The 19-Year Veteran: Support, Capability or Neither?

The honest answer is “not yet, but not never”

Two things can be true at once: pupils are being let down and the current evidence base is not strong enough to run a fair process. Proceeding now would fail on the facts:

• Two “requires improvement” observations with no feedback or follow-up recorded are close to worthless as capability evidence - the procedure requires that the teacher knew the standard, was supported, and had a chance to improve.
• 26 days of absence following a bereavement raise wellbeing and possibly health considerations that must be addressed before or alongside any formal stage.
• There is no documented support plan with agreed targets and review dates, which is the first requirement of most capability policies.

Starting formal capability on this file would be procedurally unfair, would very likely be overturned, and would hand the union a narrative that contaminates every later decision. “Everyone knows” is not evidence.

What I would do instead - and it is not inaction

1. A written support and improvement plan within ten working days: precise, observable targets (planning, feedback turnaround, pupil progress in two identified classes), named support (mentor, subject lead, released time), and three review dates.
2. Wellbeing and occupational health: a welfare meeting, referral to occupational health, and reasonable adjustments if a health condition is identified. This is a legal and ethical requirement, not a courtesy.
3. Build a proper evidence base going forward: observations by trained observers with feedback within 48 hours, work scrutiny, pupil progress in his classes, and a factual chronology of complaints and the school's response.
4. Set a review gate: if after the plan's cycle there is no improvement, formal capability begins - and I would tell him, in writing, that this is the pathway. Transparency protects him and the school.

Why the delay serves pupils

A process that collapses in six months leaves the pupils in the same class with no change. A properly supported, documented process that either recovers a good teacher or lawfully exits one is slower to start and faster to finish.

The union letter

Reply in writing within the timescale the policy or recognition agreement requires - promptness itself is evidence of good faith. The reply should be factual and unemotional: the school is not conducting a harassment process; it is applying a support plan available to all staff; here is the chronology; here is the evidence that will be shared, in line with data-protection rules (third-party pupil data redacted); here is the offer of a meeting. I would not concede that a support plan is a sanction, nor dismiss the concern - if any individual manager has behaved badly, that is a separate matter to be investigated properly.

The pay decision

Pay progression is a determination against the pay policy, not a verdict on a person, and it must not be used as a covert capability sanction. I would advise the pay committee in writing:

• On the evidence available and verifiable at the date of determination: outcomes have been weak for two years, but the support plan has not yet run and observations were not properly followed up.
• On the risk: a decision that appears punitive while a support plan is live invites a grievance and a claim, and it muddies the capability file.
• On the option: hold the decision to the next committee cycle, or progress on the basis of the documented criteria, with reasons recorded either way.

The committee must decide; my job is to give them honest evidence and the consequences of each route, not to tell them what to conclude.

Keeping the threads apart

I would keep a single chronology so that if any process is challenged, the school can show that support, welfare, pay and restructure were each decided on their own merits and in the right order.

Interference is the main risk

The restructure must be run as a restructure, not as an opportunity to settle a performance score. If his TLR is the one removed, and it coincides with a support plan, the school will be accused - credibly - of a pile-on. So the first discipline is procedural: selection for the removed post must be against objective criteria applied to all holders, ring-fenced, with a consultation period and a right of representation, and the outcome recorded independently of the capability file.

Practical sequencing

• Decide the restructure on its merits and before any capability outcome, so the two are visibly unrelated in time and in reasoning.
• If he loses the TLR, consider suitable alternative duties and whether the reduction in responsibility is itself part of a reasonable adjustment or an additional pressure. Losing status and income while under a support plan is a foreseeable wellbeing trigger; occupational health should be updated.
• Be explicit with him that pay protection, notice and appeal rights apply, and that the support plan continues unchanged.

Message to the faculty

Staff will watch how this is handled more than they listen to what is said. If the restructure looks like a vehicle for removing a colleague, the remaining staff will disengage from the curriculum work and the union relationship will harden. I would brief the faculty on the objective basis of the decision and on the right of appeal, without discussing any individual's performance.

What I would say to the deputy

The deputy's instinct about the teaching is not wrong; the method is. My line would be: “I want the same outcome you do, and I want it to survive a tribunal and an appeal. That means order, evidence and documentation.”