The Implementation Of Performance Management System Education Essay

INTRODUCTION

Globalization together with a competitive world environment and developments in technology have made it imperative for all sectors in the economy to provide better services to their clients and secondary schools are no exception. The Government of Mauritius realized that human capital is an important resource with which Mauritius has been endowed, and that optimum use needs to be made of this resource in all sectors and the education sector was no exception. Being aware that public officers working in schools (both primary and secondary) need to be dynamic, proactive, vibrant, forward looking, innovative , effective, performing and results oriented, it became imperative to put in place a system which would allow not only to evaluate the performance of Educators working in these schools but also to analyze their training needs. In 1976, the government introduced free secondary education for one and all and in 2005, made education compulsory for all children up to the age of 16 years. Since then, it has become the responsibility of the Educators working in secondary schools to produce citizens with the required skills and competencies needed by the economy.

Bearing in mind that the annual budget for Performance Management for secondary education is Rs.1.2 million, it becomes imperative that government ensures that public funds are being properly used in order to meet the expectations of the citizens. The vision of the Ministry of Education is ‘to provide Quality Education to All’. To achieve this vision it is important that those who deliver the service in the education system perform to the best of their ability. Thus it becomes necessary not only to evaluate the personnel working in our secondary schools, but also to look into their training needs. The PMS can allow to serve this dual purpose which was not being achieved through the present Performance Appraisal system i.e. the Confidential Reporting System in the Civil Service in Mauritius which dates back to colonial times. Confidential Reporting has been in place since 1963 and amended twice since then in 1973 and 1979. However, as mentioned above it is no longer serving its purpose due to its numerous weaknesses namely, it is a universal one fit system for all public officers, there is no participation of the appraised and he is not made aware of his strengths and weaknesses, thus making the system unfair and inconsistent, it has no yardstick to measure the degree of performance of various aspects of the job as there are no set professional standards, all criteria are assigned the same rating, thereby making no difference between most important and least important criteria, subjectivity, bias and prejudice are inescapable in this system of reporting as it does not follow a scientific approach and the system is used only for promotion and does not identify the training needs of the officers in the light of observed performance.

The limitations of the Confidential Reporting System gave rise to the need for better system whereby both appraiser and appraisee would be taken on board. An attempt was made to introduce a new performance appraisal scheme in the mid-1990s but it failed probably due to its bad marketing, which led to resistance from both Trade Unions and Public officers.

Against this background, a Task Force on Performance Management was set up which created a Framework for all Departments/Ministries to adopt corporate strategic planning and measure achievement of organizational objectives and divisional work targets against established performance indicators. The Draft Performance Management Framework stipulated that the appraisal of employees should start with a performance agreement based on a predetermined work plan, continued with regular reviews and completed with a general review of performance, assessment of development needs and recognition of performance.

In line with the recommendations of the Task Force on Performance Management, the Pay Research Bureau (PRB) report 2008 recommended inter alia that all Ministries/Departments should evaluate and review periodically their performance in relation to established targets; they should adopt and implement a Performance Review Scheme as an integral part of Performance Management on a continuous basis; and the Ministry of Civil Service and Administrative Reforms should act as a coordinating Ministry, responsible to spearhead the introduction of the Performance Management System and inculcate a Performance oriented culture in the Public Service. Moreover, the PRB 2008 in its report recommends that as from financial year 2011-2012: (i) increments may be granted three months earlier for employees who perform beyond the acceptable standards consistently for a period of one year and nine months; and (ii) more than one increment may be granted at a go, say two increments, for continuous outstanding performance for three consecutive years.

The PMS is still in its infancy in State Secondary Schools being introduced in the educational system only in 2008. Mauritius is divided into four educational zones and the piloting in secondary schools was done in all schools of educational zone 3 during the year 2009 and in this current year they are in their second PMS cycle whereas the secondary schools of the other 3 educational zones (1, 2 and 4) are in their first PMS cycle. It is therefore important to study whether all stakeholders have the necessary knowledge and understanding of the Performance Management System, the nature of the current Performance Management arrangements, the Performance Management Process, the Performance Measures in order to measure its effectiveness in State Secondary Schools in Mauritius.

1.1 Knowledge and understanding of PMS

There are numerous definitions of Performance Management, from the general view, as a means for an organization to realize its aspiration (IDeA, 2001) to the more specific one, targeting at individual employees, directing and enhancing their performance, thus improving organizational effectiveness (Williams, 2002). However, the common feature of all definitions lies in the achievement of the organizations’s goals or objectives: It is the process of improving the quality and quantity of work done and bringing all activity in line with an organisation’s objectives (Walters, 1995). According to the Local Government Improvement and Development, UK performance management is; taking action in response to actual performances to make outcomes for users and the public better than they would otherwise be. All these definitions only give the purposes of the Performance Management system. (Armstrong and Baron, 2004) have stressed that performance management is a tool to ensure that managers manage effectively; that they ensure the people or teams they manage know and understand what is expected of them, have the skills and ability to deliver on these expectations, are supported by the organization to develop the capacity to meet these expectations, are given feedback on their performance and have the opportunity to discuss and contribute to individual and team aims and objectives. It is also about ensuring that managers themselves are aware of the impact of their own behavior on the people they manage and are encouraged to identify and exhibit positive behaviour. Implementation of a Performance Management System will help to obtain better results from individuals, teams and the organization as a whole as both appraiser and appraisee understand and manage performance as per an agreed framework for planned goals, objectives, standards and competencies. This appears to be a more comprehensive definition of Performance Management as it gives all the important stages in performance management but does not talk on identifying performance gaps and providing the necessary professional development.

(Armstrong, 1999) identifies the main additional features of performance management as: the involvement of all members within the organization as partners in the process, concern with inputs (competences and skills) as well as outputs, based upon agreements concerning accountability and responsibility, concern with team performance as well as individual performance, continuous process and not reliant on an annual review, personal reviews focus on constructive progression, improvement and development, recognizes the need for training and concentrates on ‘self managed’ learning’, feedback is as much self-generated as possible and not reliant on elaborate forms. (Engelmann & Roesch 1996) identified negative consequences of poorly designed and poorly administered schemes as: poor motivation and self esteem because employees receive inadequate feedback on their work performance, little or no focused communication about performance between managers and employees; inefficient use of managers’ time and litigation over alleged discriminatory actions.

The Performance Management Process:

Performance management means a shared commitment to high performance. It helps to focus attention on more effective teaching and monitoring to raise the quality of teaching and to benefit pupils, teachers and the school. It means providing appropriate and effective personal training and development to ensure job satisfaction, a high level of expertise and progression of staff in their chosen profession1.

Performance Management is an ongoing, interactive process between an employee and his/her supervisor. It involves the following stages:

Pre-appraisal – Planning and agreeing on Performance: The appraiser discusses and records priorities and objectives with each of the teachers in his/her team and discusses how progress will be monitored through a two way communication between appraiser and appraisee. A work plan is developed and agreed upon by both parties.

Mid-appraisal – Managing Performance: At mid term of the phase, the appraisee is called upon to carry out a self evaluation of the achievements and performance gaps as per the work plan, following which the appraiser conducts a formal interview with the appraisee to review and record progress made on the performance agreement and to inform him of the areas that need improvement.

Final Appraisal – Reviewing Performance. At the end of the one year cycle, the appraiser reviews, evaluates and documents the performance of the appraisee during the appraisal period. The appraisee is called upon to once again self evaluate his/her performance against the work plan agreed upon during the pre-appraisal stage. The appraiser carries out a final interview to give the appraisee specific performance information in regard to good performance and to

1.[Online] available at http://www.burford.oxon.sch.uk/policy/performancemanagementpolicy.htm [Accessed on 13 November 2010]

provide any pertinent suggestions for improvement, and action plans are developed in consultation with both parties for deficient areas. This type of communication and documentation allows opportunity for an appraisede to adhere to the expected results for the post during the next appraisal year.

1.3 Nature of current Performance Management System

Effective performance management requires systematically deciding and communicating what needs to be done (aims, objectives, priorities and targets), a plan for ensuring that it happens (improvement, action or service plans), some means of assessing if this has been achieved (performance measures) and information reaching the right people at the right time (performance reporting) so decisions are made and actions taken2. The PMS’s role can be classified into three main categories: (a) Strategic: comprise the roles of managing strategy implementation and challenging assumptions; (b) Communication: comprises the role of check position, complying with the non negotiable parameters, communicating direction, providing feedback and benchmarking; (iii) Motivational: comprises the role of evaluating and rewarding behavior and encouraging improvement and learning

1.3.1. Performance Management System in United Kingdom: Findings of (Andrew Brown, 2005) in ‘Implementing performance management in England’s primary schools’ showed that considerable variation exists among primary schools as to how they are implementing performance management. This was due to confusion and uncertainty on the part of all stakeholders concerning the meaning and purpose of performance management.

He concludes that factors that influence the effectiveness of performance management in any one primary school are the extent to which: (a) the head, teachers, governors and performance management adviser have a common understanding concerning the meaning of performance management and the purposes of introducing the initiative into schools; (b) all relevant stakeholder groups are appropriately and sufficiently well trained to implement the initiative; (c) the school’s organizational culture is such that the decision to introduce a system of performance

2.[Online] available at http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=4405770 [Accessed on 13 November 2010]

management is perceived by the school’s head, teachers and governors to be an appropriate and worthwhile one; (d) the performance management objectives which the head and teachers receive are sufficiently specific, measurable, relevant and challenging; (e) the methods and indicators adopted to measure the performance management objectives of the head and teachers are considered to be sufficiently varied and fair; (f) the concept of “overall performance” is sufficiently well defined, measurable and accepted by both the appraisers and appraisee; (g) sufficient resources are available to implement teachers’ individual professional development plans; (h) the associated pay and reward systems are perceived to be both fair and workable. In short, England has a well established Performance system including Performance Thresholds, however, there is no consensus on whether financial incentives would motivate teachers in promoting good teaching (Croxson,2001).

1.3.2 Performance Management System in New Zealand: Effective performance management involves sharing an understanding of what needs to be achieved and then managing and developing people in a way that enables such shared objectives to be achieved (Dransfield, 2000). In New Zealand, since 1997 performance appraisal is mandatory for all teachers who are appraised against nine Professional Standards which include: professional knowledge, professional development, teaching techniques, student management, motivation of students, promotion of Te Reo Maori language, effective communication, support for and cooperation with colleagues and contribution to wider school activities. These professional standards help to ensure that employer and management expectations are clear and consistent across each school. Based on these standards performance indicators are developed which require the school to identify key aspects of performance (that can be verified), determine what information is needed to assess performance against each of the professional standards, decide how performance is to be assessed (the assessment method/s), design methods for collecting the performance information. Performance indicators are reviewed from time to time to ensure they are still relevant and appropriate. The performance appraisal is carried out which focuses on the nine professional standards and leads to a written appraisal report for discussion and consultation with the teacher. This performance appraisal includes preparation of a statement of objectives which are discussed and agreed upon at the beginning of the performance management cycle. Then there is an interim appraisal, the purpose of which is to monitor progress against professional standards and to highlight success and address any concerns. It also provides an opportunity to discuss and record any change to the agreed performance expectations. The review may involve observation of teaching, an interview and preparation of an interim report. The next stage is the Final Appraisal whereby the appraiser and appraisee meet to discuss the teacher’s performance over the year based on professional standards and indicators. The appraiser informs the appraisee of the achievements and discusses what needs to be addressed in the following year in terms of further professional development. Teacher performance may also include peer appraisal, parent feedback, student feedback, students’ performance results and documentary evidence such as lesson plans, assessment records and resources used. Once teachers have met the appropriate level of professional standards they access the second tranche of salary rates (Ozga, 2003). Principals may defer progression for teachers who have not met the professional standards at the appropriate level during the assessment period but then they must put in place a program for support and development to assist the teacher to meet the standards. If a teacher disagrees with the deferral of the salary increment the teacher may, within 14 working days of being notified of the deferral seek a review3. However, (Carol Cardno, 1999) states that in New Zealand the performance management system has not well started and has not improved the performance of teachers and students. The New Zealand policy resembles closely our Mauritian system, whereby the primary purpose is to provide a framework for improving quality of teaching. There the school board is responsible for putting in place an appraisal process with appropriate professional development orientation ( Cardno, 1999).

(Rohento, 1992) found that teachers supported the introduction of monetary incentives, and believed that a performance-related pay scheme would increase their effort and have a positive effect on pupil attainment. According to some heads, although the performance management was not used to punish poor performing teachers, it was a useful means of identifying and addressing areas of weaknesses with teachers (Burgess et al, 2001).

3.Draft National Guidelines for Performance Management in Schools, Ministry of Education, 1995.

1.3.3 Performance Management System in Malaysia and Canada

Malaysia has adopted a Result-based Management Approach (RBM), which focuses on systematic and structured performance management, whereby, the Intergrated Performance

Management Framework (IPMF) helps in being results-oriented in program planning and delivery4. Canada is in its early stage on performance management which has replaced the “Supporting Teaching Excellence” which was the teacher performance appraisal policy. The policy framework for managing people is effective as of July 2010. It applies to the core public administration and is said to require sustained leadership and investment of time and money5.

1.3.4 Performance Management System in Mauritius

In the Mauritian context little research has been done as the PMS is still in its early stage. The only research on the effectiveness of Performance Management System has been carried out by (Chittoo and Ramphul, 2006) in the Health Sector where they claim that Performance Management in the case of Mauritian hospitals is still a farfetched idea because irrespective of how good a technique it is, there is a fear to implement it due to sheer shortage of staff who still have to satisfy the customers to the ‘extent possible’. The implementation of performance management may make matters worse in the present situation. The weaknesses and biases that can cause the PMS to fail include absence of participation, organization culture, low self-worth, high expectations and inaccurate ratings (Lukheenarain, (2009). Published in a press article, head teachers and school principals are said to be complaining about an overload of paperwork. Performance Management is seen as a good thing where teachers can have their say in their performance appraisal, however, loads of administrative work coming with the system, can be a hurdle6.

4.http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=14226

5.http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/Schools/SchoolOperations/EmploymentConditionsAndEvaluation/PerformanceManagementSystems/PMS

6.Kot Zot Mauritius Portal Mauritius Newspaper Syndicating Mauritian News.

Effectiveness and Efficiency

(Anthony and Young, 1994) argue that efficiency and effectiveness are the two key criteria for judging performance. Effectiveness is seen as the relationship between an organization’s output and its objectives ( outcomes or results) and efficiency as the ratio of outputs to inputs (e.g. expenses), or the amount of output per unit of input.

In addition, ‘Economy’ (i.e. inputs) is often added to complete what is commonly referred to as the ‘Three Es’ of performance measurement (Hyndman & Anderson, 1997, Boland and Fowler, 2000). To enable the evaluation of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, it is necessary to measure inputs, outputs and outcomes (or results). However, in public sector organizations which often have multiple, long term non-financial objectives focused on societal impact, it can prove difficult to measure the ‘three Es’ and therefore difficult to evaluate performance (Hyndman & Anderson, 1997).

(Neely, Kennerley and Martinez, 2004) reported that there has been much prescription regarding the design of PMS but very little consideration of whether such systems actually work (Neely et all, 2004; France & Bourne, 2003). It is worth noting that Speckbacher et al (2003) have reported that 8% of 174 German speaking countries decided not to implement a Performance Measurement System because they could not see the advantages or ‘positive impact’ especially given the effort required to implement such systems.

The above literature review raises a number of questions that are relevant to this study. In particular whether performance management in schools leads to improved performance or simply accountability. It is only through a further research on the effectiveness of performance management for educators in State Secondary that it would be possible to bring out the strengths and weaknesses of the system and help to make recommendations to the authorities on how to improve the system so as to fulfill the vision of the Ministry of Education of ‘Quality education for All’ and also make it sustainable in all state secondary schools in the future.

Hypothesis

The Performance Management System for Educators in State Secondary Schools, if properly understood and implemented will help to improve School Effectiveness in terms of both student and teacher performance.

METHODOLOGY

2.1 Purpose of the study

The research paper has various objectives. Firstly given the increased emphasis on performance management in Mauritius following the shortcomings of the Confidential Reporting system, the paper examines the extent to which both Educators and Rectors have a knowledge and understanding of the Performance Management System. Secondly it provides an overview of how the current performance management system is being implemented in secondary schools in Education Zone 3 in Mauritius. Thirdly it looks into how various criteria used in the measurement of individual performance in schools are related to teacher attitudes and perceptions. It probes into the strengths and weaknesses/problems and difficulties being encountered both by appraiser and appraisee in the implementation of the system. Lastly it makes an effort to evaluate the effectiveness of the Performance Management System as it is currently implemented in state secondary schools and make an attempt at formulating recommendations to policy makers on the improvements needed to make this system sustainable in secondary schools in the future. The use of multiple methods in a study secures in-depth understanding of the phenomenon in question because it adds vigour, breadth and depth to the investigation (Cresswell, 1994:174; Denzin & Lincoln, 1998:163; Salomon, 1991: 10). Therefore, both quantitative and qualitative data collection techniques were used.

Research Design: The research documented in this paper relied on data obtained from both primary and secondary sources.

Survey Questionnaire: The quantitative approach involved a questionnaire survey, because it helps to gather data at a particular time with the intention of describing the nature of existing conditions (Cohen & Manion, 1995:83). Questionnaires were used for both Educators and Rectors and included mainly closed questions and three open ended questions. For the closed questions the Likert scale was used. The questionnaire first asked for demographic data such as age, gender, post held and years of experience in the post. Then respondents were asked questions on their knowledge and understanding of the Performance Management System. Next, respondents were asked their views on the nature of the current Performance Management System arrangements at their school, the Performance Management process and the criteria used in the measurement of individual performance. Open ended questions related to the strengths and weaknesses of the current Performance Management System at their school and the improvements they would like to see in the present system. The questionnaires were designed in a logical and specific manner to achieve the necessary results. The subsequent steps were pursued in the following order: Defining goals and objectives, designing the methodology, determining feasibility, developing the instruments, selecting a sample, conducting a pilot test, revising the instruments, conducting the research, analyzing the data and making recommendations. Questions for both categories were dispensed on a pilot basis in one school and necessary amendments were made.

Interviews: In addition to questionnaires, qualitative data was collected through semi structured interviews with Rectors and the Zone Director in order to recognize their perceptions on the effectiveness of the Performance Management System in Secondary Schools in Zone 3 and notes were taken. The notes consisted of statements and comments made by the interviewees which were identified as being significant and important.

Triangulation: While questionnaires and interviews were the primary methods of data collection, the secondary methods of data collection included study of statistics from the Ministry of Education and other relevant documents such as the Performance Management Guide by the Ministry of Civil Service Affairs, the Pay Research Bureau Report 2008 and the Confidential Reporting system.

2.3 Participants

In Mauritius, there are 3439 Educators (appraisee) and 63 Rectors (appraisers) in State Secondary Schools over the island. For the purpose of this research the target population consisted of 660 Educators (appraised) and 12 Rectors (Appraisers) working in State Secondary Schools in Zone 3 as they are the only secondary schools which are completing their second PMS cycle, the first one having been completed on a pilot basis in 2009. Zones 1, 2 and 4 have not yet completed a full Performance Management cycle. Questionnaires were administered to 280 Educators and Rectors from 8 state secondary schools, who formed the sample population. 245 Educators and all 8 Rectors responded favourably. Semi-structured interviews were held with the 8 Rectors and the Zone Director who is generally responsible for the overall management of different schools in this Zone.

2.4 Analysis Techniques

Chi square test, Pearson correlation and Factor analysis are carried. The results are used to measure the knowledge and understanding of both Educators and Rectors of the current Performance Management System, its process, the importance of its different criteria in the measurement of the performance of individuals, respondents’ attitudes and perceptions on the performance measures, the strengths and weaknesses of present Performance Management System and the improvements they deemed necessary. These findings are then related to the literature findings. They are analyzed in order to judge the efficiency of the present system so as to formulate necessary recommendations for policy makers to make it more effective and sustainable as a means of measuring performance of all Educators in Secondary schools in Mauritius.

Data Analysis

Questionnaire data were computerized using SPSS software. Open ended questions were categorized according to the response. For the structured interviews, qualitative data, patterns and categories were identified and described.

Validity was ensured through triangulation whereby survey data from educators were verified with survey data from rectors and further supplemented by the interviews of the Rectors and the Zone Director.

3. Findings

The perceptions of the effectiveness of the implementation of PMS in our State Secondary schools are discussed and linked with the literature according to the following categories: knowledge and understanding of PMS; nature of current PMS arrangements; Performance Management Process; performance measures; and PMS from an administrative point of view. Educators who responded to the questionnaire have a mean age of 36.4 (SD=0.889), an average years of 8.2 (SD=1.48) years of teaching experience, 58.5% of whom were female and 18.3% held position of responsibility as head of department. They were all appraised by their rector.

3.1 Knowledge and understanding of PMS

Figure 1. Knowledge and understanding of PMS

Questions were framed according to literature findings as referred to in Figure 1. The study has revealed that more than 50% of educators believe in the importance of PMS for establishing a high performance culture, focusing on output and processes of achieving results and improving the process of teaching and learning. As Walter(1995) stated, PMS is the process of improving the quality and quantity of work done and bringing all activity in line with an organisation’s objectives.

3.2 Nature of current PMS arrangements

An analysis of the performance management processes and activities in the school provides an understanding of the implementation of PMS. 74.5 % of educators believe that PMS is a well planned process. One of the aims of PMS in to improve performance of schools. According to Jenny Ozga (2003), the core assumptions of performance management are that performance levels in the public sector can be raised, that is to make the schools on Scotland more efficient and effective than in Finland. Reliance on target setting and monitoring as a key element of the management of teachers raises concern about the possible distorting effects of targets on relationship between teachers and managers, and on teachers’ definition of their core task. Teachers and heads feel under pressure to demonstrate good performance. This view was also reflected in our study, the opinion of educators on effectiveness of PMS in their school and whether current PMS arrangement leads to improvement in performance of school have been analysed using cross tabulation and Chi-square (χ2) test to find out if there is an association between these two variables. The formulated hypothesis is H0, there is no association between opinion on effectiveness of PMS and PMS actually leading the improvement in performance and H1, there is an association between opinion on effectiveness of PMS and PMS actually leading the improvement in performance. Table 1 shows that majority of educators do not agree that PMS leads to improvement (33.1%) and are weakly linked to school effectiveness (40 %). χ2 50.248 with degrees of freedom 8. Probability (0) is 5%. Therefore at 5% level of signifigance H0 is rejected and we accept H1 . Cramer’s V value being 0.320 shows weak relationship between the two.