OBJECTIVE. Educational policy has been evaluated in many industrialized countries leading to a multiplication of reforms (Hopkins & Levin, 2000). In this study, we will focus on the new educational policy on teacher evaluation that was issued by the government of Flanders (Belgium) in 2007. This policy obliges schools in Flanders to evaluate their teachers every three years, starting in September 2007. Policy adoption and implementation has proven to be problematic (Coburn, 2003; Cuban, 1998; Datnow & Castellano, 2000; Fullan, 2001; Greenfield, 1995). Similarly, the adoption and implementation of teacher evaluation in particular is problematic (Timperley & Robinson, 1997). However, literature about this topic is scarce. Peterson and Peterson (2006) point out that teacher evaluation is a complex issue. Principals have to face the accountability demands of school boards and parents who expect to have good teachers in front of the classroom. Furthermore, teachers themselves often are reluctant to teacher evaluation. Since many authors (e.g. Brown & Anfara, 2003; Hope & Pigford, 2002) stress the importance of the principal for successful policy adoption and implementation within the school, the research question of this study is: what is the effect of school leadership on the teachers’ perception on the new policy on teacher evaluation? THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Policy Perception It is important to comprehend teachers’ perceptions of educational policy to understand the success or failure of the adoption of a policy (Datnow & Castellano, 2000). Fullan (2001) identifies four policy characteristics. The first is the need for the policy. The second characteristic is clarity and relates to clear goals and means of the policy. The policy’s complexity is the third characteristic and refers to the extensiveness or difficulty of implementation for principals and teachers. The last characteristic is quality/practicality. The policy must be of a high quality and must be supported by resources (e.g. materials and time) (Fullan, 2001). School Leadership The responsibility for the policy adoption and implementation in schools rests mainly with the principal (Hope & Pigford, 2002). His or her active support for the policy is necessary, since the principal influences teachers’ attitude towards the policy (Brown & Anfara, 2003; Fullan, 2001). The responsibility for teacher evaluation also rests with the principal (Beerens, 2003). Even if the quality of a teacher evaluation system is outstanding, it has little meaning if the principal is unsupportive (Davis, Ellett, & Annunziata, 2002). Although the importance of the principal for the implementation of educational policy on teacher evaluation is widely recognized, research on the role of the principal when implementing teacher evaluation is limited. The literature on the role of principals for policy implementation shows three important dimensions of leadership: vision, support and structure (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). Vision. Leithwood et al. (2004) state that the vision of a principal explains the largest percentage of the total impact of the principal. This can help motivating teachers for a policy. Support. Effective schools often have principals who create a supporting work environment (Evans & Teddlie, 1995). Moreover, the relationship between a principal and his teachers influences the capacity and motivation of his teachers (Leithwood et al., 2004). Structure. Successful principals make sure their attitudes and expectations are clear to the teachers. This task oriented behavior of principals also includes defining clear standards of performance (Hoy & Tarter, 1997). Confidence. Next to the abovementioned dimensions, a fourth aspect of school leadership, confidence, is important. The confidence teachers have in their principal might influence the willingness of teachers to go along with the principal in a reform (Fullan, 2001).

Sample This research took place among teachers and principals of Flemish secondary schools. A total of 37 schools participated in the research. In each school, 20 teachers were given a questionnaire. Hence, a total of 740 teachers received our questionnaire. The return rate was 82%. Analyses To measure the influence of the school leadership on teachers’ perception on the new policy, regression analyses were performed. Data sources To measure teachers’ perception on the policy, we developed three scales (need, clarity and practicality). Since we questioned individual teachers about their policy perceptions, we did not analyze teachers’ perceptions about the expected complexity of policy implementation for the new teacher evaluation system because this implementation mainly takes place at the school level and individual teachers do not have to implement the system in their classroom. Additionally, we used four scales to measure the dimensions of school leadership: vision (Cavanagh, Reynolds, MacNeill & Romanoski, 2004), principal support of teaching (Ebmeier, 2003), initiating structure (Hoy & Tarter, 1997) and confidence in the principal (Ebmeier, 2003). All items were scored by the teachers on a range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

In order to answer our research question, we conducted three multiple regression analyses with the three policy perception factors as separate dependent variables and the school leadership dimensions (structure, support, vision and confidence) as independent variables. We can conclude that the amount of variance explained by the leadership dimensions is the most notable for the practicality of the new policy. The leadership dimensions explain 47.3% of the variance in the practicality factor. For the other perception factors, the variance explained by the leadership dimensions is very small (3%). Within the scope of this paper, we focus on the impact on practicality. The structure provided by the school leader and the confidence a teacher has in his principal both have a strong significant impact on the teacher perception of the new policy’s practicality (p<.01). The vision of the principal also has a significant impact on the perception of practicality (p<.05). The support dimension was not significant (p=.066). The regression analysis reveals that school leadership has an important effect on teachers’ perception on the practicality factor of the new policy. Especially the structuring, task oriented behavior by the principal and the confidence of teachers in the principal play a significant role. This confirms the statements of Retallick and Fink (2002) that the most successful principals when implementing change were those who were able to use effective organizational and managerial strategies to mobilize their teachers. Also, the importance of confidence in the principal by teachers (Fullan, 2001) is stressed by this study: the confidence teachers have in their principal strongly correlates with their perception on the practicality of a new policy.