Capability - NASUWT

local authorities (or 81% of the total), and provides a highly informative picture
of the extent to which employers have identified teacher competence/capability
issues. It is interesting to note, however, that one in five local authorities failed
to provide data in response to the FOI request.
The FOI disclosures made to the TES revealed that 3,633 teachers had been
subject to capability/competence proceedings over a five-year period between
2005 and 2010. Of these:
• 273 (7.5%) had been dismissed or had left the school by mutual consent;
• 151 (4%) had been referred to the GTC;
• 557 (15%) had resigned their posts;
• 19 (0.5%) had moved to a new school; and
• 369 (10%) had improved their performance following competency
proceedings.
The TES evidence confirmed the conclusions reached by the NatCen (2010) report
for the GTCE cited above – namely, there are significant geographical variations
in the use of teacher capability/competence proceedings. The TES results show
that West Sussex launched the highest number of cases, with 409 over the past
five years. However, the TES data indicate that only six of the competency
proceedings initiated by West Sussex resulted in a dismissal and only one case
was referred to the GTCE.
The local authorities recording the lowest number of capability/competence cases
according to the TES evidence were Hampshire, Middlesbrough, Rotherham,
Somerset and Telford, which all reported that just one teacher went through
official proceedings in the last five years. According to the TES evidence, in 59%
of those local authorities responding to the TES FOI request, no teachers had
been dismissed.
The TES research examined the reasons given by local authorities for invoking
competency procedures. The main reasons cited by local authorities were:
• lack of pupil progress;
• unsatisfactory Ofsted inspections (in the case of headteachers);
• poor relationships with children;
• conduct at meetings;
• teachers being unwilling to ‘move with the times’.
9