Quality Standards for Headteacher Performance Management Process
These quality statements are based on 4 strands: arrangements for performance management, role and involvement of governors, review of
progress, setting objectives to impact on whole school improvement.
Arrangements for
Performance
Management
Grade 1
Outstanding
Grade 2
Good
Grade 3
Satisfactory
Grade 4
Inadequate
Arrangements for the visit are
exemplary: The school’s
strategic and annual school
improvement plan, latest version
of the SEF, a copy of the
school’s performance
management policy, the school’s
pupil outcome targets for the
relevant year, planning to
address specific school context
related priorities (eg moving to
new buildings, new ICT strategy)
and relevant progress updates,
(including progress of current
pupils) are available for the SIP
sufficiently prior to the meeting
for he/she to prepare
adequately. The SIP holds
preliminary meetings with both
the headteacher and governors
before the formal meeting. Both
are well prepared for the
meetings. Headteacher
performance management
arrangements comply with the
current regulations and the
school’s performance
management policy
Arrangements for the visit are
good: The great majority of the
information under “outstanding”
is made available to the SIP
prior to the meeting, although
not all of it may be fully up to
date. The SIP holds preliminary
meetings with both the
headteacher and governors
before the formal meeting. The
headteacher performance
management arrangements
comply with the current
regulations and the school’s
performance management
policy
Arrangements for the visit are
satisfactory: Sufficient
information is available for the
SIP prior to the meeting,
although not all may be fully up
to date. There may contextual
information or elements of the
strategic planning missing.
These may need to be drawn
out at the meeting. Updates of
progress towards key targets
and priorities may not be
available prior to the meeting.
The opportunity for the SIP to
hold separate preliminary
meetings is not provided or they
are too short to be effective. The
formal meeting is held with the
governors and headteacher. The
performance management
arrangements comply with the
current regulations and the
school’s performance
management policy
Arrangements for the visit are
unsatisfactory: Insufficient
information is available for the
SIP prior to the meeting to
enable he/she to prepare
adequately. The recommended
format of meetings is not fully
followed. The headteacher
performance management
arrangements do not fully
comply with the current
regulations and / or the school’s
performance management
policy
Role and involvement of
governors
Review of progress
Governors demonstrate a full
understanding of the
headteacher performance
management procedures, their
roles within it and how it relates
to their overall responsibilities as
governors. They show a full
grasp of the school’s context
and progress against the key
priorities and targets, including
progress over time. They carry
out the review confidently. As a
group, they lead the process,
are pro-actively involved in the
review of performance and
setting of new objectives,
drawing, as necessary, on the
advice of the SIP. A review
statement and the draft
statement of objectives are
agreed at the meeting.
Governors understand the
headteacher performance
management procedures and
their roles within it. They show a
good grasp of the school’s
context and are aware of
progress against the great
majority of the key priorities and
targets. They are actively
involved in the review of
performance and setting of new
objectives. There are occasions
where the SIP has to provide a
lead to enable them to move
effectively through the review
and objective setting process. A
review statement and the draft
statement of objectives are
agreed at the meeting.
Governors understand the
headteacher performance
management procedures and
their roles within it. They
understand in general terms the
school’s context, key priorities
and targets, but may, at times
rely on the SIP and / or head for
more detailed or up to date
information. Governors are
involved in the review of
performance and setting of new
objectives, but rely on the
support from the SIP to draw out
the objectives and relate them to
the progress the school is
making. A review statement and
the draft statement of objectives
are agreed at the meeting.
Governors do not fully
understand the headteacher
performance management
procedures. Their involvement in
the review of performance and
setting of new objectives is
restricted by their limited
knowledge of the school’s
context, key priorities and
targets. They are over reliant on
the support of the SIP and / or
headteacher. A review
statement and the draft
statement of objectives may not
be agreed at the meeting.
The governors undertake a
detailed and challenging
evaluation of the progress
towards the objectives, drawing
appropriately on internal,
external and comparative
evidence as appropriate. The
governors analyse in detail the
overall performance of the
headteacher and the
improvements in the school’s
provision and outcomes. The
governors make a statement
regarding performance related
pay progression for the
headteacher.
The governors undertake a
comprehensive evaluation of the
progress towards the objectives,
drawing predominantly on
internal evidence. The SIP may
have to point them to external
evidence where appropriate.
The governors consider the
overall performance of the
headteacher and the
improvements in the school. The
governors make a statement
regarding performance related
pay progression for the
headteacher.
The governors undertake an
evaluation of the progress
towards the objectives, using the
support of the SIP to extend
their evidence base. The
governors consider the overall
performance of the headteacher
but do not always relate it
sufficiently to the performance of
the school without the direct
support of the SIP. The
governors make a statement
regarding performance related
pay progression for the
headteacher.
The evaluation of the progress
towards the objectives lacks
rigour and challenge. The
evidence base used is not
sufficiently specific or valid to
draw accurate conclusions on
the overall performance of the
headteacher and the
improvements in the school. Any
analysis or challenge is
dependent on the SIP and / or
headteacher. The governors
may not clarify performance
related pay progression for the
headteacher.
Setting objectives to
impact on whole school
improvement
The governors and headteacher
agree an appropriate number of
challenging pupil progress and
leadership and management
objectives, which relate directly
to the analysis of the school’s
current performance and
context. The development needs
of the headteacher are
systematically analysed and
identified. Work life balance is
addressed explicitly and taken
into account. The governing
body has identified resources to
support the meeting of any
development needs. The
objectives are SMART (specific,
measurable, achievable, realistic
and time bound) with easily
measurable success criteria.
The monitoring arrangements
are agreed and documented.
The governors and headteacher
agree an appropriate number of
challenging pupil progress and
leadership and management
objectives. These relate to the
school priorities and targets. The
development needs of the
headteacher are identified. Work
life balance is acknowledged.
The objectives are SMART
(specific, measurable,
achievable, realistic and time
bound) with success criteria.
The monitoring arrangements
are agreed and documented.
The governors and headteacher
agree an appropriate number of
challenging pupil progress and
leadership and management
objectives. These relate to the
school priorities and targets. The
development needs of the
headteacher are not fully
discussed. The majority of the
objectives are SMART (specific,
measurable, achievable, realistic
and time bound) with success
criteria. The monitoring
arrangements are agreed and
documented.
W:\SIS\SIS Staff Individual Folders\John Budd\Misc\SIPs\HT Performance Management\Performance Management evaluation draft 2.doc
The leadership and
management objectives
insufficiently reflect the school
context and lack the necessary
challenge to secure the
improvements needed. The
development needs of the
headteacher are superficially
addressed, if at all, and do not
relate sufficiently to the school’s
priorities and targets. The
objectives are not sufficiently
SMART. Arrangements for
monitoring and review are not
clearly identified or are
inadequate.