One Size, Fits All

In Atlantis, it is well-known from the literature that the High Priests discern the fit from the unfit by a method derived from the Shell Game. For so are all appraised, that must be appraised; for so are all upraised, that must be upraised; and so are all praised, that must be praised. And this is what is well-known.

However, it occurs to me that not all can effectively be appraised by the same Game. The High Priests are not St Paul, that they should say, "I am made all things to all men." For there are many parts of the body of those who should be civil in service — but not all parts are the same. The parts that should be hidden should be treated with honour, and yet those that are of use, are of use. But all the parts are different, and surely one would not appraise a foot the same way one would appraise an eye?

Yet this is what is done. All are appraised for 'helicopter vision', yet not all need such lofty sight. Even where the specifics are different (for teachers, indeed are appraised in terms of teaching), the method of appraisal is the same. It is what makes all Atlantean teachers good only if they have, in their souls, the daimons of politics and bureaucracy. A teacher with neither of these will never be considered a good teacher, no matter how many positive strokes that teacher receives.

And so, slowly, slowly, the principalships are mostly filled with people who, if they are good at analysis and leadership, developed such skills by accident and not by design. And since now they are recruited when young, and not allowed to be elevated when older, they ofttimes have not the mentored experience to be principalities and powers. Rather, they are placeholders and props, designed to support the creaking mass of the Atlantean system without undermining it.

Ah, there are still powers and principalities among them, true. But there are precious few. The principle behind their selection, Procrustean in essence, makes those with long legs shorter, those with mighty arms feebler. It is all one size. And fits.

Annual Infarction (Part IV): Human Sciences

Not such a very long time ago, I was approached by an agent of the Imperium. On that occasion, I was asked if I would become an Imperial Assessor, essentially a person who would be tasked to enter institutions and compile a report on their fitness to continue administering funds from the Imperial fisc. Of course, I turned this opportunity down; having long been an independent agent, I was not one to return like a wolf to the Imperial fold.

It did occur to me though just how unique my perspective on such institutions was, and how valuable my experience could be to certain kinds of organisations. There aren't many Imperial Assessors with a doctorate in the specific and detailed assessment of the institutions they are supposed to assess. Apparently this occurred to somebody else as well, because a few months later, another agent of the Imperium asked if I could just assist in an advisory role, supplying recommendations on what should be looked at with respect to institutions undergoing the Quintessential Infarct.

"Hey," you might be saying now, "This post is straying from the straight and narrow and heading towards the sort of movie in which chainmail bikinis and barbarians clad in buffalo fur figure a lot!"

Oh, no it isn't. What's happening here is that I am trying to be educational without embarrassing specific people. The Quintessential Infarct is a form of Quality Assessment, in which the Imperium tasks a specific agency (hence all these agents in my tale) to look into an institution to see if it is worthy of wearing the Imperial Laurels and half-a-dozen legionary eagles on its brazen epaulettes. It is a step up from just wearing four legionary eagles on bronze-green epaulettes, trust me.

I turned both requests down for a simple reason. I am not one to be beholden to any side in a debate, no matter how collegial or professional. Either I am on one side as a champion for a cause, or I am not. I don't do hatchet jobs with the venerable axes bundled with my sticks. If I am to write anything, it will be fair, and if I am to float a recommendation, it is for re-commending something, and not secretly undermining anything.

The basis of all such assessments which call themselves 'quality assessments' is a mish-mash of what we conveniently and (unfortunately) accurately describe as the 'human sciences'. It is a kind of wisdom grounded in the eternally variable nature of humanity, and hence can be trusted on general human principles and not trusted at all in specific cases.

To my hypothetical young civil servant, I now offer some humble pieces of advice concerning the process of appraisal and the human sciences used in that process.

1. It is far better to give than to receive; better to appraise than to be appraised.
2. If you are to be appraised, best you do it to yourself first, exhaustively and exactly, hewing closely to the grain of your profession. By this, I mean that you should outline in very certain terms what it is that you are expected to do, appraise it thoroughly, and remind any external appraiser what is within his scope and what is not before he starts to do his job.
3. Do not trust qualitative data unless you can triangulate it from base points far outside the institution producing it; one corollary to this is that you should never believe your own institutional hype.
4. Realise that there is nothing to trust about quantitative data; it either comes from a reliable source or it doesn't, and so you must zero in on whether the source is trustworthy or not.
5. It's the interpretation of the data which you have to be wary about, especially when you see a drop in standards across the board but are assured that the average performance is better (or you see standards rise but higher levels do worse): this indicates a flattening of performance and a loss of excellence.
6. Be rigorous even when you are being treated to gratuitous ad hominem attacks. There is no such thing as being too thorough where money, power and/or reputation are at stake.
7. Ask the difficult questions: what is the logical chain connecting an institution's actual practices and its outcomes? How strong is that chain?
8. If you are going to apply something called 'human sciences', better for you to make it more scientific and less human.

Actually, I was going to list even more points—then I realised that I could just take all this and write a book, with very detailed examples. Shouldn't do that here. My poor readers! Ah, the humanity!

I think I will just offer a couple more points. When looking for documentary evidence, you should realise how easy it is these days to forge these documents. Any document without an independent time-stamp should be considered provisionally tainted, which makes the assessor's task much harder. I know a former hierarch who used to tell subordinates to create documents which did not exist before and back-date them in order to present a better picture. I was told by impeccable sources that this individual also directed others to modify other documents in confidential files.

Remember, therefore, what I said about trusting the human sciences from a general viewpoint and not a specific one. If you look at EVERY document and they say the same thing... well, it's hard to forge a decade of material, and it's more likely to be a true picture. But if your conclusion depends on a handful of documents, then you need to look very very carefully. This is why a three-year or five-year baseline is inadequate for a really superior appraisal; it is worse when the institution has had the same helmsman for more than a decade, because your baseline cannot easily be extended outside his reach.

To end this series, I will say that I have a genuine desire to help those who will one day be called upon to be both civil and serving. There is a lot of advice out there that is far better than what I've given so far; very little of it, though, is better than these ancient lines, some of which I have quoted before:

He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
  and to walk humbly with your God.

Listen! The LORD is calling to the city—
  and to fear your name is wisdom—
"Heed the rod and the One who appointed it.
Am I still to forget, O wicked house,
  your ill-gotten treasures
  and the short measure, which is accursed?
Shall I acquit a man with dishonest scales,
  with a bag of false weights?"

Wise advice indeed. So, my hypothetical young civil servant, remember not to be swayed from the basic principles, no matter what your boss tells you are 'basic principles'. As Dunnett's patriarch says, the problem is often in your choice of master.

Annual Infarction (Part I): What Is Known

In every human appraisal system, a complex net of checks and balances must be woven so that a fair appraisal is guaranteed. This is not as easy as it seems.

Here are a few questions that a young civil servant should ask before being appraised.

1. Do I get to know everything that is said about me?
2. Do I have the right to publish a reply to what is said about me?
3. Can I take legal action for defamation of character if my appraisal looks as if it defames my character?
4. What is the theoretical basis for this method of appraisal?
5. Does it work when converted into a ranking system?
6. Do the practitioners of this appraisal system understand a) the difference between qualitative and quantitative data, and b) the idea of reification leading to loss of accuracy?
7. If the data about me are presented to a neutral third party who uses this appraisal system, will the same grade be awarded?
8. If my reporting officer presents the complete appraisal to the countersigning officer, will amendments be made?
9. If I present an argument for adjustment of my appraisal, will it be answered point by point before a neutral arbiter and will it be taken into account if it cannot be rebutted?

The first three points speak about social validity, the next three speak about scientific validity, and the last three speak about the reliability of the system.

There are a lot more questions, but these will do for Part I of this interesting subject. In fact, this part is titled 'What Is Known' because the only thing about an appraisal system that is known is the documentation produced about it and produced by it. The exact thought processes that go through the mind of the appraiser or reporting officer are never recorded and impossible to access. The final outcome is never in doubt. This falls far short of the rigour which is obtained, for example, in mathematics or good science, where the working-out of the process leading to a conclusion can be examined step by step for error.

In fact, although many systems have tried to compensate for it, the only system that can be said to really work for social situations is one of massive peer review, or so-called 'open appraisal'. In such a system, everyone gets to debate the outcome, and their thinking is recorded for posterity. When the final appraisal is produced, the signatories are clearly identified along with their comments. In addition, contrary opinions which arose in the minority population are also recorded in full. This is the system used by the Supreme Court of the United States.

One might argue that this is too much a burden of time and effort. Yes, I agree.

Why do I agree? In my previous employment, I realised that such a system indeed takes up too much time and effort if the people administering the system have one or more of the following problems (not necessarily in order of importance):

1. Limited resources: that is, insufficient processing power, time, clerical assistance and/or administrative ability.
2. Mediocrity: that is, an insufficient interest in a just outcome, lack of intellectual rigour, lip-service to excellence while not actually being concerned about it.
3. Lack of transparency: that is, an incidental or a deliberate need to conceal a) a minority opinion which cannot be defended, b) interests which ought to be irrelevant to the case but are influencing the outcomes, c) personal ideology or other traits which cannot be publicly enunciated, d) a ranking outcome which looks invalid despite the validity of the appraisal, and/or e) irregular manipulation of reward systems (such as bonuses and awards).

These are not the only problems, but they are the more common ones. I have seen with my own eyes the maladministration of appraisal systems to take into account any or all of these factors.

So what advice, at this stage, do I have for a young civil servant? Well, to be honest, if you want to succeed you will need to work like a dog, remain civil at all times, show unswerving loyalty, never speak your mind no matter how much people claim they value your opinion or intellectual approach, and remember that you are a servant first and foremost. Even when they tell you that you are a leader, remember that you are also a follower of some other leader. Remember that you can be head of the civil service, but unless you have strong personal ties with many other nodes of power, you will merely be chief servant.

As such, your duty (even though it does not make me happy to have to say it) is to be perfectly obedient and close-mouthed. Before you come up with an opinion, make sure at least one superior will also have this opinion in mind. Before you write anything, remember that exceptional brilliance is a threat to your superiors and will catch their eye. Above all, never try to take credit for your own work if credit is due. That will come much later; for now, it is all to your superiors' credit that they have cleverly employed you.

I've heard many times at very high levels the exact opposite of all this. Very senior and powerful people have said that this kind of civil service behaviour is reprehensible and slows progress. They are right. But unfortunately, the majority of civil servants will need to behave this way in order to survive and prosper in their jobs.

For me, I have always tried to be my own man. I am not beholden to special interests or the need for whatever dangly bits have been offered to me as incentives. I don't travel gratuitously overseas at government expense or place personal considerations foremost when dealing with colleagues. I have never bothered with attempting to manipulate my appraisal, and for whatever appraisals of my subordinates have been manipulated against my intention, I have kept copious notes in a sealed archive. Since those notes constitute my own opinions and contain no official documentation, I think they are happy to remain sealed up.

If you, a young civil servant, have read all this carefully, then you can probably figure out that 'what is known' is a rather hazy and ill-defined construct. You may well be someone to whom all these ideas of mine do not apply. You may be right as well. The history of mankind shows that the wisest of thoughts may have the most unintended of outcomes, and that no one is really wise. One of the ancients had this opinion. It makes a good conclusion, and I'm sure he intended it that way.

Helicopter Traffic

I posted about helicopter vision some time ago, and I suppose that over the last few years I was corrupted by circumstances to the point that I could only think of a certain kind of helicopter. In fact, in that period of time, I think I started thinking of all aircraft as weapons. Terrible.

But someone pointed out to me that there is at least one other kind of helicopter that those-who-appraise might have been thinking about when they put 'helicopter vision' down as an appraisable trait. He said that they might have been thinking of traffic helicopters. Hmm. Yes.

I think he might have been right. Traffic helicopters are flimsy lightweight craft designed to spot unusual land traffic behaviours and tell people about it. For example, an eye in the sky might report heavy traffic in a specific direction, track criminal activity, and so on. (In a place like London or Singapore, they use ubiquitous live cameras instead.) That kind of helicopter does, somewhat unfortunately, fit the bill.

Concerto In E Minor

Today I had a chat with a Family member about the astounding significance of the 'E' appellation. The lady I spoke with was most incensed that good officers of the family were getting E-liminated whenever the foreign consigliere started feeling tetchy. I laughed. I told her, our records in the private domain go back very far. But we are not only scholars but gentlemen as well, so we do not pursue internecine strife.

However, the legal findings also make such entertaining pursuits impossible. The situation is akin to two people with weapons drawn who are peace-bonded and thus unable to use them to inflict damage. Or so it seems. All I can say is that sometimes when this situation occurs, the man with the main-gauche is the man with the balance of power.

And so, allegro con fuoco towards the dismal denouément.

The Plan: Part I – Criterion 3 Situational Appraisal (Reprise)

Criterion 3 has long been the domain of staff welfare and other staff-related enablers of action. Just recently, I had the opportunity to work with and review and international standard for staff-related matters. This standard is applied far more widely than the anaemic stuff we work with in educational circles.

Briefly, and reworded to retain confidentiality, the three subcriteria in the standard are: a plan designed to ensure rational staff recruitment procedures and follow-up; a plan designed to ensure a high level of staff retention that acknowledges the value of the staff knowledge base and loyalty; and a plan designed to provide individual coaching, staff development, and the meeting of staff aspirations (not the aspiration of staff meetings, ha ha). A close examination of this international standard reveals that international standards for fair staff appraisal, transparency and compensation are higher than local ones.

That is not to say that the actual application of those standards results in better staff-related policies. In fact, it is not common that this is so. However, the fact that such standards exist (as, for example, the human rights standards promulgated by the UN) can act as an inspiration towards better things.

Here, for example, are four maxims from the New York Academy of Sciences, regarding the making of legendary research teams (Burke, 2008). It's probably applicable to many knowledge-based enterprises.

• Hire well
• Be more guide than boss
• Do your best to foster an open, congenial, collaborative culture
• Put teaching and career development first, research second

This year the Chinese celebrate the Year of the Rat, associated with wealth, intelligence, charm, cunning and double-edged weapons. I wonder how these attributes will play out when applied to the world of human resource management. It would be very short-sighted for any institution to continue to operate with a 15-20% staff turnover rate without significant overhaul of its internal procedures.

=====

Reference: Burke, A.; NYAS Mag., Winter 2008, p.21.

The Plan: Part I – Criterion 3 Situational Appraisal

The staffing of a school is always important. If the human resource department is doing its job, staff are recruited in an open and transparent process which is effective at bringing in quality at rates which are competitive both for the employer and employee. Once recruited, staff develop high morale, perform well in open appraisal, are acknowledged by their colleagues for their successes and contributions, and have access to all necessary training.

This state is maintained by careful needs analysis, interviews which are constructive and open-ended, and developmental sessions which are helpful and non-threatening. This state is improved by fulfillment of training needs in a convenient and effective way, genuine team-building, proper acculturation and mentoring processes that are directed and helpful.

A negative state is often indicated, created or maintained by several obvious things. These include low but persistent unhappiness, lack of financial support, dysfunctional teams, uninspiring management or leadership, closed or opaque processes for evaluation and appraisal, and excessive effort for minimal returns in terms of acknowledgement and bonuses. A high staff turnover rate, say in excess of 5%, is also a pretty obvious indicator.

A simple question can be asked, which if answered truthfully, will reveal the perceived staff quality at all levels: "Would you recommend your immediate superior/subordinate/cubicle neighbour for a promotion in grade?" The fewer positive answers are received, the worse the situation; conversely, if everyone says yes, either they all have no clue or they are all happy with the existing quality. In any case, positive returns should mean that the school has reached steady state in morale.

Negative answers are more useful because they reveal what can be done to improve the school as a whole. In general, any problems with staff morale, welfare, competence and ability should be examined carefully to see if related school processes are inadequate or lacking. Staff should be happy, healthy, effective and clever. Sometimes, a relative lack in one of these traits as compared to the rest is enough to cause problems. The HR department must be perceptive and handle this as best as they can. At the same time, it is probably the principal or CEO of the institution who has the greatest part to play.

The Plan: Part I – Criterion 1 Situational Appraisal

Every organisation needs a plan, as Nodachi and I were talking about over the last few weeks. Coincidentally, as I was visiting the Great Powers at their little base far away from the White Tower, I bumped into a little book by John C Maxwell. Yes, there are many books by John C Maxwell, and I've read many of them in my career, but this one struck a chord.

As a leader, what kind of people are in your inner circle? That was one of the questions Maxwell posed in that book. He said a few interesting things:

1. If the organisation is to grow, the leader has to develop his inner circle.


2. If the leader doesn't develop his inner circle, the organisation will stop growing effectively and efficiently – although it may continue to grow in size and in terms of accretions.


3. If this happens, the leader is not being a leader.


4. Hence, true leadership involves the correct development of the inner circle.


5. And therefore, you can predict the future direction of an institution by looking at this inner circle.

So, what kinds of people should be in a leader's inner circle?

• People who are always improving themselves in terms of effectiveness and ability – self-starters


• People who are always improving the organisation in the same way – change managers


• People who are able to improve others likewise – mentors


• People who are able to improve the leader himself, by giving honest feedback – mirrors


• People who are going to develop all the other kinds of people – leaders

It is interesting to use this list as a rating guide for any institution that you might be in. If all five are not present, the inner circle is incomplete.

Too many leaders surround themselves with people they are comfortable with, reasoning that people who are comfortable with each other make a better team, and therefore all are 'team players'. But the 'comfortable' part is probably the least important part of being a team; the most important part is that the team carries out the functions required while ensuring that they can be replaced at short notice. This is one principle of highly effective teams.

A team that cannot be replaced with a functional unit in a short time might be an elite team, but it is certainly not good for the organisation in one specific way: it cannot ensure a smooth transition to an equal or higher level of performance in event of disruption to itself.

A team that is too comfortable internally has probably become a clique. Like any good mechanism, it functions smoothly but will be disrupted when the environment changes. But the environment changes all the time; therefore, such a team needs to be disrupted by honest and uncompromising feedback, perhaps from unlikely sources who come from one of the five 'inner circle' categories listed above.

A team that is comfortable is likely to be incomplete, because a complete inner circle is full of people who cannot accept the existing level of performance. If they did, they would not be improvers; they would be comfortable. "Iron sharpens iron, as one man sharpens another," as the Good Book says. (This is not to say that uncomfortable teams are complete – discomfort can come from dysfunction as well.)

Kipling used to say that part of growing up includes the ability to "meet with Triumph and Disaster and treat those two impostors just the same." It is particularly instructive to see how leadership copes with triumph, since 'disaster management' is the normal order of the day but 'triumph management' is not. Good triumph management fuels better performance, and not a falling-off into 'same old same old' or other mediocrity. It fuels learning and a renaissance at every corner and every step.

Lastly, leadership communicates in a way that inspires. Without at least the inspiration at human level that leads to better change management and improvement, the organisation starts to stiffen up as the leadership tries to codify previous triumphs and avoid disaster. This is not to say that reckless inspiration wins, but that inspiration should be available which does not draw upon past triumphs or the fear of future failure.

These were some random thoughts as I sat in front of the 50000-word overview of situation that came my way. I wonder if any of them will be of use. And for now, I will append Kipling's admonitory and inspirational words, as my father gave them to me.

IF

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream — and not make dreams your master,
If you can think — and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings — nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And — which is more — you'll be a Man, my son!

Work Appraisal (Part 2)

Sir Wolff has left the room. Disturbing candles burn like swamp-gas in the corners of the room. The Black Chamber awaits the verdict. The Magistratum has convened. Each inquisitor reveals the scraped, almost translucent, skins of baby lambs that they have been using to take notes. The notes are taken in a scarlet ink, almost black as it dries. A junior inquisitor frames the spell that integrates the words into a single holistic image.

The candidate is a visonary who is full of ideas that would improve the system in which we work. He has a formidable knowledge of his subject and other subjects which he has made his own. He has provided assistance cheerfully and unstintingly to his colleagues, who have all come to respect and appreciate his experience on the field of battle. He has an alarming political sense but does not make use of his political connections for personal gains. He is capable with a pen, dangerous with a broadsword, excellent as a worker in metals and stone. He has a highly developed sense of duty to the Rule and the Order.

The Grand Inquisitor is silent. Nobody seems to breathe. Then the verdict slashes its way across the screen in letters of burning emerald fire: "He must not be allowed into the Magistratum. His career must founder sufficiently so that the system is not affected by his vision and ideas. We will continue to entertain him and provide for his basic needs. He cannot ever be given a full battle command, lest he find himself with an army of his own." So mote it be.

Work Appraisal (Part 1)

It is the time of the annual inquisition. The hooded magistrates wait, seated at the great table of judgement. The bailiffs stand outside, heavily armed. Sir Wolff enters, beweaponed with nothing but the invisible sacramentals.

Sir Wolff, what were your duties this year?

To serve the public trust, protect the innocent, and uphold the law. To be courageous in the face of enmity, valorous in the face of jeopardy, honourable in the face of venality, determined in the face of obstinacy. To follow the faithful from beginning to end, to Jerusalem and to Antioch and to the uttermost boundaries of the face of this world. To be a shield to the defenceless, a shelter for the oppressed, a rock for the troubled, and the shadow of a mighty rock within a burning land.

Quite. And what were your duties this year as defined by the Magistratum?

To do as I am told. To serve the rule of the Order and the leadership of the Magistratum. To act in a manner consistent with professed standards of excellence as described by the rule and the leadership. To not bring opprobrium upon any member of the Magistratum, nor allow any information which might do so to be expressed in a public place.

That's better. Although the word is 'professional'. And have you fulfilled your duties?

Yes.

No, not your duties, but your duties!

Yes...

"Yes..."?

Yes.

Grand Inquisitor scribbles: "Is aware of the scope of his duties."

Sir Wolff, have you been a faithful servant to the Magistratum?

Insofar as the Magistratum exists to serve the rule and founding vision of the Order, I have borne true faith and allegiance to everything that this Order might require in the execution of duty and the preservation of its heritage.

Answer the question.

I have been both faithful and a servant to the Magistratum.

That will have to do. Are you happy?

It is my joy to maintain the faith of my ancestors and the honour of the Order.

Grand Inquisitor scribbles: "Is extremely happy in his work."

Are you satisfied with the support the Magistratum has given you this year?

Yes. I am satisfied that the support given to me by the Magistratum is the most support that the Magistratum might give.

Very good.

Grand Inquisitor scribbles: "Is greatly satisfied with Magistratum support."

Do you have any problems with the Order or your colleagues?

I am in the habit of solving my own problems and there are none I have not solved that I have tried to solve.

Grand Inquisitor scribbles: "Is a good problem solver and has no problems at all."

Do you have anything else to say?

Nothing but what I will say in the last days.

Grand Inquisitor scribbles: "The best is yet to be."

You may leave. Summon the next candidate.

IB Standards

The authorisation of an International Baccalaureate (IB) World School is a simple but reasonably thorough process which examines a prospective candidate on five criterion standards: A) Philosophy and Internationalism, B) Support for the Programme, C) Curriculum and Assessment, D) Resources, and E) Student Support. Whenever a new IB World School is authorised, it is given about a year to follow up on recommendations given to it by the International Baccalaureate Organisation. The school is also commended for what it has achieved in attaining that authorisation.

Examples of recommendations received might therefore include items like:

arrange a timetable that encourages IB style interactive teaching, provide a timeline that allows students to complete core tasks (EE, TOK, CAS) with sufficient teaching and learning support, incorporate core material (e.g. aspects of TOK) into the teaching of various disciplines, use criterion-referenced grading as opposed to norm-referenced grading (i.e. there should be little or no moderative adjustment – students should be graded on achievement of rubric criteria and nothing else), the head librarian should be a trained teacher of an appropriate discipline, trained university admissions counsellors should be provided, a clear and definite calendar of IB deadlines and key dates should be provided to all students and parents/guardians, the curriculum should be rigorously reviewed for alignment with well-documented and justifiable curricular aims (and the philosophy of the IB system of education)... the list goes on.

It is therefore not easy to have a school authorised as an IB World School. Anyone in such a school is fortunate to a large extent; of course, there are other good systems around the world – but the IB system is one of the best and most rigorous.

Appraisal

This is about appraisal, and the language thereof.

I think one of the most difficult things to do is to reflect on one's own being and be assured that such reflection indeed reflects the self, without adornment (from Latin ornare - to embellish or decorate) or denigration (from Latin nigra - black, hence to blacken). The highly self-critical (from Greek kritias - a judge) tend to see all the weak points and isolate the strong points as ornaments rather than structural members; the highly tolerant tend to see all the points as having validity (from Latin validus - having influential effect, strength) without judging them too critically.

There is some good advice to be had, however, in some parts of the Bible (from Greek ta biblion - the book) which deal with reflecting on the self and the powers which are inherent (from Latin heres - an owner) to it. I'm looking at Romans 12:3-8.

It's an interesting passage which enjoins us (in verse 3) to look at ourselves in sober (from Latin sobrius - moderate and reasonable) judgement, and not more highly than we ought. It does not command a weak and feeble self-denigration and humiliation (from Latin humilis - insignificance, obscurity, submissiveness, abjectness). Being humble is one thing - it is well-defined here - but humiliating oneself is really to look at the image of God in which we are made and to say, "Oh, how dreadfully bad/useless/pathetic I am." The former is sober judgement, the latter is immoderate devaluation.

But how to avoid such a pitfall? Surely pride (especially in the Satanic direction) is a worse error than humiliation, you might think. I do not think this is true at the human level. Pride is as immoderate and lacking in sobriety; it is as bad and untrue a valuation to think of oneself as higher than one is, as to think of one as so low that God must have made a mistake; pride can lead a person to deny the power of the Spirit, but so can an extreme sense of self-worthlessness . This is the implicit point of the whole of the next five verses.

The Book says here that each of us is gifted, according to an unknown but certain and definite measure of grace. We need to evaluate ourselves so that we know what kind of specific grace it is that we have. It is here that many people fall into error again. It is clearly implied here that not all the gifts are expected of us - Christ had them all, as the perfect model of all things; we are not able nor expected to be all things. It is this passage which explicitly divides the gift of service from the gift of leadership (and more) - thus showing that not all leaders are gifted servants, nor fully encouraging, nor unfailingly generous. Not all leaders are excellent teachers, nor wisely merciful, nor consistently prophetic. In fact, a multiplicity of gifts is likely to be the exception rather than the rule.

So what should a person with the gift of teaching do? Teach, of course. Leave the leadership to a leader, leave the mercy to the merciful. Yes, we can all show mercy; but there are few who can do it without pity, laxity, condescension or any of the other distortions of mercy. Yes, we can all teach; but there are many who cannot teach well. And a leader, assuming he has that gift, should lead - you can do no less, and in some cases, you should do no more. For both can be errors: too much can be as bad as too little, when the task before you is fitted to the gift(s) given to you.

This is not to say that we should not be prepared for any and every kind of good work. We should indeed be prepared. But not all vessels are equal, nor filled with the same measures and kinds of essence; not all tools are equal in effect or purpose, weight, size, sharpness or balance. And this is what we should be concerned about - the full, true, accurate and beautiful expression of the blend of powers and properties which is unique to each one of us.

It is a lesson that many people forget, to their regret and that of those around them.