Perceptions on Performance Assessment of Public Primary School Administrators

Year 2006, Volume: 46 Issue: 46, 227 - 258, 01.07.2006

Araş. Gör. Ebru Oğuz

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine perceptions of public primary school principals, supervisors and classroom teachers regarding assessment of principals' performance including who should make the assessment, frequency of the assessment, assessment criteria, factors effecting principals' performance, assessment approaches and utilization of assessment results. Study group consisted of 90 supervisors, 112 primary school administrators and 102 classroom teachers from randomly selected 42 primary public schools in Ankara. A 76 item data collection instrument was developed by researcher and pre-tested for validity and reliability. Final form of the instrument included 72 items; four items with a factor load less than .30 were removed. Percentages and frequencies were tabulated and differences by gender were tested using t-test and by groups (administrators, supervisors and teachers) were tested using ANOVA and Chi-Square. Perceptions of “who should assess the administrators' performance”, showed significant differences by gender and group. While, perceptions regarding frequency of assessment and utilization of assessment results showed no significant differences by gender and group, perceptions regarding assessment criteria, factors effecting principals' performance and assessment approaches significantly differed by group but not by gender. Summary There are two basic aims of the performance assessment; the first is to provide information about the performance of an individual when making managerial decisions such as wage increase, bonuses, training, discipline, and promotion. The aim is to provide feedback as to which extent the employees achieved the standards defined by the job descriptions and job analyses (YÖDGED, 2000; Battal, 1996; Bingöl, 1998). Apart from these, those who are assessing the performance may have some other purposes and uses assessment data such as matching individuals with best fit positions, establishing objective criteria for promotion, dismissal as well as identifying strengths and weaknesses for developmental purposes (Bingöl, 1998). The performance assessment system, when used in a positive manner, may have many benefits for the administrators, employees and the organization. However the administrators should believe in the benefit and importance of the performance assessment, and they should not carry out the assessment since it is a mere legal obligation. The purpose of this study is to examine perceptions of public primary school principals, supervisors and classroom teachers regarding assessment of principals' performance including who should make the assessment, frequency of the assessment, assessment criteria, factors effecting principals' performance, assessment approaches and utilization of assessment results. Method Study group for this study were 90 supervisors from Ankara Provincial Education Directorate, 112 school administrators and 102 teachers from 42 randomly selected public primary schools located in seven central counties (Çankaya, Keçiören, Yenimahalle, Altındağ, Mamak, Sincan, Etimesgut) of Ankara province. Cluster sampling method was used select subjects. Data collection instrument was developed by researcher based on a review related literature and previous research findings of principals' performance assessment. Six sub-dimensions were discussed in the development of the questionnaire and a 76 item draft form was prepared. Questionnaire was pre-tested on 152 subjects for reliability and validity studies. Subjects of pre-testing were also selected by using cluster sampling method. Items with a factor load less than .40 were removed from the instrument. Cronbach's alpha values for subscales ranged from .88 to 95. Final form of data collection instrument included 72 items. Percentage and frequencies were tabulated to summarize data. ANOVA was used to examine differences in perceptions of principals, supervisors and classroom teachers on assessment of principals' performance including who should make the assessment, frequency of the assessment, assessment criteria, factors effecting principals' performance, assessment approaches and utilization of assessment results. LSD test was used describe sources of significant between group variances. Differences in perceptions by gender were tested by using t-test. Chi-square was used test whether perceptions “who should make the assessment” changes by gender and among principals, supervisors and classroom teachers. Results and Discussions Findings indicated that perceptions of “who should assess the administrators' performance”, showed significant differences by gender and group, namely principals, supervisors and classroom teachers (X2(3)=16.10; p<.01). Compared to 6.6% men, 12% of women reported that assessment should be done administrators, while 4.3% of women compared with 21.8% men preferred that school administrators' performance assessment should be done by supervisors. However, more than half of men and women reported that the assessment should be carried out by an assessment board. This assessment board is described as ad-hoc body formed by administrators, teachers, school principals, custodians and students. Perceptions of “who should assess the administrators' performance” also showed significant difference by group (X2(6)=73,76; p<,01). 62.4% of administrators, 52.5% of teachers and 40.5% of supervisors reported that administrators' performance should be assessed by an assessment board. About 45% supervisors reported that administrators' performance should be assessed by supervisors. This may be interpreted as an indication of current power struggle of supervisors within the system. However, these findings seem quite conclusive that administrators' performance assessment should be carried out by an assessment board rather than to be done by individual administrator or supervisors. There were no significant differences in perceptions of frequency of assessment either by gender (x2(3)=1.25; p>.05) or group (X2 (6)=5,65, p>.05). However, about 45% to 50% of all groups agreed that administrators' performance should be assessed annually, while about one-third agreed administrators' performance should be assessed in six month intervals. Although there were significant differences in perceptions about assessment criteria for assessing administrators' performance by group (F(2:91)=11.6; p<.01), there was no significant difference by gender. Subjects rated their degree of agreement/disagreement with 39 criteria, including but not limited to, communication skills, managing meetings, conflict resolution, ICT capabilities, instructional leadership, facilitating teacher development, resource management and creating a positive school climate conducive to effective teaching and learning. It seems that supervisors are more likely to agree with procedural criteria for assessment, while administrator and teachers are more likely to prefer assessment criteria related to instructional practices and school climate. Subjects were asked to rate their agreement/disagreement with 16 factors effecting administrators' performance on a five point scale. There was a significant difference between teachers' and administrators' perceptions (F(2:290)=4.43; p<.05), but there was no difference by gender. These factors included not following scholarly research and publications, inadequate training, high teacher turnover, frequent changes in rules, regulations and policies, lack of a clearly described scope of work, lack of utilization of assessment results, bias in assessment process and lack of experience. It is quite surprising that administrators agree more than teachers and supervisors with participatory assessment approaches (F(2,291)=4,19,p<.05). Administrators agree that teachers, students and parents must be part of administrators' performance assessment. Furthermore, administrators seem to believe self-assessment more than teachers and supervisors. Administrators also reported that their professional development efforts must be considered as an important issue in performance assessment process. There was no significant difference by gender. All groups agreed that assessment results should be used for promotions, appointment to other positions, dismissals and pay increases. There were no significant differences in perceptions by group and gender. Findings suggest that teachers and other stakeholders should be part of assessment process for administrators. In addition to participatory assessment practices, administrators should complete a self-assessment.

Keywords

primary school administrators , performance assessment

İlköğretim Okul Yöneticilerinin Performanslarının Değerlendirilmesine İlişkin Görüşler

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı'na bağlı İlköğretim okulu yönetici performansının kimler tarafından değerlendirileceği, performans değerlendirmesinin hangi sıklıkla yapılacağı, performans değerlendirme ölçütlerinin neler olması gerektiği, performansı düşüren etkenlerin neler olduğu, değerlendirmede dikkate alınması gereken yaklaşımlar ve performans değerlendirme sonuçlarının kullanılacağı yerlere ilişkin ilköğretim okul yöneticisi, sınıf öğretmeni ve ilköğretim müfettişlerinin görüşlerini ve bu grupların görüşleri arasında anlamlı bir fark olup olmadığını ortaya koymaktır. Bu amaç için, Ankara ili, merkez ilçelerinden tabakalı örnekleme yöntemi kullanılarak seçilen 42 okuldan, 112 yönetici, 102 öğretmen ve 80 ilköğretim müfettişinin görüşlerine başvurulmuştur. Araştırmada kullanılan anket araştırmacı tarafından geliştirilmiştir. Verilerin çözümlenmesinde yüzde ve frekanslardan yararlanılmış, ortalamalar arasındaki farkların manidarlığını saptamak için cinsiyet ve görev değişkenine göre grupların görüşleri ile ilgili t-testi ve ki-kare, görev değişkenine göre oluşturulan grupların görüşleri ile ilgili olarak varyans analizi yapılmıştır. Araştırma bulgularına göre; performans değerlendirmenin kimler tarafından yapılacağı cinsiyet ve görev değişkenine göre anlamlı biçimde farklılaştığı ortaya çıkmıştır. Performans değerlendirme ölçütlerinin, katılımcılar arasında görev değişkenine göre anlamlı bir şekilde farklılaştığı görülmüştür. Ayrıca, performansı düşüren etkenlerin ve değerlendirmede dikkate alınması gereken yaklaşımların yöneticiler ve müfettişler arasında anlamlı bir şekilde farklılaştığı görülmüştür. Ancak, katılımcıların performans değerlendirme aralıkları, performans değerlendirme ölçütleri, performansı düşüren etkenlere ilişkin ifadelere ve performans değerlendirme sonuçlarının kullanılacağı yerlere ilişkin görüşlerinin cinsiyet ve görev değişkenine göre anlamlı bir şekilde farklılaşmadığı görülmüştür.

Keywords

ilköğretim okul yöneticisi , performans değerlendirme

References

• Adal, Z. Ataay, İ. Uyargil, C. Kaynak, T. ve diğerleri. (1998). İnsan kaynakları yönetimi. İstanbul: İ.Ü. İşletme Fakültesi Yayın No:276,
• Akcan S. (1998). Öğretmenlerin değerlendirilmesi ölçütleri konusunda ilköğretim denetçilerinin görüşleri. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hacettepe
• Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara. Ayhan, Ş.Acar,A. (1997). Performans değerlendirme üzerine bir araştırma.
• İnsan Kaynakları ve Yönetim Dergisi. (1), 6 , 8. Aykaç, B. (1986). Kamu personelinin değerlendirilmesi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora
• Tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Ankara. Battal, T. (1996). Performans değerlendirilmesi ve türk silahlı kuvvetleri için yeni bir performans değerlendirme sistemi modeli önerisi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek
• Lisans Tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi.Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Ankara. Birben, G. (2000). 360 derece performans yönetimi. İnsan Kaynakları ve Yönetim Dergisi. (4), 5, 36. İstanbul.
• Birinci E. (1995). Performans değerlendirme sonuçlarının ücretlere yansıtılması ve konuyla ilgili bir örnek olay. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul
• Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul. Bingöl, D. (1998). İnsan kaynakları yönetimi. BETA Yayın, 4.Basım, Ankara.
• Canman, D. (1995 a). Çağdaş personel yönetimi. TODAİE Yayın No:260, Ankara.
• Celep, C. (2000). Eğitim yönetimi kursu ders notu. Edirne.
• Çınkır, Ş. (1999). Milli eğitim geliştirme projesi, doktora bursiyerleri tez özetleri.
• “İngiltere’de ilkokul müdürü ve müdür yardımcılarına yönelik eğitim ve yetiştirme programı. YÖK/ Dünya Bankası. Ankara. Devlet memurları kanunu. (1998). Seçkin Kitabevi. Ankara.
• Dicle,Ü. (1982). Yönetsel başarının değerlendirilmesi ve türkiye uygulaması.
• ODTÜ İdari İlimler Fakültesi Yayın No:43. Ankara. Erdoğan, İ. (1991). İşletmelerde personel seçimi ve başarı değerleme teknikleri. İstanbul.
• Ergin, C. (2000). Hacettepe üniversitesi psikoloji bölümü ders notları.
• Erken V. (1990). Öğretmenlerin sicil sistemini değerlendirmesi. Yayımlanmamış
• Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara. Marcer, M. William. (1995). In clifton school.USA.
• Palmer, M. (1993). Performans değerlendirmeleri. Çev: Doğan Şahiner, Rota Yayınevi. İstanbul.
• Türker, Uluçınar, A.(1998). Yöneticiler için: insan kaynaklarının etkin yönetimi.
• Türkmen Kitabevi. İstanbul Yazıcı, S. (1986). Kamu personelinin değerlendirilmesi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek
• Lisans Tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Ankara. Yüksel, Ö. (1998). İnsan kaynakları yönetimi. Ankara.
• YÖDGED. (2000). Performans değerlendirme. Ek 1 Anket