Managing Headteacher/Principal Performance
Author(s):
Conference:
ECER 2014
Format:
Paper

Session Information

26 SES 06 B, Principals Performance, Legal Standards and Brand Management

Paper Session

Time:
2014-09-03
15:30-17:00
Room:
B028 Anfiteatro
Chair:
Lawrence Drysdale

Contribution

This paper reports on a 2013 study of the role of school governing bodies (GBs) in headteacher performance management (HTPM) in England. The OECD’s leadership reports (Pont, et al, 2008; OECD, 2009; Schleicher, 2012) note that school leadership has become a priority development area in many of its member countries. As the reports suggest, the performance management of headteachers (HTPM) plays an important role in identifying areas of needed improvement and support to develop effective leadership. While most European countries have performance appraisal processes, many report concerns about the scarcity of tools and mechanisms to monitor and assess headteachers’ performance (OECD, 2008). Oversight of the performance of school leaders is crucial in the educational system due to current initiatives promoting school autonomy coupled with centralised accountability.

Oversight of the performance of school leaders is crucial in the English educational system due to current initiatives promoting school autonomy coupled with centralised accountability. Understanding HTPM is especially crucial given the shifting relationship between the state and schools.In England, as in other countries, HTPM is the responsibility of governing bodies but concerns have been raised about the capacity of volunteers to take this role (James, et al, 2011). The governor role is significant to leadership and has a key influence on school improvement (James, 2011).

This paper addresses the following questions:

1. How is HTPM working in different types of schools and academies and how can it be improved?

2. What are the implications of ideas, approaches and debates for supporting strong HT performance and addressing marginal performance?

The paper approaches performance management from a pragmatist orientation that seeks a middle ground between fundamental critique of ‘performance’ as an operative concept and uncritical acceptance of performativity through technical-rational prescription. This perspective aims to understand HTPM systematically while acknowledging limitations of the concept and its interpretation in practice.

Method

This research was funded by England's Department for Education and National College for Leadership and Teaching. The study employed multiple methods: a systematic review of literature; quantitative data derived from two national surveys (headteachers, n=200; governors responsible for HTPM, n=1,088); and qualitative data from 15 expert interviews and 20 case studies of schools and school groups.

Expected Outcomes

Our findings highlight features of effective HTPM and problematise their implementation. Governing bodies are struggling to find an appropriate balance between the centrifugal forces of centralised accountability and the centripetal forces of structural reform. We found very few instances of expansive or alternative uses of HTPM that hinged on definitions of performance valued locally but not centrally. Local governing processes around HTPM are frequently an instrumental application of the aims of the central state. In other instances, especially school chains, technically sophisticated systems move beyond instrumental alignment with the aims of the central state towards functional alignment, ensuring the legitimacy of the autonomous organization. The role of PM in the relationship between the central state, schools and those working in and governing schools is of vital concern in an era of ongoing structural reform.

References

Bouckaert, G. and Halligan, J. (2008). Managing performance: international comparisons. London: Routledge. Bruggenate, G., Luyten, H., Scheerens, J. and Sueges, P. (2012) Modeling the influence of school leadership on student attainment: how can school leaders make a difference?, Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(1). Davis, S. H., Kearney, K. and Sanders, N. M. (2011). The Policies and Practices of Principal Evaluation: A Review of the Literature. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Earley, P. (2013). Exploring the school leadership landscape : changing demands, changing realities. London: Bloomsbury Academic. James, C., Brammer, S. Connolly, M., Fertig, M., James, J. and Jones, J. (2011). The ‘hidden givers’: a study of school governing bodies in England, Berkshire: CfBT Education Trust. James. C. (2011) The role of the chair of the school governing body: emerging findings from current research. Berkshire: CfBT Education Trust. Moos, L., Johansson, O. and Day, C. (2011). How school principals sustain success over time: International perspectives. (Vol. 14): Springer Verlag. OECD. (2013). Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment: OECD Publishing. Parylo, O., Zepeda, S. and Bengtson, E. (2012). Principals’ experiences of being evaluated: a phenomenological study. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24(3), 215-238. Pont, B., Moorman, H. and Nusche, D. (2008). Improving School Leadership: Policy and Practice. Geneva, Switzerland: OECD Publishing Rhodes, M. L., Biondi, L., Gomes, R., Melo, A. I., Ohemeng, F., Perez-Lopez, G. and Sutiyono, W. (2012). Current state of public sector performance management in seven selected countries. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 61(3), 235-271. Schleicher, A. (2012). Preparing Teachers and Developing School Leaders for the 21st Century: Lessons from around the World. Paris: OECD Publishing. Sinnema, C. E. and Robinson, V. M. (2012) Goal Setting in Principal Evaluation: Goal Quality and Predictors of Achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11(2), 135-167.

Author Information

Sara Bubb (presenting / submitting)
Institute of Education, University of London, United Kingdom
Peter Earley (presenting)
Institute of Education, University of London, United Kingdom
Institute of Education, University of London, United Kingdom
Bath University
Institute of Education, University of London, United Kingdom
Cambridge University

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.