Accountability and professional development

The Ministry of Education’s ‘Performance Management Systems’ (PMS) guidelines (MoE, 1997) stipulate that performance appraisal is “an evaluative and developmental activity in the framework of professional accountability” (p. 44). The purpose of performance appraisal is to assure the government, “on behalf of taxpayers, that teachers are being supported by sound

management systems and practices and in turn are providing high-quality learning opportunities for students” (MoE, 1997, p. 44). The role of the BoT is to “provide support for an appraisal process that establishes expectations and objectives and leads to professional growth through reflection and formal feedback” (MoE, 1997, p. 44).

The definition that the New Zealand School Trustees Association (NZSTA) provides to guide BoTs summarises appraisal as:

The process of identifying, evaluating and developing the work

performance of employees in the organisation, so that the organisational goals and objectives are more effectively achieved, while at the same time benefiting employees in terms of recognition, receiving feedback, catering for individual work needs and offering advice (NZST, 2004, p. 37).

The PMS guidelines (MoE, 1997) stipulate key principles and aspects to be appraised. These include requirements that the BoT ensure that policies and procedures for appraisal are: part of a cohesive performance management

28

system within the school; appropriate to teachers, the school and wider community; developed in a consultative manner with teachers; open and transparent; supportive of professional development; timely and helpful to individual teachers; and must observe regulations around confidentiality. Moreover, the BoT has responsibility for ensuring that: a policy on teacher appraisal that adheres to these principles is in place; the implementation of the appraisal policy is delegated to a professionally competent person or persons; appraisals are completed in accordance with the policy; and each teacher is appraised at least once in a twelve-month period (MoE, 1997, pp. 40 – 43). In the case of appraisal of principals, the BOT chair is responsible for managing this process.

Features of the appraisal process outlined in the PMS guidelines include: a written statement of performance expectations (in consultation with the teacher); the identification and formal recording of one or more development objectives to be achieved during the period specified; the support to be provided to achieve the objective(s); where applicable, the observation of teaching; self-appraisal by the teacher; discussion between the teacher and their appraiser about their achievement and the preparation of an appraisal report in consultation with the teacher. Depending on the professional responsibilities and key performance areas of their position, aspects of performance to be appraised include teaching responsibilities, school-wide responsibilities, and management responsibilities (MoE, 1997, pp. 43 – 44).

In the terminology of the Ministry of Education guidelines (MoE, 1997, p. 44) a teacher is held professionally accountable and ‘appraised’, ‘evaluated’ or ‘assessed’ (the terms being used interchangeably) against an agreed job description or specified expectations that have been mutually agreed. These statements stand alongside guidelines for processes against which a teacher

29

is ‘assessed’ against the Professional Standards criteria and Teacher Registration Criteria for competency, salary progression and registration. Cardno and Piggot-Irvine (2005) maintain that the performance appraisal system is intended “to benefit those who are already competent” (p. 18). However, as has already been argued, this intention isn’t necessarily apparent. Clarity about the purpose and design of appraisal processes has been obscured by the interchangeable use of terms such as ‘appraisal’, ‘evaluation’ and ‘assessment’ that could mean quite different things. There are also minimum guidelines to support the implementation of appraisal processes and a variety of aims and purposes by different groups which appraisal processes are intended to serve.

The mandatory requirements for appraisal systems have, from the outset, had a focus on meeting local needs (teachers, principals, schools and communities). The primary purpose of appraisal as expressed in the ‘Performance Management Systems’ (PMS) guidelines (MoE, 1997), is to provide a “positive framework for improving the quality of teaching (and therefore learning) in New Zealand schools” (p. 40). The guidelines (1997) stipulate that for appraisal to be effective, the BoT has to provide

opportunities for professional development, the professional growth of every teacher being an essential part of effective personnel management (p. 51). Thus, this Ministry document continues, while appraisal sits within a

framework of professional accountability and is an evaluative (summative) activity, it also has a professional development (formative) orientation. It is or should be driven by a shared understanding between appraiser and

appraisee about the levels and types of performance expected, the

establishment of appropriate development objectives (and support) and the monitoring and evaluation or assessment of performance and growth (pp. 50 – 51). Its overall aim is to ensure an improvement in the quality of teaching and a direct benefit to all students. In order to achieve this BoTs need to

30

integrate the accountability and developmental components in the appraisal process.

It is important to point out once again that, from the outset, appraisal,

competent performance and salary progression were linked. Clause 5.2.5 (a) and (b) of the Primary Teachers’ Collective Employment Contract (1995 – 1998) required that appraisal occurs annually for salary progression. The Secondary Teachers’ Collective Employment Contract (1996 -1998, Clause 2.7.1 a) also required that teachers should be working towards “high

competence and quality” and Section G of this contract outlined the “quality teaching criteria” (MoE, 1997, p. 42). The individual contracts for primary and secondary principals also provided for progression of pay based on

performance. Policy developments in New Zealand, like those in the UK and USA that were explored previously, thus saw performance management, appraisal and performance pay linked.