An Analysis of Principal Perceptions of the Primary Teaching Evaluation System Used in Eight U.S. States
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22230/ijepl.2017v12n5a773Keywords:
Principal Preparation Program (PPP), Framework for Teaching (FfT), Student Learning Objectives (SLOs), Value Added Measures (VAMs)Abstract
This research examines how public school principals in eight U.S. states perceive their teacher evaluation systems which are based on Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching (FfT). States were selected to represent high, middle, and low scorers in the annual Education Week “Quality Counts” report (Education Week, 2016). 1,142 out of over 8,100 working principals in the eight states responded to an online survey, yielding a response rate of over 14%. Most principals were not satisfied with FfT and found implementing the system too cumbersome. Responses suggested an average of two changes to FfT desired by each principal; few wanted to keep their FfT as is. Targets for improvement included overhauling software used to enter teacher evaluations; eliminating student growth goals and student test scores (VAMs) as part of evaluations; reducing the time and paperwork required; and wanting more training for administrators and teachers on the use of FfT. Some states’ principals wanted to return control over teacher evaluation systems to local school districts. Most respondents agreed that their version of FfT has improved their school’s instructional program, and they prefer the new instrument over their previous evaluation instrument.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2017 Richard L. Dodson
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright for articles published in this journal is retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. By virtue of their appearance in this open access journal, articles are free to use after initial publication under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 Unported License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.