Recent policy developments are changing the work of local education authorities (LEAs) in Wales requiring them to play a broader role in the community and a significant role in raising educational achievement. LEAs are obligated to set out their improvement targets in institutional plans and are called to account by external inspection, which focuses on the management of performance at all levels and stresses the need to establish appropriate management structures. The systems and processes for the performance management of LEA staff are therefore of interest and were the focus of the study reported here. The findings described in the article give insights into the management and organization of LEAs in Wales; performance management practice; the problematic nature of target setting; and the issues of recruitment, succession planning and the capacity of those who work in LEAs to fulfil their roles with authority. A model of performance management of staff in LEAs is presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ambach, G. (1996) ‘Standards for Teachers: Potential for Improving Practice’ , Phi Delta Kappan78(3): 207-210 .
2.
Armstrong, M. and Baron, A. (1998) Performance Management: The New Realities. London: CIPD .
3.
Audit Commission (1999) Planning to Succeed. London: Audit Commission .
4.
Audit Commission (2000) Best Value Inspection in Wales. Cardiff: Audit Commission .
Audit Commission and Estyn (2001a) The Role of LEAs in Raising Standards of Literacy: A Summary Report. Cardiff: Audit Commission .
7.
Audit Commission and Estyn (2001b) The role of LEAs in Raising Standards of Numeracy: A Summary Report. Cardiff: Audit Commission .
8.
Audit Commission and Ofsted (2001a) Local Education Authority Support for School Improvement. London: Ofsted .
9.
Audit Commission and Ofsted (2001b) Inspection of Local Education Authorities Support Grade Criteria for Inspection Judgments. London: Ofsted .
10.
Bowles, M.L. and Coates, G. (1993) ‘Image or Substance? The Management of Performance as Rhetoric or Reality’ , Personnel Review22(2): 3-21 .
11.
Boyne, G., Gould-Williams, J., Law, J. and Walker, R. (2002) ‘Plans, Performance Information and Accountability: The Case of Best Value’ , Public Administration80(4): 691-710 .
12.
Brumbach, G.B. (1988) ‘Some Ideas, Issues and Predictions about Performance Management’ , Public Personnel Management (Winter): 387-402 .
13.
Cabinet Office (1999) Modernising Government (Cm. 4310). London: The Stationery Office .
14.
Caldwell, B.J. and Carter, E.M.A., eds (1993) The Return of the Mentor: Strategies for Workplace Learning. London: Falmer Press .
15.
Chapman, R.A. (1999) ‘The Importance of Modernising Government’ , Teaching Public Administration19(1): 1-18 .
16.
Colebourne, D., James, C.R., James, N. and Williams, J. (2002) The Performance Management of Staff in Local Education Authorities in Wales. Pontypridd: University of Glamorgan and Virtual Staff College .
17.
DETR (1998) The Twelve Principles of Best Value. London: HMSO .
Whitbourne, S. with Mitchell, K. and Morris, R. (2000) What is the LEA for? Slough: Education Management Exchange and National Foundation for Educational Research .
46.
Winstanley, D. and Stuart-Smith, K. (1996) ‘Policing Performance: The Ethics of Performance Management’ , Personnel Review25(6): 66-84 .
