Free template · Education
Performance review template for a school administrator / department head
A ready-to-use, section-by-section template with the competencies that matter for a school administrator / department head, role-specific example phrases, and a guard against the stock filler that makes most reviews read as generic. Copy the structure, fill in your evidence, or skip the writing entirely with Crestento.
The template
Four sections, in this order. Length should match the evidence you have — a thin section is honest; an invented paragraph is not.
Summary
One or two paragraphs setting the context: what was expected of school administrator / department head this period, and your overall verdict. Lead with the headline.
Example phrasing
“Led the maths department through Ofsted reinspection (moved from RI to Good), grew average sublevel progress across the cohort from 1.0 to 1.3, mentored two ECTs through induction and one teacher into department-lead position, and managed the £45K curriculum-resource budget against the cap.”
Strengths
The behaviours and outcomes that made the work happen. Anchor in evidence: department / school-wide student-progress data, lesson-observation grade distribution, staff retention and internal-promotion rate.
- Evidence for: teaching-team development and performance management.
- Evidence for: curriculum oversight and assessment moderation.
- Evidence for: student-outcomes accountability across the department / school.
- Evidence for: parent and community engagement.
Areas for Growth
Forward-looking development edges. Frame as opportunities, not deficiencies. Specific behaviours to develop, not generic school administrator / department head criticism.
- One pattern observed across the period.
- One specific behaviour to develop.
- One concrete next step.
Goals for the Next Period
Two or three concrete goals. Each should name a specific behaviour change, a measurable target, and a deadline. Avoid vague aspirations.
Competencies to evaluate
The 7 competencies a strong school administrator / department head review structures around, in priority order. Use these as the spine of the Strengths and Areas for Growth sections.
- teaching-team development and performance management
- curriculum oversight and assessment moderation
- student-outcomes accountability across the department / school
- parent and community engagement
- compliance (safeguarding, inspection readiness)
- budget and resource management
- strategic planning and improvement
Before you write
School administrators and department heads run the people who teach the kids. The work is talent development, curriculum stewardship, and accountability for student outcomes across multiple classrooms. Strong administrators raise the floor for student outcomes across the whole department. Weak administrators run a popularity contest with staff while student progress drifts.
Evidence to gather
Strong reviews for a school administrator / department head cite evidence of these shapes. Only use a specific value (a percentage, a count, a dollar amount) if you actually have it — don’t invent a number to sound concrete.
- department / school-wide student-progress data
- lesson-observation grade distribution
- staff retention and internal-promotion rate
- ECT progression and induction completion
- Ofsted / inspection outcomes
- parent / community engagement signal
- budget adherence
Where to find the evidence
Work products a school administrator / department head produces. Reference these by name in the review when they’re relevant — it signals you know the work.
- departmental improvement plan
- curriculum maps / schemes of work oversight
- lesson-observation records
- assessment-moderation records
- staff development plans
- parent-engagement records
- inspection-preparation documentation
Phrasing that lands vs phrasing that doesn’t
Strong — specific, evidenced, role-appropriate
“Led the maths department through Ofsted reinspection (moved from RI to Good), grew average sublevel progress across the cohort from 1.0 to 1.3, mentored two ECTs through induction and one teacher into department-lead position, and managed the £45K curriculum-resource budget against the cap.”
Weak — vague, unevidenced, generic
“Strong leader, great with staff and students.”
Phrases to never use
Stock filler that AI-written school administrator / department head reviews slip into. Managers spot it instantly. Rewrite to name a specific behaviour instead.
- “strong leader”
- “great with staff”
- “passionate about education”
- “trusted by colleagues”
- “consistent professional”
- “raises the educational bar”
- “loved by students and staff”
Don’t invent these specifics
The details an AI tends to fabricate for school administrator / department headreviews. If you don’t have the specific number, name, or date in your notes, leave it out — generic-but-honest beats specific-but- invented every time.
- specific progress percentages or sublevel movements not in input
- named staff members developed when not in input
- specific Ofsted / inspection outcomes not provided
- named students or families when not mentioned (privacy)
- specific budget figures not in input
- particular curriculum or assessment changes not referenced
Skip the template, generate the review
Drop your bullet points into Crestento and it produces the polished draft using this exact template structure, tuned for a school administrator / department head. Two reviews free, no card.
Try Crestento free