Examining School Principals’ Evaluations on Teachers in the Context of Instructional Leadership

Year 2019, Volume: 20 Issue: 1, 254 - 272, 30.04.2019

İsmail Çimen , Fatih Bektaş , Cemil Yücel

https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.435812

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The
performance evaluation of teachers is a matter of debate in many respects. By
whom and for what purposes the evaluations are carried out is an important
issue for these debates. Different arrangements were made for that issue in the
Turkish Education System. Recently, the school principals take an important
role in the evaluation of teachers. However, there is a need to determine how
school principals, seen as instructional leaders who need to work for the
development and transformation of the school, make evaluations and what roles
those evaluations have for instructional leadership. In recent research, it was
aimed to examine the evaluations made by the school principals in the context
of instructional leadership. The case study was used for the research design.
The study group was constructed using the maximum diversity sampling method and
included school principals who worked at different school levels and
socio-economic environments and had different work experience. It was concluded
that evaluations made by the school principals are more positive in general
terms than the evaluations made by external evaluators. School principals have
accepted that although this process has many points to be developed, it will
reveal more positive results in the future. When considered in the context of
instructional leadership, it can be said that the evaluation process will be
appropriate in many aspects. However, there are some problems - intangibility
of the criteria, increasing tension between teacher and principal, and
ineffective evaluations on different field of specializations- to be addressed
and overcame in the practice of the system that may lead to more compatibility
of the evaluations with instructional leadership.

Keywords

evaluation, school principal, instructional leadership

Okul Müdürlerinin Öğretmenlerle İlgili Değerlendirmelerinin Öğretimsel Liderlik Bağlamında İncelenmesi

Abstract

Öğretmenlerin performans değerlendirmesi birçok
bakımdan tartışılan bir konudur. Değerlendirmelerin kimler tarafından
yapılacağı ve ne amaçla kullanılacağı da bu tartışmalarda önemli bir alanı
kapsamaktadır. Türk eğitim sisteminde de öğretmenlerin performans
değerlendirmesinde farklı düzenlemeler gidilmiştir. Son olarak yapılan
düzenlemeyle birlikte öğretmenlerin değerlendirmesinde okul müdürlerine önemli
bir rol verilmiştir. Günümüzde okulun gelişimi ve dönüşümü için çalışması
gereken öğretimsel liderler olarak görülen okul müdürlerinin uygulamada
değerlendirmeleri nasıl yaptığının ve değerlendirmelerin öğretimsel
liderlikteki rolünün belirlenmesine ihtiyaç vardır. Buradan yola çıkarak bu
araştırmada Türk eğitim sisteminde okul müdürleri tarafından yapılan değerlendirmelerin
öğretimsel liderlik bağlamında incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada nitel
araştırma desenlerinden durum çalışması olarak tasarlanmıştır. Maksimum
çeşitlilik örnekleme yöntemi kullanılarak oluşturulan çalışma grubuna farklı
okul düzeylerinde ve sosyo-ekonomik çevrelerde görev yapan ve farklı
yöneticilik tecrübesine sahip olan okul müdürleri dâhil edilmiştir.  Araştırmada elde edilen bulgular sonucunda
okul müdürleri tarafından yapılan değerlendirmelerin dış değerlendiriciler
tarafından yapılan değerlendirmelere nazaran genel anlamda daha olumlu
yanlarının olduğunu söylemek mümkündür. Okul müdürleri, bu sürecin
geliştirilmesi gereken birçok noktaya sahip olduğunu kabul etmekle birlikte
daha olumlu sonuçlar doğuracağını belirtmişlerdir. Öğretimsel liderlik
bağlamında ele alındığında ise okul müdürlerinin etkin rol aldığı değerlendirme
sürecinin birçok bakımdan uygun olacağı söylenebilir. Ancak sistemin
işleyişindeki kriterlerin somut olmaması, öğretmen ve yönetici arasındaki
gerilimin artması, farklı uzmanlık alanlarında değerlendirmenin yetersizliği
gibi sorunların giderilmesi değerlendirmelerin öğretimsel liderlikle daha fazla
bağdaşmasını sağlayabilir. 

Keywords

değerlendirme, okul müdürü, öğretimsel liderlik

References

• Alig-Mielcarek, J. M., & Hoy, W. K. (2005). Instructional leadership: its nature, meaning, and influence. C. G. Miskel, & W. K. Hoy içinde, Educational Leadership and Reform (s. 29-51). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
• Andrews, R. L., Basom, M. R., & Basom, M. (1991). Instuctional Leadership: Supervision That Makes a Difference. Theory Into Practice, 30(2), 91-101.
• Aydın, M. (2013). Çağdaş Eğitim Denetimi. Ankara: Hatipoğlu Basım ve Yayın.
• Ballou, D., & Springer, M. G. (2015). Using Student Test Scores to Measure Teacher Performance: Some Problems in the Design and Implementation of Evaluation Systems. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 77-86.
• Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 349-378.
• Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CL: SAGE Publications.
• Danielson, C. (2010). Evaluations That Help Teachers Learn. Educational Leadership, 68(4), 35-39.
• Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum.
• Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). One Piece of the Whole: Teacher Evaluation as Part of Comprehensive System for Teaching and Learning. American Educator, 4-44. https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Darling-Hammond.pdf adresinden erişildi.
• DiPaola, M. F., & Hoy, W. K. (2014). Improving instruction through supervision, evaluation, and professional development. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Firestone, W. A. (2014). Teacher evaluation policy and conflicting theories of motivation. Educational Researcher, 43, 100-107.
• Fletcher, C., & Baldry, C. (2000). A study of individual differences and self-awareness in the context of multi-source feedback. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 303-319.
• Frase, L. E., & Streshly, W. (1994). Lack of accuracy, feedback and commitment in teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8, 47-57.
• Fulmer, C. L. (2006). Becoming Instructional Leaders: Lessons Learned from Instructional Leadership Work Samples. Educational Leadership and Admnistration, 18, 109-129.
• Glickman, C. D. (2002). Leadership for Learning: How to Help Teachers Succeed. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Glickman, C. D., Ross-Gordon, J. M., & Gordon, S. P. (2014). Denetim ve Öğretimsel Liderlik: Gelişmsel Bir Yaklaşım. (M. B. Aksu, & E. Ağaoğlu, Çev.) Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• Goff, P. T., Mavrogordato, M., & Goldring, E. (2012). Instructional Leadership in Charter Schools: Is There an Organizational Effect or Are Leadership Practices the Result of Faculty Characteristics and Preferences? Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11, 1-25.
• Goldring, E., Porter, A., Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., & Cravens, X. (2009). Assessing learning-centered leadership: Connections to research, professional standards, and current practices. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(1), 1-36. doi:10.1080/15700760802014951.
• Göksoy, S., & Argon, T. (2016). Conflicts at Schools and Their Impact on Teachers. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(4), 197-205.
• Graczewski, C., Knudson, J., & Holtzman, D. J. (2009). Instructional leadership in practice: What does it look like, and what influence does it have? Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 14(1), 72-96. doi:10.1080/10824660802715460
• Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional Leadership and the School Principal: A Passing Fancy that Refuses to Fade Away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221-239. doi:10.1080/15700760500244793
• Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the Instructional Management Behavior of Principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217-247.
• Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1987). Instructional leadership in the school context. W. Greenfield içinde, Instructional Leadership: Concepts, Issues, and Controversies. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Heck, R. H., & Marcoulides, G. A. (1990). Examining Contextual Differences in the Development of Instructional Leadership and School Achievement. The Urban Review, 22(4), 247-265.
• Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2013). Educational Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice (9 b.). New York, NY: The McGraw Hill Companies.
• Johnston, W. R., Kaufman, J. H., & Thompson, L. E. (2016). Support for Instructional Leadership: Supervision, Mentoring, and Professional Development for U.S. School Leaders: Findings from the American School Leader Panel. RAND Corporation: Santa Monica, CA. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1580-1.html adresinden erişildi.
• Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CL: SAGE Publications.
• Leithwood, K., & Louis, K. S. (2012). Linking leadership to student learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Lincoln, S. Y., & Guba, G. E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
• Mangin, M. M., & Stoelinga, S. R. (2010). The Future of Instructional Teacher Leader Roles. The Educational Forum, 74(1), 49-62.
• Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An inteintegration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.
• Meador, D. (2017, Aralık 16). Why Principals Must Build Relationships with Parents. ThoughtCo.: https://www.thoughtco.com/why-principals-must-build-relationships-with-parents-3956178 adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (2018). Öğretmen Performans Değerlendirme ve Aday Öğretmenlik İş ve İşlemleri Yönetmeliği (Taslak). https://www.memurlar.net/common/news/documents/ 730414/ogretmen_performans_degerlendirme_ve_aday_ogretmenlik.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Msila, V. (2012). Conflict Management and School Leadership. Journal of Communication, 3(1), 25-34.
• Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2013). Leading via teacher evaluation: The case of the missing clothes? Educational Researcher, 42, 349-354.
• Neumerski, C. M. (2012). Rethinking Instructional Leadership, a Review: What Do We Know About Principal, Teacher, and Coach Instructional Leadership, and Where Should We Go From Here? Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 310-347.
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Reitzug, U. C., West, D. L., & Angel, R. (2008). Conceptualizing Instructional Leadership: The Voices of Principals. Education and Urban Society, 40(6), 694-714.
• Resmi Gazete. (1990, Ekim 27). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı İlköğretim Müfettişleri Kurulu Yönetmeliği. (20678).
• Resmi Gazete. (2015, Nisan 17). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Öğretmen Atama ve Yer Değiştirme Yönetmeliği. (29329).
• Saiti, A. (2015). Conflicts in schools, conflict management styles and the role of the school leader: A study of Greek primary school educators. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(4), 582-609.
• Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2010). How Principals and Peers Influence Teaching and Learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31-56.
• Şişman, M. (2012). Öğretim Liderliği (4 b.). Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
• Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2017). The role of feedback from the school leader during teacher evaluation for teacher and school improvement. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 23(1), 6-24.
• Valentine, J. W., & Prater, M. (2011). Instructional, Transformational, and Managerial Leadership and Student Achievement: High School Principals Make a Difference. NASSP Bulletin, 95(1), 5-30. doi:10.1177/0192636511404062
• Wahlstrom, K., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 458-495.
• York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255-316.