When performance management first came in, it was seen as an initiative aimed at tightening control on the profession. Performance management would ensure teachers set annual targets that were deemed appropriate by the establishment, agreed by the schools, and overseen by local authority inspectors and OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education). Targets were to be agreed between the individual being assessed and an assigned performance management mentor. Targets were usually, though not always, at least in part tied closely to meas urable academic standards. Teachers who were deemed to have successfully completed set targets by their lin managers and performance management mentors, and the Head teacher, were often eligible for rewards in the way of promotion and salary increase. The whole system is hampered by the practical difficulties of finding the time for meetings between key staff to complete the process and verification of progress through lesson observation etc., not to mention agreeing recorded outcomes. Establishing what constitutes 'progress' in the world c education and understanding what this looks like for any given child or class or cohort, and then agreeing how best this can be measured, are fraught with difficulty. In practice, a successful annual performance managemer depends as much or more on a positive relationship with a teacher's assessor than any real 'progress' in relation to the actual or perceived needs and progress of the children being educated. Consequently performance management is becoming increasingly viewed as an unfair game one needs to play, and in terms of improving schools, it is gradually diminishing.

Questions

1 Is this another disgruntled teacher or is there evidence that there are more widespread performance manage ment problems in the English school system?