealing as far as their workload and condition in which

they work by lessening the number of teaching periods and provide different incentives to boost

their morale to educate students better. Provide better facilities in the schools and also more

opportunity ought to be given to teachers to teach in a way they like. MoE must enlist principals

having great leadership. “The most effective method to lead is the how you do?” said one educator.

26

4.2 Discussion

Importance of PMS

Although performance measurement is a broad subject, all the stakeholders feel

performance measurement is so vital 1) to see how teachers are performing, 2) To know how many

teachers need the support and what kind of support? 3) For promotion, 4) segregate star performers

from non-performer, 5) to improve the quality of education and gauge teachers’ performance.

RCSC accepts the importance of measuring performance because it will improve the quality of

education. In the earlier system single supervisor rated all the teachers under him which has a risk

of being unfair since there are chances where personal relation with him/her would matter.

Managers and teachers also share similar thought on this very theme of the importance of

measuring performance. They also agreed that the grading in the earlier system depends upon the

relationship with the supervisors. There wasn’t check and balance in the previous system and the

probability of biasness in rating grade was so high.

All the three groups of respondents hold the same opinions over the ineffectiveness of the

former system. Nevertheless, teachers feel that it did have some positive values too. The former

system didn’t create any chaos while rating their grade and all are given promotions after every

four years. It was good because in the past as teachers enjoyed good terms amongst themselves

but now with the IWP in place has increased the competition and created the atmosphere where

nobody trusts nobody.

PMS before IWP

From all of their perspective, the former PE rating requires all the teachers to fill up their

PMS form mentioning what they are going to do in that particular year. After that, no review was

being conducted and there wasn’t proper guideline to set their targets. Even ratings were given by

the principals and in most case, it wasn’t fair. Everybody’s rating was Outstanding and the average

rating was 3.82 across the civil service which means each and every one of the school teachers

performed very well. To RCSC such a thing was rare to happen in real life. In contrast to this, from

other side, RCSC received complaints from the principals of teachers for not performing their

duties sincerely. Another concern was there wasn’t proper target setting and no clear linkage of

their activities with overall goals of the agencies. There wasn’t proper time management as civil

servants prepared their PE rating form for four years when their promotion was due. Nobody knew

27

on what basis they were rated; thus, PMS was there just to serve the purpose of fulfilling the

requirement. As everyone is rated outstanding, it did not serve its purpose to distinguish performers

from non-performers and there wasn’t proper check and balance in the system.

The earlier PE rating system wasn’t transparent and objective rating wasn’t assured when

school principal was the supreme authority to decide and award rating for the teachers under him.

Many informants expected that the new reforms would bring fairness in the rating procedure and

majority are happy at committee deciding over their rating along with review phase for them to

clarify better in a more transparent way. Next thing was teachers were not accountable to the

system. Many of the respondents felt that IWP was intended to make them accountable and most

of the informants actually experienced the improvement in the accountability.

Most apparent changes they experienced were the introduction of IWP online, to fix accountability,

ensure time management, ensure proper alignment between individual work with overall

organizations goals and objectives.

Challenges of IWP implementation

The biggest challenge for management was since there was weightage for different

components whereby civil servants and teachers didn’t accept it easily. They didn’t have any issues

with the IWP preparations and IWP evaluation process but the main issue lied in the differentiation

under four different categories on the ground that they all work equal hours and produce the same

output.

For managers, it was difficult to decide when selecting outstanding teachers because most

of the teachers equally deserved to be in this category and also nobody deserved to be in need

improvement category as everyone equally shed sweat in performing their duty. It was also

difficult for them to handle two works at a time; one as a manager and other as a teacher. It was

disheartening to see seasoned teachers leaving the profession right under their eyes.

Teachers’ were not happy with the moderation exercise and the increased workload. They

were beaten so badly by the daily teaching lesson in the first place and having to collect evidence

on competency behaviour was a very tedious job. They were made to follow the IWP and perform

duty on time but never given privileges at par with other civil servants.

28

How has it become unrealistic?

When RCSC changed PMS to IWP, their main intention was to institute the procedures to

make a strong mechanism that will link and align individual performance to the organizational

objectives and results. According to Kuensel (2018) RCSC chairman said, “IWP was introduced

throughout the civil service and whether teachers, doctors, or engineers, who get paid by the

government should have an IWP, which reflects what they’re going to be doing to serve the

TsaWa-Sum.” But according to the teachers, moderation process and criteria on which they are

evaluated is unrealistic and unfair. Similarly, the majority of principals felt that having to follow

the rules made by RCSC to limit the number of people to be placed in outstanding and few in need

improvement based upon school performance score was unrealistic. This is because it is impossible

to limit and fix the weightage for outstanding as it is beyond anyone’s control to become a star

performer or a low performer. One key factor in employee motivation and retention is the

opportunity for employees to develop job and career-enhancing skills (Den Hartog and Verburg,

2004).

How it became irrelevant?

According to teachers, IWP was irrelevant for them because nature of the work done in the

school was completely different from the roles of other civil servants. Irrespective of the difference

in their role, when all were bound to follow uniform rating procedure, teachers were facing lots of

problems. Keeping teaching as their primary role and considering it the same as the other civil

servants coming to office and performing their duties, but one way or other teachers are burdened

more by having to prepare lesson plans, looking for teaching aids and engaging in other sports and

cultural events in the school. For that matter, it is felt that there should be different criteria and

rating means for teachers apart from general civil servants. Going by the RCSC objectives, the

overall rating of the teachers is divided into academic bearing higher weightage and competency

behaviour of lesser weightage to make it more relevant. Accordingly, teachers are made to achieve

the 30% of their performance in competency behaviour that requires them to engage in non-

academic activities usually of other skill-oriented activities. Since 70% of their score is academic

oriented and their rating should also carry based on maximum weightage but conversely, teachers

are rated well if their competency behaviour score is better which is also irrelevant.

29

RCSC wanted more out of the teachers and their idea of measuring the teachers’

performance holistically is irrelevant for teachers. Despite facing a tight schedule to teach, teachers

are managing their time so hard to fulfil the criteria of competency behaviour. This 30 percent of

IWP demands more attention and they have to deviate their attention more towards minor things.

Another issue was that teachers felt it was unnecessary to conduct moderation exercise at the

cluster level when it can be easily done at the individual school level. This not only cost time and

resources but the ranking of one school affects other schools which all are in the same team.

Because the score is awarded after finding an aggregate score of each school, even if one schools

performance is poor it will affect the rating of other school’s as well.

Does it achieve the goal of PMS?

Aguinis, (2009) defines “Performance management is a constant process in which

performance of identifying, measuring and developing the performance of individuals and aligning

performance with the strategic goals of the organization”. RCSC after discovering flaws in the

earlier system had reformed it to IWP to meet the result of the above-mentioned statement. With

this they wanted to fix the accountability of the civil servants, they want to strengthen the

performance planning, monitoring, and evaluation by aligning each teacher’s target with

organisation’s goal. They also wanted to differentiate performers form non-performers. According

to Scriven (1991), evaluation is “the process, whose duty is the systematic and objective

determination of merit, worth, or value. Without such a process, there is no way to distinguish the

worthwhile from the worthless.” The majority of respondents felt that the main reason for

measuring the teacher’s performance is to assess the effectiveness and efficacy and improve the

education quality which the current IWP does.

When IWP reaches to the implementing phase, teachers too felt that it did fulfill most of

the goals as they said it was monitoring them strictly and it has made them more organised with

proper target setting and everything is in focus and specific for them to perform their duties. Down

et al (1999) emphasize the significance of directly linking performance management to goals and

ensuring that the appraisal review of teachers demonstrates among other things, accountability.

This system also fixed the accountability of every teacher and make responsible for performing

their duties sincerely. It also differentiates star performer from low performers and of course, it

was good for RCSC but not okay for managers and teachers. The main problem arose from the

30

evaluation phase when they were rated and it was difficult for managers to decide to whom to put

in the outstanding category when well performer exceeds the given requirement. They also were

having difficulty in segregating someone to need improvement category as no one likes to be in

that category. Teachers are strongly unhappy with this moderation exercise as they claimed it is

irrelevant to segregate when everyone is performing the equal task.

Teachers are making a hue and cry out of it because despite RCSC coming up with this

reform with good intention, they felt it was irrelevant and unrealistic for them. RCSC wanted to

make them accountable by letting them maintain all the documents to prove it as evidence during

their moderation exercise but for teachers, it was a burden that just adds up to their workload. Even

being their job as service-oriented they couldn’t easily document and failed to do this is affecting

their rating. RCSC’s aim to motivate teachers by providing recognition and incentives to well

performers and reminding lazy ones through differentiation is serving its purpose to some extent

since they felt that indirectly it created room for improving the quality of education. But teachers

and managers viewed it as serious problem for them as well as for the education system. They

shared that many teachers left the teaching profession so far yet many were resigning still. It is a

big blow on the education system where Ministry is losing seasoned and experienced teachers. The

policy implementers don’t believe in the negative impact of IWP on teacher’s attrition. They said

they don’t see any co-relation between IWP and teachers leaving the system. As per their theory

teachers are leaving because they find better opportunities in other agencies. And the other reason

is that they get and an opportunity to go to Australia.

Only a certain percentage of managers are in support of what policy formulator’s intentions

are but most of them are having the same notion and experiences as teachers have. In the context

of a study conducted by Down et al (1999) amongst teachers, performance management has been

defined as an attempt by the state at making teachers more efficient and more accountable. Similar

to this those who think it is good to have IWP supports the idea of Accountability as it brings

teachers on toe, they are happy to see IWP taking charge of teachers to align their targets as it

helps them keep track of those teachers under them and they are clear with rating procedure and,

differentiation ensure everyone to take initiative and go beyond what others did which basically

makes teachers to think out of the box. In doing so they feel it improves the quality of education.

They have introduced this system not only for teachers but for all the civil servants across

the government agencies. Talking specifically about the teachers, it is meant to improve the quality

31

of education. But the quality is in question when increasing number of teachers are resigning from

their profession. Although 76.92% of the respondents believe that the IWP measures their

performance in a better way, 46.15% feel Moderation Exercise is the biggest challenge for them

whereby 38.46% of the respondents aggrieved over the increasing workload. Every teacher has to

plan their targets based upon the six key result areas in order to link individual performance to the

overall goals, objectives, and mandates of the organization.

Are teachers happy? And how does it help in quality of education?

Majority of the respondents felt that it does have potential to improve education quality

because they come forward to take extra responsibility as their ratings depend on their

responsibilities but it is just the opposite in the current scenario. In addition to the ModEx as the

main reason, there are other matters accounting 46.15% of the respondents who all agree that with

the increase in the workload they are completely bogged down. This has made 53.84% unhappy

and negatively serving the purpose of teacher’s attrition in which 75% of teachers were strongly

assured of this being very reason why many leave their teaching career. However, management

felt that there isn’t co-relation between IWP and teachers leaving the system. The management

also felt that IWP is in place to extract more out of civil servants. They wanted them to take more

initiatives holistically. They mentioned, “Of course you have to bear the burden but you would be

paid off with the better result at the end.” This statement proved that even management themselves

are convinced of teachers’ heavy workload yet haven’t spoken anything upon the changes that they

are going to make on it. Generally, most the teachers were happy according to management

because they shared that with this system, they were very clear about what they are supposed to

do. They felt that they have a proper sense of direction and which target to achieve was also

properly channelled. Only a few complaints were received so far anonymously on social media.

But although majority of the respondents weren’t happy and seemed management was unaware of

the actual problems faced by the teachers. There is a contradiction between them and that must be

sorted out.

32

4.2.1 Reasons for not liking IWP

• Quota: Teachers are not content with the framework expecting them to have fixed number

of teachers in the outstanding classification and requiring few in need improvement

category.

• Used to past system: Every teacher is used to past system in light of the fact that the

previous framework had them simple and comfortable category which is not in the present

system.

• Everyone does equal work: Going by the moderation exercise schools are grouped into

different categories. Based on this, teachers are put in four categories viz. extraordinary,

very good, good and need improvement. Thus, teachers felt it wasn’t fair for them getting

different rating after investing equal time and energy over the same activities.

• Teachers are bound by the uniform system with rest of civil servants:

Teachers claimed that teaching profession can’t be compared with other employment on

the ground that the idea of occupation is different. Along these lines, the performance

measurement ought to likewise be different for teachers.

• Documentation of evidence increases their workload: Not at all like the previous

framework had, the current IWP expected them to document all the proofs for verification.

In doing so they felt it was exceptionally troublesome and increased their task at hand.

• Process: since Moderation process doing at the cluster level is irrelevant as indicated by

them. They are of the feeling that why they can’t do it at the school level since amongst a

group if any of the school performance rankings is low then it also affects the others schools

ranking when finding the average for the ranking schools.

• Deviation of attention: Teachers whine that despite the fact that their primary job is to teach,

with the presentation of IWP they additionally need to focus on skills and aptitude requiring

activities.

•

33

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

5.1 Conclusion

The concept of IWP has already been incorporated in the existing practice of preparing a

yearly plan, block plan and daily lesson plan to meet the target of the school improvement plan.

The SIP is based on six key result areas and the serious implementation of teachers IWP would

make the individual performance more purposeful and effective by ensuring alignment of strategic

objectives of their agencies. This would also provide an opportunity to reflect their roles and

contributions to activities that are in addition to the academic responsibilities. It helps principals

to assess every teacher and accordingly balance between the academic and non-academic

activities. Under MaX system if anyone fails to maintain IWP then his/her service shall be

considered inactive for that particular duration. If anyone falls under the ‘need improvement’

category consecutively for three years then RCSC will retire the teachers from service for the good.

The reformed system of IWP has been incorporated in the system but it seemed to be surrounded

by problems already at the infancy stage. Except few teachers who were strongly against it because

they were frustrated with the increased workload for having to collect documents for evidence at

the time of evaluation. However, after listening to the story of all the stakeholders, it can be

concluded that teachers are resisting the system due to lack of understanding of the system. Most

of them say they are unhappy with the increasing workload but they are unaware that this same

system was in place even during the former framework. That time they haven’t implemented and

when RCSC enforced it, they take it as pressure and workload. It is resistance due to lack of

understanding.

Talking about the moderation process, the complaints against the rating of schools at the

cluster level because they found it unfair as if any of the member school happens to have low

school performance score it hampered the rating of other schools as well while finding average

score. Thus, the problem arose due to the faulty process at regional and cluster level.

Few principals and teachers agree that with the change in time RCSC has reformed the

system to best suit the situation and one have to accept the change. However, teacher’s attitude has

become so stubborn towards new changes and thereby made issues out of it. It can be held true

that many teachers are leaving because they don’t want to face the change.

34

Despite having to do the tedious job, teachers don’t get privileges enjoyed by the other

civil servants. Instead, they are provided more to do and perform with this new system. They are

leaving the profession as they get fewer privileges and opportunities.

5.2 Recommendation

Communicate to the teacher about the entire system

Many teachers are not fully aware of the system or unconceived the rating and different

categories because there seems to be a communication gap between the stakeholders. They say

that advocacy must be conducted for all to have smooth flow. Since only principals are briefed and

given the workshop on IWP whereby individual has their own way to understand and interpret

depending on their understanding.

Rectify process and -maybe one could conduct Moderation exercise at the school level

If RCSC can rectify the system and make it more practical by making moderation exercise

to be conducted at the school level much of the problems will ease right away.

Change in pedagogy and paradigm

The time has come where teachers have to be rated at par with their performance and IWP

has come in a very timely manner. But of course, on the other side, something has to be changed

when it comes to pedagogy and paradigm. Especially the review or rating has to be done in the

schools not at the cluster level as they did so far whereby the rating of one school affects another

school.

Provide better privileges

It is not good enough to rate teachers based on the categories. Rather they must be trained

and given more opportunity, conduct professional programs and teaching practice program which

has a positive bearing on the quality of education. Teachers would never mind working hard

providing these things or opportunities are in place. Till date teachers are the least exposed person.

They have been cocooned in the classroom situation where their thoughts have also narrowed

down.

If MoE wants to improve the quality of education they must have good teachers. We have enough

teachers in the system but they are leaving the system. If RCSC and Ministry could provide

teachers with good incentives and rewards then it is sure of retaining all the professional and

seasoned teachers.

35

Train the managers well

Going by the RCSC mandates all the managers are not handling the IWP well. Since IWP

is formative evaluation and supervisors must keep track of teachers if they happen to go astray

from their set target but in some schools, as it is done by the committee all members won’t be

capable enough to handle this. That’s why managers need to train very well.

Led them focus more on academic

The other thing is being as a teacher their main focus should be on academic but IWP has

a mandate of ‘Competency Behaviour’ of 30% that requires them to focus on other activities. This

indirectly hampers the quality of education when teachers digress their attention. So, it would be

better if either they reduce the 30% requirement or do away with it. This will make teachers focus

more on teaching and reduce their workload.

Unlike in other agencies teachers need not necessarily have to be taken care by the IWP.

Students will take care of their absence. The way teachers are rated in the schools should

be different from the way other civil servants rated in different agencies because it is a different

job, different organisation, and even outcome of the job can be different. They have life IWP, their

students can be IWP and parents are also IWP for them. Even principal will have a tough time

being very fair and equal because all are performing well.

Conduct better advocacy

IWP would become more successful in the first place if the advocacy could have done

along with all the teachers rather than selected few where people tend to understand in their own

way and then implement in their own understanding. In order to run IWP successfully teachers

need to be advocated better.

36

REFERENCES

Bulawa, P. (2011). Implementation of the performance management system in senior secondary

schools in Botswana: the perspective of senior management tram. Research online

@JCU.

Chadbourne, B. D. (November 2000). How are teachers Managing Performence Management?

Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 28 (2000).

deWaal, A. A. (2007). Successful performance management? Apply the strategic performance

management development cycle! Emerald Insight, 11 (2), 4-11. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1108/13683040710752698

Down, B., Chadbourne, R., & Hogan, C. (2000, November). How are teachers managing

performance management? Asia - Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 28 (3), 213.

Jawaria Andleeb Qureshi, A. ( 2010, August 4). Performance management systems: A

comparative. African Journal of Business Management, 4 (9). Retrieved from

http://www.academicjournals.org/AJBM

Kuensel. (2018, May 19). Individual Work Plan is necessary for teachers. Kuensel.

Kuensel. (2018, May 17). PM orders a review of IWP for teachers.

Kuensel. (2018, February 8). Teacher attrition rate is a national concern. Kuensel.

Ministry of Education. (2017). Annual Education Statistics. Planning and Policy Division

Ministry of Education. (2017). Annual Education Statistics. Planning and Ploicy Division.

Pedzani Monyatsi, T. S. (2006). Teacher perceptions of the effectiveness of teacher appraisal.

South African Journal of Education, 26 (3) 427–441. Retrieved from

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1150398.pdf

Performance Management Apparisal. (n.d.). SHRM 2010 Curriculum Guidebook for the

complete list.

Pilane, M. J. (2014). Performance management: the neglected imperative of. South African

Journal of Education, 18. Retrieved from http://www.sajournalofeducation.co.za

37

Robertson-Kraft, C. (2014). Teachers' motivational responses to new teacher. University of

Pennsylvania, Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. Retrieved from

http://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1420

Royal Civil Service Commission. (2018). Managing For Excellence, Manual.

SHRM 2010 . (n.d.). SHRM HR CONTENT.

Suraj Francis Noronha, G. (2016, May). Implementing Employee Performence Management.

International Journal of Management and Applied Science, 2 (5).

The Bhutanese. (2018, August 20). The Performence Management System. The Bhutanese .

University of South Florida. (n.d.). Overview of performance management. Retrieved from

http://www.usf.edu/human-resources/trainingand-and-development/performance-

management/index.asp

Pedzani Monyatsi, T. S. (2006). Teacher perceptions of the effectiveness of teacher appraisal in

Botswana. South African Journal of Education.

Performance Management Apparisal. (n.d.). SHRM 2010 Curriculum Guidebook for the

complete list.

Pilane, M. J. (2014). Performance management: the neglected imperative. South African Journal

of Education, 18. Retrieved from http://www.sajournalofeducation.co.za

Robertson-Kraft, C. (2014). Teachers' Motivational Responses to New Teacher. University of

Pennsylvania, Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. Retrieved from

http://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1420

SHRM 2010 Curriculum Guidebook for the complete list. (n.d.). SHRM HR CONTENT.

University Of South Florida. (n.d.). Overview of Performance Management. Retrieved from

http://www.usf.edu/human-resources/trainingand-and-development/performance-

management/index.asp

38

University of South Florida. (n.d.). Overview of performance management. Retrieved from

http://www.usf.edu/human-resources/training-and-development/performance-

management/index.asp

39

Appendix 1

Questionnaire for RCSC IWP dealing person

Q1. Why is it important to measure the teachers’ performance?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q2. How was the plan for Performance Management system (PMS) in the beginning?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

a) What was good about it?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q3. What went wrong with the teachers’ PMS?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

a) Why was it changed?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q4. What was the change?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q5. Does this new system measure the performance in a better way?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

a) What are the challenges?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

b) What are the benefits?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q6. Does this new system have the potential to improve education quality in our country? How?

40

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q7. What are the impacts of IWP (Individual Work Plan) on a supervisor and teachers’ workload?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q8. Are teachers happy with this reform?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q9. Does it have potential to meet the ministry’s plan to retain teachers by introducing IWP?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q10. According to you, what improvements need to be done to this existing policy/system?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

41

Appendix 2

Questionnaire for school principals

Q1. Why is it important to measure the teachers’ performance?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q2. How was the plan for Performance Management system (PMS) in the beginning?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

b) What was good about it?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q3. What went wrong with the teachers’ PMS?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

b) Why was it changed?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q4. What was the change?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q5. Does this new system measure the performance in a better way?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

c) What are the challenges?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

d) What are the benefits?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

Q6. Does this new system have the potential to improve education quality in our country? How?

42

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q7. What are the impacts of IWP (Individual Work Plan) on your workload being principal and as

a supervisor to rate the teachers’ IWP?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q8. Are teachers happy with this reform?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q9. Does it have potential to meet the ministry’s plan to retain teachers by reducing their

workload?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q10. According to you, what improvements need to be done to this existing policy/system?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

43

Appendix 3

Questionnaire for the school teacher’s

Q1. Why is it important to measure the teachers’ performance?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q2. How was the plan for Performance Management system (Performance Evaluation Rating) in

the beginning?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

c) What was good about it?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q3. What went wrong with the teachers’ PMS (Performance Evaluation rating)?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

c) Why was it changed?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q4. What was the change in IWP compared to the previous PE rating?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q5. Does this new system measure the performance in a better way?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

e) What are the challenges you face in implementing it (IWP)?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

f) What are the benefits for the system and on your role with the implementation of

IWP?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

44

Q6. Teachers’ being the main implementer of this new system, do you find the potential in it (IWP)

to improve education quality in our country? How?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q7. What are the impacts of IWP (Individual Work Plan) on the teachers’ workload?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

a) Do you think principal is handling his role as a supervisor to rate the teachers’

performance in a fair manner? Why?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q8. Are teachers happy with this reform?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q9. Is it the IWP which leads to the increase in the teacher’s attrition rate?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q10. According to you, what improvements need to be done to this existing policy/system?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q11. Please tell us what you found good and bad of IWP?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q12. As MoE has agreed to take over the ownership of IWP, what do you feel about it?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q13. Any further comments on IWP please……

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………