Topic: Appraising and managing performance in Independent (Public) Schools. Research Question: How are performance appraisals conducted on staff in Independent Schools? Objective: This Paper will outline the performance appraisal (management, review, assessment or evaluation - names are interchangeable and mean more or less the same) processes conducted in six Australian Independent Schools, and will compare these with a 'best practice' model synthesised from studies conducted in business. Such a model has been chosen for comparison because, as with other human resource management processes, performance appraisal/ management has been developed, tested and continually improved within commercial environments. In the school context, the procedural comparison will focus particularly on the teaching staff in these schools as this group, after the executive decision-making group, is considered most critical to student achievement as an indicator school 'success'.At the outset it is pointed out that school outcomes are defined in terms of individual and organisational performance. Organisational performance includes outcomes such as student learning or achievement, efficient resource utilisation, responsiveness to the community and adaptability. Turnover, absenteeism and grievance rates are examples of individual or human relations outcomes (Robertson, 1998) Hermeneutic-constructivist qualitative framework. Semi structured interview, or guide questions (Patton, 2002) Analytical framework: Piggot-Irvine's criteria for evaluating the efficacy of performance review systems. The implications of the comments made by study participants, in comparison to Piggot-Irvine's framework are clear. With so little involvement by staff across the board in most schools, there appeared to be little transparency, and little evidence of either mutual trust or respect. With no clear process, there were no clear guidelines for raters to follow. Job descriptions were only mentioned in one school as the basis for evaluation so objective, informative data was not forthcoming, nor was accountability evident. A professional development plan was only mentioned by one school linked to goals and at another as being implemented ad hoc. Heads of Departments or line managers clearly lacked the knowledge and "will" to enforce their responsibilities and only in one school was it acknowledged that training should and would be provided to them, although not in any specific area. Fortunately, four out of the six schools were planning a complete overhaul of their performance management systems. In conclusion, it is fair to comment that the systems that were in place in these schools were lacking in efficacy. It is encouraging however, that Independent School principals are now investigating the components of more effective and reliable performance management systems that will more closely fit their school's ethos and environment. It is therefore emphasised again that staff leaders and managers should consider and integrate the factors that have been outlined here that will facilitate the effectiveness of such systems. It is suggested that only then will teachers in schools start looking at their 'performance review' time with positive anticipation and will schools take heart from the collective improvement in both teaching and learning quality.AbstractWith a demonstrable link between quality teaching and 'good' student outcomes, the Independent Schools sector in Australia has focused on attracting and recruiting quality staff to their schools as well as developing and nurturing this quality in teaching staff already employed. While teacher quality benchmarks have been outlined in other studies, in individual schools quality attributes and gaps can be identified through the processes of teacher performance appraisal and management, of which there are a variety of models adopted by the Independent Schools in Australia.Independent Schools began to adopt performance appraisal processes in varying forms before 1996 that generally emanated from 'business' type approaches. It could be said that their decision to mirror business, and hence follow the managerial trail imposed by State Governments in the mid 1980's, had the effect of legitimising these processes.In this paper, one School Principal views the performance appraisal processes operating in her school as 'appalling' while others are reviewing processes to better reflect their quest for quality and their schools' unique demography and environment. This Paper looks at a 'synthesised' model proposed by researchers, and compares it with the performance appraisal systems operating in the Independent Schools in this study. It is proposed that this model can be adapted and used by all European Independent School leaders.Remainder of references (could not alter window below) O'Neill, J. & West-Burnham, J. (2001) Perspectives on Performance Management. In J. West-Burnham, I. Bradbury & J. O'Neill (eds), Performance Management in Schools. Great Britain: Pearson Education Ltd. Performance Institute of Australia accessed @ 2/03/06. Piggot-Irvine, E. (2003). Key Features of Appraisal Effectiveness. The International Journal of Educational Management, 17(6), pp254-261. Rando, W.C. & Lenze, L.F. (1994) Learning from Students: Early Term Student Feedback in Higher Education. University Park, PA: National Centre on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning & Assessment. Sharrock, G. (1998) Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 36(3), p89. Weimer, M.G. (1987, March/April) Translating evaluation results into teaching improvements. AAHE Bulletin, pp8-11. Annett, J. (2002b). Subjective rating scales: science or art? Ergonomics, 45, 966-987, in Wilson, J. & Corlett, N. (eds) (2005) Evaluating Human Work. Florida: Taylor & Francis Group. Armstrong, C. & Guimaraea, T. (1998). Exploring The Relations Between Competitive Intelligence, IS Support and Business Change. Competitive Intelligence Review. 9(3), pg. 45 - 54.Beare, H. (2001) Creating the future School, London: Routledge Falmer. Blandford, S. (2000) Managing Professional Development in Schools. London: Routledge. Carlin, P. (2002) human resources development processes to enhance student learning. Leading and Managing, 9(2), pp186-189. Chelimsky, E. (1997) Thoughts for a new evaluation society, Evaluation, 3(1), 97-118. Clark, R. & Seward, J. (2000) Australian Human Resource Management: Framework & Practice. Sydney: McGraw-Hill book Company Australia Pty Ltd. Collins, C. (2004) Envisaging a new education studies major: what are the core educational knowledges to be addressed in pre-service teacher education? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), November Cowan, J. (1998) On becoming an innovative university teacher. Buckingham, SRHE/Open University Press. DeCieri, H., Kramar, R., Noe, R., Hollenbeck, J., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P., (2006) Human Resource Management in Australia (2nd ed). Australia: McGraw-Hill. Down, B., Chadbourne, R. & Hogan, C. (2000) How are Teachers Managing Performance Management? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 28(3), pp214-223. Drysdale, L. (2003) Resource Attraction: The quest for Talent, ACEL Hot Topic 1997-2003 (1) in Leading and Managing, 9(2) ppDrucker, P. (1995) Managing in a time of great change.Fullan, M. with Stiegelbauer, S. (1991) The New Meaning of Educational Change, New York: Teachers College Press. Garbutcheon-Singh, M. (1990) Performance Indicators in Education. Melbourne: Deakin University Press. Garger, E.M. (1999) Holding on to high performers: A strategic approach to retention, Compensation and Benefits Management, 15(4), pp10-17. Green, P. (1999) Building robust competencies: Linking HR strategies to organizational strategies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Hirsh, W., Bevan, S. & Barber, L. (1997) Measuring the personnel function. The University of Sussex, Brighton: The Institute of Employment Studies. Invargson, L. (1998) Professional development: the pursuit of professional standards paper presented at the professional standards and status of teaching conference, ECU, Perth, February. Kellerher, J., Sommerlad, E. & Stern, E. (1996) Guidelines for eLib project evaluation. Available online at: http://www,yjikb,ac,yk/services/elib/papers/tavistoc/evaluation-guides, accessed 4/11/05. KPMG, (2002) Chartered Accountants, HR Division, Business proposal. Murphy, A. Performance Management and the Church School. In J. West-Burnham, I. Bradbury & J. O'Neill (eds), Performance Management in Schools. Great Britain: Pearson Education Ltd. Nevo, D. (1995) School based evaluation: a dialogue for school improvement. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd. O'Neill, J. & West-Burnham, J. (2001) Perspectives on Performance Management. In J. West-Burnham, I. Bradbury & J. O'Neill (eds), Performance Management in Schools. Great Britain: Pearson Education Ltd. Performance Institute of Australia accessed @ 2/03/06. Piggot-Irvine, E. (2003). Key Features of Appraisal Effectiveness. The International Journal of Educational Management, 17(6), pp254-261. Rando, W.C. & Lenze, L.F. (1994) Learning from Students: Early Term Student Feedback in Higher Education. University Park, PA: National Centre on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning & Assessment. Sharrock, G. (1998) Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 36(3), p89. Weimer, M.G. (1987, March/April) Translating evaluation results into teaching improvements. AAHE Bulletin, pp8-11. Special network collection.