Section 2

Head's Appraisal in International Schools

Appraisal in International Schools 61

The principles of appraisal 63

The accreditation model of appraisal 65

The appraisal instrument 69

Appendix: the working document ..... t .•..••.•...•.•.....••....••.....••••.•.•••.•.•••....•••.. 71

59

Appraisal In International Schools

The necessity of an effective appraisal system arises from both the desire to improve individual and institutional effectiveness and the need for individual and institutional accountability. Only through a continual assessment of effectiveness can professional growth occur.

This applies as much to Heads as it does to the teaching staff, and all Heads continually assess themselves informally throughout their daily interactions with teachers, students, parents and board members. However, this informal and ongoing process carries little priority in the hectic day-to-day functioning of a school, and the difficulty is compounded by the professional isolation of the Head, who by definition has no peer within the school with whom he or she can discuss performance without the complication of professional hierarchy intruding.

Furthermore, the necessary summative element of appraisal can only be achieved through a properly structured formal process that includes an external judgement. Because a Head has no professional supervisor within the school, any misconception held about his or her own performance may well go uncorrected, as there can be no certainty that a deputy or departmental head will give the appropriate 'reality check', even assuming that the school climate is sufficiently collegial for this to be possible. Therefore, because all Heads need, and deserve, formal recognition of their strengths and a carefully considered assessment of possible avenues of development, and because it is essential to a school that the Head's performance achieves its full potential, a periodic formal appraisal is necessary.

This necessity is not, of course, unique to international schools, and the process of appraisal described here could be applied with equal effectiveness in national schools. However, international schools do share certain characteristics that make an effective appraisal system particularly valuable, and that increase the relevance of a system modelled on accreditation:

High rate of turnover

The short average tenure of international school Heads has been the subject of comment and research in the International Schools Journal. An effective appraisal system can help to mitigate this situation by improving the understanding of the Head's performance upon which the Board bases its judgement, and by assisting the Head in responding to identified needs and areas of perceived weakness. Equally, the high rate of turnover of Board membership creates difficulties in preserving continuity and the 'institutional memory'. Without an effective appraisal system there is the risk that a changed Board may not be fully aware of the parameters established by the Head and a previous Board.

Diversity of professional background

International school Heads, as well as teachers, come from a wide variety of backgrounds, which means that they have been trained in a wide variety of educational philosophies. This is, of course, a major strength of international

61

Head's appraisal: appraisal in International Schools

schools, but it also places a premium on the need for an effective appraisal system to ensure that the Head's approach is consistent with the school's declared educational philosophy and with the expectations of the Board.

Lack of systemic 'norms'

International schools cannot rely upon national governing bodies to define their educational programmes for them. Although some may choose to adopt the guidelines of either national systems or of organizations such as the IB, these are independent choices and require continual re-affirmation or modification. Appraisal provides an effective vehicle for monitoring the Head's influence upon the reality of the learning that is taking place in the school.

Professional isolation

Headship is an isolated role in any context, but this is particularly true for the international school head. The absence of regular collegial discussion leads to the need to provide a structured mechanism for identifying possible avenues for growth and development.

62

Tt

The goals of The broad goals objectives:

• To improve

• To provide i If these objectii formative and 5 tially conflictin ing an appraisal

The element:

There is now ( organisations cI for personal 'bu tivist approach 1 to be teachers a: to be effective, change theory ~ the individual 0

These two it sional and instil within. In the ce ical self-reflecti

However, S( it does not take and standards. appraisal: appr appraisal that external agent

The second the school abo which the CUrl skills of the sta appraisal syster direct means a" manage the pre means that the as well as with

Finally, bee, into a continuui ing point of apI end point of apj

1

The principles of appraisal

The goals of appraisal

The broad goals of appraisal for a Head may be summed up in two specific objectives:

• To improve individual and school effectiveness;

• To provide individual and school accountability.

If these objectives are to be met, an appraisal system must incorporate both formative and summative elements. It is the blending of these two potentially conflicting approaches that presents the greatest challenge in designing an appraisal process.

The elements of successful appraisal

There is now considerable research into how individuals learn and how organisations change, and the overwhelming conclusion points to the need for personal 'buy-in' if learning and change are to take place. The constructivist approach to learning, which must apply as much to adults who happen to be teachers as it does to the children they teach, emphasises that learning, to be effective, must meet a need that is real for the learner. Similarly, change theory stresses the need to establish 'ownership' of the change by the individual or group responsible for implementation.

These two ideas both confirm the intuitive belief that effective professional and institutional growth cannot be imposed, but must be driven from within. In the context of appraisal, this points to the fundamental role of critical self-reflection in identifying areas of strength and weakness.

However, self-reflection may itself be ineffective and ineffectual if it does not take place in a clearly structured context of defined objectives and standards. This leads to the first of three fundamental principles of appraisal: appraisal should stimulate and develop from reflective selfappraisal that is guided, directed, moderated and validated by an external agent.

The second principle is: appraisal should inform the individual and the school about the effectiveness of classroom practice, the extent to which the curriculum is successfully delivered, and the resources and skills of the staff. It arises from the necessity of not seeing the value of the appraisal system only in terms of personal growth. It can also be the most direct means available to shape the educational policies of a school and to manage the professional resources represented in the teaching staff. This means that the process must deal with specifics of classroom performance as well as with generalities.

Finally, because appraisal is a process and not an event, it needs to fit into a continuum of professional development. This requires that the starting point of appraisal must be grounded in what has gone before, and the end point of appraisal must point to what should follow.

63

Head's appraisal: the principles of appraisal

The third principle is: appraisal should derive from explicit individual and institutional goals, and lead to explicit individual and institutional development.

Appraisal and contract renewal

It is inevitable, and proper, that a Board will draw upon any available performance appraisal when reaching decisions upon contract renewal. What is not appropriate, but seems to be all too common, is that an appraisal be carried out specifically for that purpose, as any formative element loses credibility. If appraisal is seen as part of the contract process, it will not be in the interest of the Head to collaborate openly in discussing areas of strength and weakness. There will be a risk that the Head, the Board, or both, will attempt to use the appraisal process as a means of supporting or endorsing a particular position.

This risk can only be avoided if the appraisal process is independent of the contract renewal process. This independence can never be total, but the structure and timing can be established well in advance of, and independent of, the contract process. Ideally, the individuals involved in the two processes would not be identical.

64

The a«

School accredits anism for achie: philosophy is CI appraisal alread:

• It is progress should be me

• It is reiterati as its starting

• It is heavily self-study;

• The self-stud low professic

• There is a en growth and d 'inspection' ;

• Schools are I

practice and

Accreditation the an appraisal proe tion.

I

I

The accreditation model of appraisal

School accreditation, as carried out by EelS, provides a well-proven mechanism for achieving institutional growth and accountability. Its underlying philosophy is completely consistent with the three principles of effective appraisal already listed:

• It is progressive, in that at the end of each accreditation cycle the school should be measurably further along the path towards its identified goals;

• It is reiterative, with each accreditation cycle taking the previous report as its starting point;

• It is heavily dependent upon self-evaluation in the form of the school self-study;

• The self-study is moderated and validated by the visiting team of fellow professionals;

• There is a credible judgemental element, but the focus on institutional growth and development successfully avoids the tone of an authoritarian 'inspection' ;

• Schools are measured against both established standards of effective

practice and the school's own declared objectives.

Accreditation therefore provides an excellent model for the development of an appraisal process in which the various stages parallel those of accreditation.

65

l

Head's appraisal: the accreditation model of appraisal

A collaborative exercise

The Head is usually the only person in a school with any experience of headship. Rarely will there be anybody else on the faculty or on the Board who can relate directly to the complexities and pressures of the Head's role. However, insight into the day-to-day reality of the role is essential to the process, or growth will be limited to that which is externally visible and enforceable, which tends to be the more simplistic elements. It is important, therefore, that the Head is a full and willing participant in the process.

However, self-appraisal alone can produce very bland results, and Heads are as much at risk of self-deception as any other person who is at the top of an organisation and hence somewhat insulated from critical analysis. It is necessary, therefore, to seek out external inputs, possibly using the same format as the self-appraisal working document.

To synthesize the various inputs requires a credible external moderator, perhaps a small team of judiciously selected representatives. This appraisal team will usually comprise one or two board members, possibly a faculty representative and possibly a parent representative. In addition, the involvement of a visiting Head from another international school, in the role of moderator, would be invaluable.

In ut from the Head:

Critical reflection Self-appraisal

~

Board? Administration?

Peers? Teachers?

Students? Parents?

66

The self-ap This is the e Head carries 'indicators oj This inel udes and completii ance categori source materi

If at all po shadow' a pel parative insig proved to be ( potential bene

External me The appraisal same establis Sources of in school effectii parent. Survei using selectioi ing document.

A visiting 1 tion to this stag talking to all CI peer appraisor but can also pr Head's apprais:

This opporn explored if at al 'peer credibilitj of appraisal (an would be trivia ness, particulari that of visiting 1

The appraisa with any other own perception. ing particularly, address the Hea the context of th

The summary The chair of the the Head's own address each of within each catel

1

Head's appraisal: the accreditation model of appraisal

The self-appraisal

This is the equivalent to the 'self-study' of the accreditation process. The Head carries out a self-appraisal based on established goals and agreed 'indicators of effective practice', as itemised in the appraisal instrument. This includes giving a rating on each of the items in the selected categories, and completing anecdotal summaries of perceptions in each of the performance categories. The Head may also wish to compile a portfolio of various source materials representing his or her professional history.

If at all possible, the Head should also be given the opportunity to 'jobshadow' a peer at another international school in order to provide a comparative insight into leadership and organisational methodology. This has proved to be one of the most valuable aspects of teacher appraisal, and the potential benefit is certainly as great for Heads.

External moderation

The appraisal team will carry out an external evaluation based on the same established goals and agreed 'indicators of effective practice'. Sources of information should include as many different indicators of school effectiveness as possible, and must be fully documented and transparent. Surveys may be conducted among faculty, parents and students using selections from the 'indicators of effective practice' from the working document.

A visiting Head, or 'peer appraisor', can make an invaluable contribution to this stage. If he or she is able to spend one to three days at the school, talking to all constituencies and observing the Head directly in context, the peer appraisor can not only act as mentor and objective critic for the Head, but can also provide a 'reality check' for the appraisal team by relating the Head's appraisal to the wider educational context.

This opportunity to provide external expertise and objectivity should be explored if at all possible, as it is clear that another Head would have greater 'peer credibility' than a consultant brought in by the Board for the purpose of appraisal (and would cost lessl). The cost of a short visit by another Head would be trivial when compared with the benefits of improved effectiveness, particularly if the arrangements could be made on a similar basis as that of visiting teams for accreditation.

The appraisal team and the Head meet to review the self-appraisal, along with any other source materials submitted, and will compare the Head's own perceptions with those emerging from the external moderation, focusing particularly on any differences of perception. The discussion should also address the Head's short and long-term professional development goals in the context of the school's development goals.

The summary report

The chair of the appraisal team will compile a summary report drawing on the Head's own self-appraisal as moderated by the team. The report will address each of the selected categories of performance, and will include within each category both strengths and areas of possible development. The

67

Head's appraisal: the accreditation model of appraisal

report will also make recommendations for professional development, bearing in mind the following guidelines:

• not every category will be addressed in the professional development

plan;

• objectives should be limited in number (no more than one per category);

• objectives should be linked to specific activities or targets for realisation;

• detailed plans should not be provided, as they will often need to be mod-

ified;

• 'consolidation of present standards' is often a legitimate objective. Every effort should be made to achieve consensus on the report, although if significant differences of opinion persist the Head may wish to add a dissenting commentary.

Follow-up

The appraisal itself should not address issues of contract renewal or compensation, although it will provide validated information to be referred to in contract discussions. It should establish clear performance goals and timelines for their completion, related to the development goals of the school.

The appraisal process will be too burdensome to be carried out every year (every three years might be more realistic). The precise interval between appraisals should be established in advance as a matter of policy. However, the Head should undertake an annual 'interim appraisal' with the board chair, reviewing progress with the recommendations.

68

The appraisal appraisal tean work for the s and although i not form part (

The catego:

The working pass the varia

1 School go' 2 Financial 3 Leadershi

'Indicators I Each of the c several 'Indic reflection on and which rni: ship. These d( and not all wi for reflection responding tc before giving

The ratings Based upon tl and appraisee L(ow) or N(c these ratings I appraisor and ratings that is completely SI

Therefore, 'scores', as at ty for the ratir of headship, a external persj

The anecdc

In addition tc also complete

The appraisal instrument

The appraisal instrument, or 'working document', guides the Head and the appraisal team through the appraisal process, and also provides the framework for the self-appraisal. It is intended for use as a tool for self-reflection, and although it should be submitted to the appraisal team for review, it should not form part of the final appraisal record, but should be returned to the Head.

The categories

The working document is divided into three categories intended to encompass the various roles of a Head:

1 School governance

2 Financial management 3 Leadership style

'Indicators of effective performance'

Each of the category modules contains four items, which in tum comprise several 'Indicators of effective practice' intended to stimulate constructive reflection on different elements identified as representing 'best practice', and which might contribute to effectiveness in that particular aspect of headship. These do not constitute a checklist, or a set of minimum requirements, and not all will apply to every individual. They should be used as prompts for reflection and to help interpret the significance of the item. Rather than responding to them individually, they should be considered holistically before giving an overall rating on the level of performance for that item.

The ratings

Based upon their personal interpretation of effective practice, both appraisor and appraisee should give each item one of four ratings: Hugh), M(oderate), L(ow) or N(ot) A(pplicable). It must be stressed that the only purpose of these ratings is to provide a basis for the comparison of the perspectives of appraisor and appraisee, and that it is the difference between the two sets of ratings that is of interest in the ensuing discussion. The ratings can only be completely SUbjective, and do not relate to any objective benchmarks.

Therefore, they should not go on record, nor should they be viewed as 'scores', as any totals or averages would have no meaning. The only validity for the ratings is as an instrument for focusing discussion on specific areas of headship, and for comparing the internal perspective of the Head with the external perspective of the appraisal team.

The anecdotal commentary

In addition to giving a performance rating to each item, the Head should also complete an anecdotal summary for each category. This should give a

69

Head's appraisal: the appraisal instrument

commentary on the overall performance, including reference to the particular style or approach adopted. Perceived strengths and areas of potential development should be identified.

This is without question the most difficult part of the appraisal process for Heads, as the composition of an anecdotal professional profile requires a far higher level of critical self-reflection and personal engagement with the appraisal process than the assignment of ratings. However, almost without exception the response of individuals after completing the exercise has been that it prompted a degree of professional introspection that does not normally take place, and that it constituted the most valuable stage of the appraisal.

The anecdotal commentary in the working document does not need to be formally written up, as it will not go on record but will be returned to the Head. However, the chair of the appraisal team should draw on it heavily when compiling the formal summary report, as features identified by the Head and expressed in the Head's own words will have far more credibility as the basis for future professional development.

70

Category

Board reh

• Does th board c.

• Does th service

• Does th

• Does th events?

Strategic p

• Does tht

• Has the ing the,

• Has the achieve

• Does the school's

Staff devek

• Is the He

tent with

• Has the 1

• Is the He

• Does the opment 0