Search results

There is a strong body of research that indicates that teacher quality has a stronger effect on student learning than any other school-based factor. At the same time, most teacher evaluation systems have traditionally failed to distinguish among different levels of teacher effectiveness or to link evaluation results to professional development in meaningful ways. In this chapter, we compare teacher responses in S. Korea and the United States to evaluation policies. We provide initial evidence that teachers and principals in Seoul defined “effective teachers” as those who helped manage their schools in areas such as affairs/planning, curriculum/instruction, science and technology, discipline, and extra-curricular activities. In contrast, the Michigan teachers and principals in the study were more likely to view effective teachers as those who planned instruction to meet student needs and provided evidence of student engagement and learning. In addition, educators’ notions of effective teachers seemed related to their responses to new teacher evaluation policies. In particular, the teachers in Seoul strongly resisted the new teacher evaluation policies while their counterparts in Michigan either supported the new evaluation policies or at least did not actively resist them. These differences seemed related to regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive elements associated with the teacher evaluation policies in the jurisdictions where the teachers and principals worked.

The purpose of this paper is to look across six first-year principals to investigate their engagement with and sensemaking of specific messages of instructional leadership around teacher evaluation.

This research project, a cross-case study, was carried out using in-depth qualitative observations and interviews of six first-year principals over one school year. Sensemaking theory was used to analyze both how and the mechanisms through which principals understood their roles as teacher evaluators.

The results demonstrate that first, principals received a variety of messages about how to conduct teacher evaluations, and second, that connections to specific individuals influenced their associations to specific messages they received about instructional leadership and how they enacted teacher evaluation practices on their campuses.

This is an in-depth qualitative analysis, and therefore is not generalizable to all first-year principals, school districts, or principal preparation programs. However, it adds to the field’s understanding of the meso level of policy implementation, highlighting the process of individuals’ sensemaking and the importance of their informal connections in the associations they make to messages about instructional leadership.

This research adds to the field of principal preparation and induction as it highlights what is important for first-year principals as they build their professional identities. Further, it highlights the variability in principals’ understanding and enactment of teacher evaluation policies, an important feature as this practice is coming to the fore both in current practice and research.

This study adds to an understanding of institutional theory by looking at the interaction between the organizational levels, and further explicates individual actors’ agency within a socio-organizational context. The findings also add to a dearth of empirical studies on the routine of teacher evaluation from the principal perspective.

This study focused on the impact of principals' leadership content knowledge, evaluation practices and teachers' professional learning activities on classroom instruction.

Data were collected from 425 teachers who worked in 46 elementary and lower secondary public schools within two provinces in Turkey. Teachers were asked to fill out a questionnaire on principals’ leadership content knowledge, evaluation feedback, professional learning activities and changed instructional practices. This study employed multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) by using the Bayesian estimation method to analyze the research hypotheses.

Findings indicate that if teachers perceive the evaluation progress as more useful, then they will participate in more professional learning activities, and they will be more effective in their classroom practices. This study also indicates that teachers' professional learning activities stimulate their instructional practices.

Although the number of schools and teachers allows using multilevel analysis, it limits the findings generalized beyond the sample. To compensate for this limitation, the author confirmed that the sample was representative of the larger population by examining the size of students and teachers, SES and teachers' job experience. The author also conducted a Bayesian estimator to strengthen the test of significance of effects.

This study underlines the critical role of leadership content knowledge in evaluating practices and providing useful feedback perceived by teachers in elementary and secondary schools. Principals should lead to instruction by knowing how to address a lack of teachers' pedagogical content knowledge and classroom practices. The Ministry of Education should support principals in becoming effective instructional leaders to observe teachers and provide them meaningful feedback on teaching.

Despite increased interest in this construct, research on principals' and teachers' responses to adapt the recent form of teachers’ performance evaluation systems is scant, especially in developing countries’ context. Moreover, little is known about the paths through which principals can enhance classroom practices by providing useful feedback. Given these trends in policy and practice context, this study provides empirical evidence that principals can enact the teachers' performance evaluation that affects classroom instruction.

A research team consisting of doctoral students and their faculty advisor investigated the differences in perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes between school principals and teachers in a United States suburban Midwest school district using a qualitative embedded case study research design. Researchers interviewed all building principals; they invited 80 teachers who received summative evaluations within the previous 18 months to participate in the left‐ and right‐hand column case method, 40 teachers participated; the team also examined district documents related to summative evaluations. Findings indicated that principals and teachers operate in Model I theory‐in‐use.

The purpose of this paper is to describe how elementary school principals adjust their leadership practice in response to Washington’s new teacher evaluation policy.

The authors conducted a modified content analysis of open-ended survey responses collected from elementary school principals in Washington State. In all, the survey included responses from 354 elementary school principals representing 25.0 percent of the state’s elementary school principal population. ATLAS.ti supported data analysis and assisted in the derivation of three key findings.

Elementary school principals changed their instructional leadership practice in response to the new teacher evaluation policy in three significant ways. First, principals adjusted their approach to classroom observation to complete more intentional, in-depth observational activities. Second, principals redistributed non-instructional responsibilities to clerical staff members to allow themselves and other administrators more time for classroom observation. Third, principals adopted a learning stance to the new policy and thus sought external support, especially coaching, to assist them with the implementation of new evaluation practices.

The study faced three limitations. First, the sample of respondents included in this study cannot be generalized to the state as participants were not randomly selected. Second, the survey did not utilize a longitudinal design, and thus its findings only relate to the first year of the policy’s implementation. Third, the study does not include school-based evidence to triangulate principals’ survey responses.

The study contributes to the instructional leadership literature. Specifically, the study offers further insights into the adjustments principals make in their leadership to accommodate expectations found in new teacher evaluation policy.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how school leaders use high-stakes teacher evaluation to improve and, if necessary, remove low-performing teachers in their schools. It explores how cognitive, relational and organizational factors play a role in shaping the way school leaders implement teacher evaluation.

Using a database of in-depth interviews with 17 principals and assistant principals, this study uses cross-case comparisons to examine one district’s efforts to improve the performance of low-performing teachers through evaluation.

School leaders’ framing of teacher performance and their efforts to improve instruction reveal the cognitive, relational and organizational aspects of working with low-performing teachers and, if necessary, pursuing removal. Notably, this study found that cognitive and relational factors were important in school leaders’ teacher improvement efforts, but organizational factors were most salient when attempting to remove teachers.

Because evaluating and developing teachers has become such an important aspect of school leaders’ day to day work, this study suggests that school leaders could benefit from more assistance from district personnel and that preparation programs should build in opportunities for aspiring leaders to learn more about their role as evaluators.

The success or failure of teacher evaluation systems largely hinges on school leaders, yet there is scant research on how school leaders make decisions to develop and remove low-performing teachers. This study sheds light on the central role school leaders play in implementing high-stakes teacher evaluation.

The voice of school principals represents the principals' thoughts and experiences because of their as teachers' evaluator. It provides principals' perception on making sense the teacher evaluation. In qualitative research, voice can provide the truth and meaning of principals' experience in teachers evaluation. Their voices in the qualitative interviews are recorded and transcribed into words (Jackson and Mazzei, 2009 and Charteris and Smardon, 2018). By listening to the voices of principals in five provinces in Indonesia, this study, a qualitative research, intends to explore the principals' sensemaking in teacher evaluation.

This study adopted a qualitative approach, as it was principally concerned with capturing participants' direct experiences in their natural setting as both the teachers' evaluator and school leader (Patton, 2002). The qualitative interview and content analysis were used in this study. The qualitative interview is a type of conversation used to explore informants' experiences and interpretations; in this study, the headmaster (Mishler, 1986; Spradley, 1979 in Hatch, 2002). Researchers used the interviews to uncover the structure of meaning used by principals in making sense the policies that determine teacher evaluations and that are used to carry out evaluations within principal's local authority. The implicit structure can be discovered from direct observation, and the qualitative interviews can bring this meaning to the surface (Hatch, 2002). Therefore, by applying the qualitative interviews, it is expected that information or “unique” interpretations from the principal can be obtained (Stake, 2010). Content analysis is a research technique for making valid conclusions from oral texts into a research context. This analysis can provide new insights, improve researchers' understanding of certain phenomena, or inform other practical actions through the use of verbal data collected in the form of answers to open interview questions (Krippendorff, 2004).

There are three important findings relating to principals' sensemaking of teachers' evaluation; they are teachers' length of service, principals' perceptions of teacher evaluations and consistency in teacher performance improvement. The principals' perception greatly influences their beliefs and sensemaking of teacher evaluation. In essence, teacher evaluation has not been used to identify high-quality teachers. Principals focus more on the improvement of teachers' welfare than teacher actual performance.

Future research should explore principals' attitude toward the stakeholders when student achievement is not in line with the consistent increase in teachers' performance ratings. And, it is also necessary to investigate the policy makers response to see the consistent improvement in teacher's evaluation is not in line with student achievement. Finally, how to eliminate the culture of joint responsibility without causing frictions in the school environment.

The authors hereby declare that this submission is their own work, and to the best of their knowledge, it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material that have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma any other publishers.

The paper discusses the influence of instructional leadership on effective teacher teaching practices and learning outcomes. In particular, the paper examines one of the instructional leadership practices, namely teaching evaluation, and seeks to investigate the influence on the effective teacher practices and on the achievement of 6th grade primary school students studying mathematics in the Cyprus educational system.

A quantitative research approach was deemed appropriate and employed for the purpose of the research subject, and in particular for the type of questions studied. Data were collected from 81 principals, 139 6th grade teachers and 1,553 students in the Cyprus educational system. In addition, data analysis was performed using structural equation models (SEM).

The instructional leadership approach assumes that principal evaluations influence high learning outcomes. Findings demonstrated that the principal evaluation has a positive and statistically significant impact on effective teaching practices and student achievement.

It is important to acknowledge that in the Cyprus educational leadership field the corellation among the instructional leadership, the effective teaching practices of teachers and the students achievements were not examined through the above parameters. Furthermore, the survey provided important insights into the principals, teachers, pupils and, more generally, on Cyprus's educational policy.

The New Zealand Ministry of Education has constructed a wide‐ranging “Professional Development Plan” providing a four‐stage national pathway for progression to principalship; the first stage has been the conduction of the National Aspiring Principals Pilot (NAPP) programme in five regional locations. The purpose of this paper is to outline the evaluation of the programme.

A mixed method approach for evaluation was employed where qualitative and quantitative data were collected almost simultaneously, and compared and contrasted.

Key findings indicated overall sound programme delivery, curriculum coherence, high relevancy to stakeholders and good rates of principal appointments. Greater emphasis is placed on distinctive findings that have not been reported elsewhere. These included: primary‐sector participants rating course facilitation, online learning, and “relevancy of the course for principal development” more positively than their secondary counterparts; aspirants who had partial or full completion of a relevant post‐graduate leadership qualification rating eight aspects of NAPP lower than those without such qualifications; and aspirants who were approached and encouraged to apply for NAPP by their principal and subsequently supported by them, finding the programme more relevant and applicable.

The multiple positive outcomes reported reveal short‐term programme adequacy and effectiveness against a range of indicators. Long‐term impact (including capacity to change leadership practice, student learning and school improvement) evaluation is required to determine sustained effectiveness.

The paper provides distinctive findings that have not been reported previously for principal development and more general findings that should inform such development programmes.

This study aims to explore the relationship between principals’ performance on the Pennsylvania Framework for Leadership evaluation tool and the corresponding self-reported degree of self-efficacy and growth mindset.

The data analysis involved linear regression of principal performance on principals’ mindset, moral leadership self-efficacy and instructional self-efficacy scores. Additionally, correlation matrices identified the presence and direction of relationships between self-efficacy levels and the degree of growth mindset reported by principals.

The results demonstrated a positive association between principals’ instructional self-efficacy reports and their overall performance evaluation. Alternatively, both growth mindset and moral leadership self-efficacy evidenced a negative association. There was no association reflected between growth mindset and either the overall self-efficacy measure or the sub-scale self-efficacy measures. A secondary relationship revealed a negative association between school performance profile and growth mindset. This relationship held true in subsequent regression analyses.

The study adds to the limited research available on examining the relationship between principals’ self-efficacy levels and their performance ratings on a common tool.