Graham Collins

This paper examines the impact of the New Zealand Ministry of Education’s 1998 ‘Principal Performance Management’ initiative on two primary schools in the Central Districts region, North Island, New Zealand. In summary ‘Principal Performance Management’ requires each Board of Trustees to establish and implement an integrated annual appraisal and performance review process for their principal based on stipulated national criteria and data-gathering processes. As part of their employment contract settlement in 1998 all principals agreed to participate in such a process from the start of 1999.

The paper is organised into three sections:

In 1989 New Zealand’s ‘Tomorrow’s Schools’ restructuring made the Board of Trustees of the individual school the employer of all school staff (including the Principal). Until 1997 individual Boards were responsible for the appraisal of their Principal according to locally agreed criteria and following a locally negotiated process. In February 1997 the Ministry of Education introduced new national requirements relating to the appraisal process for all teachers (including Principals). These requirements were introduced to "provide a systematic approach to goal setting and link school objectives to the performance of each individual staff member" (PMS One, February 1997; 1).

The 1998 Employment Contract Settlement for Principals supplemented the appraisal requirements by introducing fixed term tenure for principals and nationally prescribed professional standards to be assessed annually by Boards of Trustees. These measures were introduced to "allow Boards of Trustees to periodically review whether the school’s existing senior management matches their changing needs" and "to help ensure that schools are led and managed by high quality professionals" (Ministry of Education, April 1998; 3).

From the start of 1999 Boards have been required to make an assessment of their Principal’s performance against two sets of criteria:

1. the Board’s own criteria of "changing need" for their particular school;
2. the nationally prescribed criteria associated with the new Principal’s standards.

They are also required to follow a nationally defined process of annual performance review. (Ministry of Education, November 1998; 5)

In summary, the 1998 employment contract provisions require the Board of Trustees to carry out an annual performance review of its Principal; negotiation between Board and Principal over the process and criteria to apply in the review; the drawing up of an annual performance agreement (setting out the Principal’s objectives for the year) to provide the basis for the review; and where the Board has discretionary funding available, an annual review of the Principal’s remuneration based upon the outcomes of the performance review.

The newly promulgated professional standards for Principals require the incorporation of the national professional standards into each Principal’s annual performance agreement; twenty one generic standards relating to the management and leadership roles of the Principal which must be assessed on an annual basis; and principals with teaching responsibilities to be also assessed annually against another seventeen generic standards relating to their teaching role. In addition each Board in negotiation with their Principal can include additional standards reflecting particular characteristics of the school.

According to the Ministry of Education’s ‘Principal Performance Management’ booklet (November 1998) there should be three results evident in schools which follow the national prescription:

1. a more robust, integrated appraisal and review system for principals in every school
2. a principal performance lift as a result of better targeted principal learning
3. an increased sense of board control and direction for the school

(See Appendix One for details)

The wider literature on appraisal and performance review suggests, however, that the results of implementation of more robust systems of principal performance management may not necessarily be so positive in all cases. This wider literature (summarized in Cardno and Piggot-Irvine 1997) suggests that –

1. there may be some philosophical and practical difficulties in developing an integrated system that telescopes together performance assessment, appraisal and review.
2. the practical difficulties may be exacerbated in the case of a teaching principal, because of the number and variety of factors to be considered.
3. thus, while integration may give the Board of Trustees a greater sense of control, it may also result in principal defensiveness or ‘going through the motions’ (‘surface learning’).

The analysis below (Table 1) provides greater detail on point (b) above, pertinent to the research undertaken by the writer.

This section of the paper examines the impact of principal performance management implementation in two different contexts –

1. A school with a Teaching Principal (‘School A’)
2. A school with a Non-Teaching Principal (‘School B’)

Using interviews and participant observation the researcher tracked the changes that occurred in each school over the 12 months from the middle of 1998 to the middle of 1999; and the reactions of key participants to the changes.

Based upon the findings in the two case study schools, the following summary of results can be drawn up.

In Case Study One (School A) the school’s principal performance management system lacked robustness before mid 1998. While the process of appraisal of the principal’s teaching contributed to the principal’s continuing professional learning, it did not relate in any meaningful way to his performance review. The latter was based solely on the self-report of the principal. By mid 1999 a number of significant changes had occurred to strengthen the process of performance review. The most significant of these resulted from the Board Chair’s initiative in independently gathering data on performance, and from the Board’s development of a strategic plan for the school. However, there was no change to the process of appraisal of the teaching of the principal.

The tension between appraisal (for development) and review (for accountability) is especially evident in this case. The principal’s ‘development objective’ for each of the last two years has related to his teaching, not his management. It has therefore not been dealt with in the review discussion with the Board Chair. The principal of School A is determined to maintain this separation. The almost inevitable outcome as a result of this attitude is what Piggot-Irvine (1999) calls ‘surface learning’.

For an illustration of the tension in viewpoints, see Appendix Two.

In Case Study Two (School B) the key participants spent time, well before mid 1998 in establishing an integrated system which met multiple needs – support for principal reflection and learning; linkage to the direction and purpose of the school; utility and manageability in processes. Thus the school already operated a ‘robust’ system of principal performance management when, in late 1998, new principal performance management requirements became mandatory. In effect, by mid 1999 the school’s system was unchanged from mid 1998 (except for the cosmetic changes to the job description necessary to meet the new requirements).

Within this case there is little tension between appraisal (for development) and review (for accountability). Because of the principal’s high intrinsic personal-professional standards she is able to set and achieve realistic personal/professional goals each year within the relatively benign overall review framework that her Board has created. What Piggot-Irvine (1999) calls ‘deep learning’ has a greater chance of occurring as a result in this case.

In the case of a school with a ‘teaching principal’ (School A) principal performance management as defined by the Ministry of Education has had more impact than it has had in the case of a school with a ‘non-teaching’ principal (School B). However, this impact in School A was restricted to the area of performance review, not that of appraisal of the principal’s teaching.

There are three aspects of this conclusion which might be worthy of comment –

1. Why the large impact in School A in performance review?
2. Why the small impact in School A in appraisal of teaching?
3. Why the minimal impact in School B in either performance review or principal appraisal?

With regards to performance review in School A, key factors seems to be the relative inexperience of successive Board Chairs in performance assessment (leading to the relatively weak performance review system before mid 1998), and the determination of the current Board Chair to increase control of this aspect (leading to the changes of 1999).

With regards to appraisal of teaching in School A, the major factors appear to be the principal’s relative comfort with the existing system and his determination to draw a clear line between ‘professional’ and ‘managerial’ aspects of his job.

With regards to the minimal impact of professional standards in School B the crucial factors seem to be the generally strong satisfaction with the system developed in 1997; and the feeling that ‘principal performance management’ offered little new for this school.

The major conclusion from the study is that principal performance management is especially complex in the case of a teaching principal (where thirty eight nationally defined criteria or ‘professional standards’ are supposed to be assessed each year). While the Board in such a case might reasonably be expected to make judgements about the principal’s management performance; assessment of the quality of the principal’s teaching and meaningful support for his/her professional development is much more problematic.

The potential tension between ‘appraisal’ (for development) and ‘review’ (for accountability) is also more evident in the ‘teaching principal’ context than in the ‘non-teaching principal’ case.

Table Two, on the next page, outlines the results of the study in greater detail.

In sum, the study would seem to support the proposition that an integrated performance management system is likely to be more problematic in the case of a school with a teaching principal than it is in the case of a school with a non-teaching principal. Two key factors appear to contribute to the problem –

1. The increased likelihood of inexperience in performance management matters of Board members in rural areas (where most schools with teaching principals are located).
2. The increased complexity of the judgements required because of the multiple elements to be considered in the work of the teaching principal (compared to the work of a non-teaching principal).

The crux of the problem here appears to be the thirty eight nationally prescribed criteria that each Board is required to gather data about and make a judgement upon in the case of the teaching principal each year. No matter how earnest a Board of Trustees might be, this would appear to be an unrealistic expectation of member’s time, inclination and expertise.

A robust system of principal performance management in the case of a teaching principal would need to involve almost every one on David Stewart’s 1999 list of potential appraisers in one way or another. Stewart suggests that principal appraisal might well include any one or combination of the following:

(i) The Parent/Board of Trustees investigatory model.

(ii) The Board of Trustees purchased consultant model.

(iii) The Peer Review model, utilizing other principals.

(iv) The Staff Contribution model.

(v) Principal appraisal as part of an external review by the Education Review Office

(Stewart, 1999; 1-2)

Because of the multiple parties involved in the appraisal of the teaching principal, sophisticated management of the overall process is required to pull the various strands together. Yet the types of community in which most schools with teaching principals exist are not generally noted for a ready supply of such skills.

The difficulty of developing robust systems of performance management in schools with teaching principals in the Central Districts region of New Zealand is exacerbated because it is the current policy of Massey University College of Education rural advisors to turn down all requests to be involved directly in either principal appraisal or performance review. Schools are thus left to fend for themselves in this area of their operations.

Much more detailed research than this study can provide would be necessary to explore these matters further, however, before any conclusive generalisations might be able to be made about them.

Table Three on the next page, outlines some possible focuses for this future research.

1. That Massey University College of Education initiate further research into possible problems in Board management of the teaching principal’s performance in Schools in its region.
2. That the Ministry of Education consider revising the Professional Standards framework for principals so that a separate framework is developed for the work of a teaching principal setting more realistic criteria for assessment.
3. That as the Education Review Office reviews the performance management system of each school in future it pay particular attention to the implementation of principal performance management in schools with teaching principals
4. That where ERO identifies schools in particular difficulty with the implementation of principal performance management the Ministry of Education provide contracted support (through a national agency such as the NZ School Trustee’s Association or the NZ Principal and Leadership Centre) to help the school’s Board and Principal develop a system appropriate to needs.

1. Rationale

1. To increase the level of specificity about what was required in principal performance management – therefore adding to consistency and certainty about the process for both Boards and Principals.

"The Government is introducing professional standards to enhance performance management systems already operating … principal performance management formalizes the relationship and accountabilities between principals and their boards … the professional standards help schools clarify the knowledge, skills and attitudes all principals are expected to demonstrate".

2. To increase the degree of professional challenge in principal expectations – therefore increasing the probability of higher performance from the principal.

"The Government is (also) introducing professional standards in line with its strategy to develop and maintain the quality of leadership in New Zealand schools … the principal’s ability to organise people and resources to deliver high quality education to students directly impacts on the effectiveness of the school … the professional standards have been developed to improve the quality and outcome of principal performance".

3. To increase the extent of involvement of the Board as a whole – therefore raising their sense of control of the overall direction of the school

One aspect Dick would like to change in future relates to the appraisal of teaching in the school: "With the appraisal I can see now how some things need to be cleared up with the teaching side. Not that I have anything against (Frank’s) teaching or anything like that. It’s just that when I found out the junior teacher was to appraise the principal it didn’t really fall easy on me. There was a conflict of interests and I think it puts too much pressure on the junior teacher. So it’s perhaps a matter of setting up a three-way principal circle or something where each appraises the teaching of two others. Different principals from another school appraising (Frank) would have different ideas and that could be thrown around to help the situation here I feel.:"

(Interview, 20/9/99)

Frank would be happy for an outside principal to be involved in appraising his teaching, but sees this person as being best utilized if s/he should report to the principal, not the Board Chair.

"I would never want (Dick) to be involved in the appraisal of my teaching. Its really very important for a teacher or an educated professional to make judgements in this area. I just can’t see any other way for it to happen."

Frank again: "(Dick’s) a farmer. I’m a teacher. I don’t expect to be able to advise him on his farming. Nor do I expect him to be involved in advising on my teaching".

(Interview, 20/9/99)

Frank also has some doubts about the viability of the whole review process in the longer term.

"I think the biggest area of concern I have is that Boards of Trustees are very well meaning people, but are relatively inexperienced in matters of education. Therefore, when it comes to appraising the principal, they have limited ability, limited skill and therefore find the task difficult. You don’t hear of clients appraising lawyer’s performance or clients appraising accountant’s performance yet here we have parents doing that for school principals. I think here we are very fortunate that ‘Dick’ and ‘Pam’ before him have been relatively diligent in the process and well meaning. But in thinking about how it might be with other personalities, it scares me rigid that the way is open now for the process to be abused; or prejudice or any number of factors to be introduced".

(Interview, 20/9/99)