School Principals’ Considerations in Evaluating Trainees in Education

Author(s):

Dafna Hammer-Budnaro(presenting / submitting)Zipi Libman Hila Ackerman-Asher

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

10. Teacher Education Research

Format:

Paper

Session Information

10 SES 10 D, Reflections and Considerations from the Practice

Paper Session

Time:

2017-08-24

15:30-17:00

Room:

K5.07

Chair:

Anna Beck

Contribution

Rationale: Lately, teacher evaluation has been subject to great deal of attention due to the emphasis placed on the quality of teachers and the demand for accountability. The internship process (induction) provides the teacher trainee with emotional and professional support at the induction phase of teaching while at the same time, the trainee experiences during the first year a process of evaluation, following which, a decision as to whether to award the trainee a teacher’s license or not will be made. The determining factor in a teacher’s evaluation is the school principal.Exploring the basis according to which the principal evaluates new teachers is a complicated endeavor. In most cases, this evaluation is not systematic and is based on beliefs, gut feelings, partial information and informal procedures.

Theoretical background: In many countries around the world, Israel included, much effort is being made to improve the quality of candidates requesting to study education - mainly by means of evaluation systems (Oplatka, 2007; Harris, Ingle & Rutledge, 2014) - but less so of the issues pertaining to the selection process in preparation towards obtaining a teacher’s license. The internship process (induction) is unique in that it provides emotional and professional support for the trainee teacher (Nasser abu-Alhijat, Fresco and Reichenberg, 2011). However, at the same time the trainee is subject to a high-risk evaluation, as the ensuing decision will determine whether s/he will receive a teacher’s license or not. A trainee’s successful integration during the first year of teaching depends highly on the principal’s positive outlook on his/her internship (Wynn, Carboni & Patall, 2007), leadership, on his/her awareness of, and involvement in the internship process (Watkins, 2005; Wynn, Carboni & Patall, 2007; Youngs, 2007; Nasser abu-Alhijat, Fresco and Reichenberg, 2011). His/her attitude towards the trainee’s evaluation is especially important as it can significantly and directly affect the trainee’s future as well as the quality of teachers, and education indirectly. Exploring literature in this field, it is apparent that teacher evaluation is sorely lacking (Harris, Ingle & Kennedy, 2008; Rutledge, 2014). Thus, it seems, that despite the fact that there is no doubt that principals are the key factor in teacher evaluation, research in this field points out that principals’ evaluations of trainee teachers is unsatisfactory (Hoz, Keynan & Assaf, 2003; Ingle, Rutledge & Bishop, 2011; Master, 2014). The recommendation that arises from the literature is unequivocal. It is incumbent upon the principal to provide reliable and trustworthy information regarding their worldview, and to divulge what their considerations are when evaluating their teachers and how this information can serve as a catalyst in improving teaching personnel.

The objective of this study is to elucidate what the considerations of the principals are, as they are preparing to evaluate a trainee teacher, in order to obtain a better understanding of why principals operate as they do and to examine how to transform the principal’s evaluation into a catalyst for improvement of trainee-teaching personnel. The importance of this study lies in the possibility of arriving at various insights regarding principals’ expectations of the trainees, insights regarding the process and content of training, and examining the importance of evaluation and the tools that it serves.

Research questions:

What are school principals’ considerations when evaluating trainees?

What aspects are important for school principals when evaluating trainees in education?

Is there a difference between the principals’ evaluation of the trainee teacher as opposed to new teachers who are pending tenure?

Do they use an existing evaluation tool? What evidence do they rely on for their evaluation and why?

Method

The sample: The sample includes 50 principals, experienced in evaluation. It was taken from a variety of schools: Regular, special education, elementary schools, middle schools, from different geographical regions. The sample was carried out in the “snowball” method. The objective was to tap into the principals’ views, obtain reliable and valid information regarding their thoughts, beliefs and considerations according to which they evaluate their trainees. This is not a representative sample, but a qualitative study that does not facilitate leading to consequential statistics. Research tool: A semi-structured interview in which the following questions were posed: Do you have experience in trainees' evaluation? What are your considerations in your evaluations? Do you implement an existing evaluation tool? On what evidence do you base your evaluation? Are their certain aspects of your evaluation, for which though the trainee teacher might be found weak, s/he will still pass? Which of the following aspects do you regard most significant in determining whether to keep a trainee teacher in your school: pedagogic, motivational, personal? Would you accept in your school all the trainee teachers that receive a passing evaluation from you? If not, why do you pass these teachers? If it were up to you, how would you evaluate the trainee? Is there a difference in your considerations towards a teacher who is about to receive a teaching license and that of one who is about to receive tenure? Data analysis: All interviewee answers were typed and processed into narrative-content analysis in order to propose meaning and significance to most of the components of the indicated study. In the first stage, each answer was read three times, separately, by the individual researcher in order to discover what Merton referred to as “the scope significance of the phenomena”. In the second stage, an additional round of interpreting was conducted in order to channel the interviews into categories and ideas in conjunction with the research questions. Some of the answers were analyzed and fed to SPSS to make the answers quantifiable and present them graphically.

Expected Outcomes

Findings: When evaluating trainees, school principals relate to a general characteristic as well as the trainee’s ability to integrate in the school. Pedagogy and teaching methodology are perceived as less important. Most of the principals do not rely on evaluation tools but rather on their impressions and then find a way to articulate what they have already concluded. They do not place importance on the master teacher and his/her evaluation, and do not perceive teacher observation as a formative tool in evaluation. There is a variance among principal's in their perceptions within the different frameworks: In large high schools, emphasis is placed on mastery in the teacher's field of expertise. Principals of special schools, place their emphasis on personality mainly. Some principals noted that when evaluating trainee vs tenure, there was no difference in the parameters they used for their evaluation, but there was a difference in how stringent they were. Most of the principals expressed the need to focus the teacher-training program in the final year of college in courses dealing with integration and adaptability in schools, in knowledge acquisition, and with classroom management methods. On an implementation level, a number of perspectives require revision: 1. Investigating an evaluation tool in an attempt to include open-mindedness towards school diversity. 2. Emphasizing the school principal’s responsibility, while providing aid (tools, remuneration) to the principal collapsing under the various evaluations (for licensing, tenure, rank, reform) so that s/he can transform the evaluation from a technical burden into an educational and constructive process. 3. A renewed exploration of the teacher-training content in teacher-training institutions, mainly before their integration into schools, while together with pedagogy, the aforementioned content should be reinforced, such as adaptability, integration into schools, classroom management and recognizing the school as a system and an organization.

References

References: Arar, K., & Oplatka, I. (2011). Perceptions and applications of teachers’ evaluation among elementary school principals in the Arab education system in Israel. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(2-3), 162-169. Corland, H. (2010), Managers appreciate teachers - from conception to perform. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31, 271 – 323 (in Hebrew). Hallinger, P., Heck, R. H., & Murphy, J. (2014) Teacher evaluation and school improvement: An analysis of the evidence. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 26, 5 – 28. Maskit, S., Liebman, T., & Ackerman-Asher, H. (2015). From trainee to teacher: What can we learn from evaluation processes of trainees at the end of the first year in the teaching profession? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 34, 81-110 (in Hebrew). Master, B. (2014). Staffing for success: Linking teacher Evaluation and school personnel management. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(2), 207 – 227. Schwabsky, N., Goldenberg, J., Schatz-Oppenheimer, O., Basis, L. (2012). Involvement and Responsibility of Principals and Mentor Teachers in the Process of Training New Teachers. Published by Mofet Institute Tel-Aviv (in Hebrew). Zilbershtrom, S., (2011). From the Director of the Teaching Internship and Induction Department. In Shaz-Openheimer, A., Maskit D. and Zilbershtrom S. (eds.). Being a Teacher - In the Teaching Induction Lane (p.p. 9-12). Published by Mofet Institute and Ministry of Education, Teacher Training and Professional Development Administration, Internship and Induction Department (in Hebrew).

Author Information

Dafna Hammer-Budnaro (presenting / submitting)

Kibbutzim College of Education

Education

Kiryat Ono

Zipi Libman

Kibbutzim College of Education, Israel

Hila Ackerman-Asher