| Abstract: | As part of an investigation into the progress of the appraisal of primary school headteachers in three LEAs in the Midlands, the three LEA appraisal coordinators concerned were interviewed in advance of a sample of the headteachers. From the three semi-structured interviews it was possible to detect interesting differences, as well as similarities, in the procedures adopted in the LEAs. In one case the advisers were unable to meet the statutory obligation for there to be an LEA officer involved in each appraisal and reporting back to the LEA appeared to be very patchy. This stemmed from resource constraints which were also seen as a looming problem by the other coordinators. In all three cases the coordinators had tried to ensure that the implementation of headteacher appraisal was as non-threatening as possible. This had led in some cases to a level of reciprocity of appraisal together with a degree of choice which might be seen as a more comfortable set of arrangements than many managers outside education or, for that matter, class teachers might encounter. The outcomes were, however, seen as very positive staff development for the heads concerned. (This is being confirmed by the overwhelming majority of the heads themselves in the interviews with them which have taken place subsequently.) Although appraisal reports on heads are available by law to the chairpersons of governing bodies, there was evidence that such feedback as there was tended to be perfunctory in many cases. There is evidence that this is not through carelessness. Appraisal of headteachers may not be following the lines of accountability originally favoured by the government. This may account for some evidence of government disenchantment with the appraisal process in education as it currently operates. |
