Teacher assessment is a central topic in educational discourse worldwide, involving researchers, educators, and policymakers. There are two main purposes for teacher assessment: summative and formative.

Summative teachers' assessment is mandated by educational authorities for administrative decisions such as licensure or promotion. It typically uses general, externally defined criteria and is often conducted by outside bodies. This process usually involves limited classroom observations or competency tests, provides little feedback to teachers, and rarely leads to reflective dialogue or professional development (Derrington & Campbell, 2015; Tuytens & Devos, 2017).

Formative teachers' assessment, in contrast, is an internal process generally led by the school principal. It is holistic and comprehensive, focusing on detailed feedback that promotes reflection and professional growth. Formative assessment relies on a wide range of professional criteria, multiple sources of information, and the participation of various partners to reliably identify teachers’ strengths and weaknesses and support their development (Darling-Hammond, 2013; Colby et al., 2002).

Components of an Optimal Teacher Assessment Scheme

In the literature we can identify four major components of an optimal formative teacher assessment scheme. They include the assessment criteria, sources of information, active partners, and actions following the assessment.

1. Assessment Criteria
   Key criteria include in-depth subject knowledge, general and subject-specific pedagogical skills, adapting instruction for diverse learners, flexibility in uncertain situations, engagement in professional development and research, and teamwork within learning communities (Darling-Hammond, 2013; Shulman, 2005). While general criteria may suffice for summative assessment, formative assessment must be detailed and context-sensitive to support professional growth.
2. Sources of Information
   The most common source is classroom observation, usually conducted by the principal (Cosner et al., 2014; Peterson, 2004). Other sources include competency exams, interviews, teacher portfolios, student work, lesson plans, assignments, and student achievements. The importance of self-assessment is also noted, as it encourages teachers to identify their own strengths and weaknesses (Mumford & Newcomer, 2019; Attinello et al., 2006). Combining multiple sources yields richer, more actionable insights.
3. Active Partners in the Process
   The principal and the assessed teacher are the main partners, but external evaluators, other administrators, colleagues, and students may also be involved. Including colleagues who teach the same subjects can provide realistic, context-aware feedback (Antoniou et al., 2015; Peterson, 2004).
4. Actions Following Assessment
   Summative assessment results are used for employment decisions, while formative assessment should lead to professional development. Timely, meaningful feedback and reflective dialogue are essential for formative assessment to benefit teaching practice (Darling-Hammond, 2013; Ford & Hewitt, 2020).

Differences in Perceptions: Principals vs. Teachers

Research shows that principals and teachers do not always share the same vision of optimal formative assessment. Principals often prefer pedagogical assessment, but summative aspects tend to dominate due to systemic constraints (Derrington, 2014; Flores & Derrington, 2017). Teachers are more likely to value assessment when it is conducted in a collegial, supportive environment by qualified evaluators (Campbell & Derrington, 2017; Colby et al., 2002).

The Israeli Context

Since 2010, teacher assessment in Israel has been part of a labor agreement, with summative assessment determining salary and promotion, while formative assessment is encouraged but not monitored. A national survey found significant variation in formative assessment practices across schools, influenced by principals’ training, experience, and beliefs, as well as school assessment culture (Authors, 2023, 2025).

We can summarize and say that an effective teacher assessment scheme requires consensus between principals and teachers regarding criteria, sources of information, active partners, and follow-up actions. Combining multiple sources, ensuring teacher involvement, and providing high-quality feedback are essential for successful formative assessment and professional development.

This study included 1,166 teachers and 177 principals from elementary schools. The selection was non-random but ensured representation across all seven educational administrative districts and population sectors: 62% secular Jewish, 20% religious Jewish, and 18% Arab. Most teachers were women (92%), with 37% holding at least a master’s degree and teaching experience ranging from 1 to 45 years (median = 16). Principals were also mainly women (76%), with 93% holding at least a master’s degree and experience as principals ranging from 1 to 37 years (median = 8). The broader survey, commissioned by the Ministry of Education, utilized two questionnaires, one for principals and one for teachers, addressing various aspects of teacher assessment. These questionnaires were developed after interviews with four government officials involved in creating or implementing national teacher assessment guidelines. Both questionnaires examined participants’ views on assessment criteria, sources of information, and active partners in formative teacher assessment. However, questions about actions following assessment differed between the two groups. Background information was collected to describe the samples. To encourage honest responses, the questionnaires were anonymous and did not identify participants’ schools, preventing matching teachers and principal responses. Views on formative assessment components were measured using Likert-type items. Exploratory principal axis factor analysis with oblimin rotation was conducted to identify underlying constructs, followed by reliability analysis. Index scores were calculated as the mean response for items in each factor. • Assessment criteria: 19 areas of expertise, rated on a 5-point scale. Factor analysis revealed two constructs: teaching competencies (16 items; Cronbach α=.947) and commitment (3 items; Cronbach α=.744). • Sources of information: Eight possible sources, rated for importance. Two factors emerged: information from the teacher and pupils (4 items; Cronbach α=.729), and from principal/staff (4 items; Cronbach α=.788). • Active partners: Eight possible partners, rated for necessity of involvement. Two factors: professional administrative members (3 items; Cronbach α=.458) and other staff/pupils (5 items; Cronbach α=.699). A variable counted the number of partners deemed “always necessary.” • Actions following assessment: Principals rated three possible actions; teachers marked expected actions from a list of five. Approval was obtained from the Ministry’s Chief Scientist. Questionnaires were distributed electronically, completed anonymously, and participation was voluntary. T-tests compared group means, with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were calculated, and the relative importance of items was compared between groups.

This study compared the perceptions of teachers and principals regarding optimal formative teacher assessment. Both groups envisioned a comprehensive scheme involving multiple criteria, several sources of information, and at least one active partner in addition to the teacher and principal. They agreed that formative assessment should lead to professional development for individuals and staff. Principals and teachers prioritized principal observations and pupil achievement as key information sources, while competency tests and teacher portfolios were considered less important. Both groups valued a wide range of teaching competencies as assessment criteria. However, they were hesitant about routine pupil participation in formal assessment, preferring informal feedback from students. Despite similarities, principals consistently rated the importance of most criteria, sources, and partners higher than teachers, indicating greater confidence in their views. Principals emphasized external observations and input from professional staff, aligning with their broader school responsibilities. Teachers, focused on classroom realities, valued feedback from peers who understand their daily challenges. The findings highlight the need for consensus between principals and teachers on assessment models. Principals should foster dialogue connecting student learning to teacher commitment and recognize the value teachers place on peer feedback. Involving peers in assessment can enhance the school’s assessment culture and support professional development. For effective formative assessment, principals require training in providing constructive feedback and supporting teacher growth. Policy changes should grant schools more autonomy to tailor assessment schemes and ensure both principals and teachers receive ongoing training in assessment practices.

Authors 2024, 2025 Antoniou, P., Kyriakides, L., & Creemers, B. P. M. (2015). The Dynamic Integrated Approach to teacher professional development: Rationale and main characteristics. Teacher Development, 19(4), 535-552. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2015.1079550 Attinello, J. R., Lare, D., & Waters, F. (2006). The value of teacher portfolios for evaluation and professional growth. NASSP Bulletin, 90(2), 132-152. doi: 10.1177/0192636506288864 Campbell, J. W., & Derrington, M. L. (2017). High-stakes teacher evaluation policy: U.S. principals’ perspectives and variations in practice. Teachers and Teaching; Theory and Practice, 24(3), 1-17. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2017.1421164 Colby, S. A., Bradshaw, L. K., & Joyner, R. L. (2002 April 1-5). Teacher evaluation: A review of the literature [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, U.S.A. Cosner, S., Kimball, S.M., Barkowski, E., Carl, B. & Jones, C. (2014). Principal roles, work demands and support needed to implement new teacher evaluation. UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative: Policy BRIEF, 3(3), 1-18. Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for effectiveness and improvement. Teachers College Press. Derrington, M. L. (2014). Teacher evaluation initial policy implementation: Superintendent and principal perceptions. Planning and Changing, 45(1/2), 120. Derrington, M. L., & Campbell, J. W. (2015). Implementing new teacher evaluation systems: Principals’ concerns and supervisor support. Journal of Educational Change, 16(3), 305-326. doi: 10.1007/s10833-015-9244-6 Flores, M. A., & Derrington, M.L. (2017). School principals’ views of teacher evaluation policy: lessons learned from two empirical studies. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(4), 416-431. doi: 10.1080/13603124.2015.1094144 Ford, T. G., & Hewitt, K.1 (2020). Better integrating summative and formative goals in the design of next generation teacher evaluation systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28(63). doi: 10.14507/epaa.28.5024 Mumford, S. W., &. Newcomer, K. (2019). Promoting STEM teacher reflection through self-evaluation. Political Science Faculty Publications. Paper 8. Accessed from https://scholarworks.uno.edu/ps_facpubs/8 Peterson, K. D. (2004). Research on school-teacher evaluation. NASSP Bulletin, 88(639), 60-79. doi: 10.1177/019263650408863906 Shulman, L. S. (2005). Pedagogies. Liberal Education, 91(2), 18-25. Tuytens, M. & Devos, G. (2017). The role of feedback from the school leader during teacher evaluation for teacher and school improvement. Teachers and Teaching, 23 (1), 6-24. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2016.1203770