I WAS under the impression that the role of governors in performance
management was to set targets and monitor the head's performance.
Having delivered module three of the training for governors, I'm not so sure. The sample adviser's report of the meeting between the adviser, the appointed governors and the head of the mythical Dialogue school gives a very different slant on the process.
The report assumes that by psychic divination, the performance management process was anticipated a year ago at Dialogue. Three governors were appointed, set targets for the headteacher and have monitored the head's progress against these agreed objectives at half-trmly intervals.
The adviser's report highlights the governors' failure to report back to the full governing body in a systematic way and says they need to set more focused, challenging objectives.
They are described as having little experience in the use and interpretation of data, their monitoring processes are over-cautious and ineffective, and even the management of governors' meetings is criticised as unproductive.
The headteacher's performance is scarcely mentioned: this is performance management of governors.
How realistic is this model? Many of you will have had your first adviser's visit. How was it for you?