ABSTRACT
We do not present staff appraisal as ‘the alchemy for turning base metal teachers into golden ones’ (Bunnell and Stephens, 1984, p.291) or the mechanism by which the incompetent can be removed and the capable promoted more rapidly. The main question which has been addressed by all the contributors is how can staff appraisal contribute to more effective professional development of teachers? The position taken by most of the contributors has been, ‘If we want an appraisal scheme to match our needs and principles we must involve ourselves in the making
of it.’ (Bunnell and Stephens, 1984, p.291.) Evaluation of our own performance is a corporate professional exercise and, therefore, we must all involve ourselves in the processes which contribute to it. Such involvement has to include participation in the discussions which precede the introduction of the process and consultation about the nature of the process. C.D.M.Rhodes, Clive Carthew, Jenny Morris and S.M.Slater all make this point forcefully as it is only in this way that staff appraisal can be seen to be truly formative rather than summative. Only formative staff appraisal can be concerned with the professional development of teachers. Richardson gives us a detailed account of how this process evolved in his school, while Harry Moore gives us a different but equally relevant insight into a similar process.
