Ways to Evaluate Teachers' Professional Performance in the Context of Performance Based Payment Policies

Year 2022, Volume: 9 Issue: 4, 322 - 342, 01.07.2022

Semra Aksoy , Sevilay Şahin

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.93.9.4

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to analyze the opinions of secondary and high school teachers and administrators regarding the performance evaluation of teachers in the context of performance-based payment policies. In this research, in order to learn about participant views about the subject, basic qualitative research design which is one of the qualitative research methods, was used. The study group is made up of a total of 38 participants, 16 of which were school administrators and 22 teachers from different branches working in secondary and high schools in Gaziantep, Turkey in the academic year of 2018-2019. Maximum variation sampling method as one of the purposive sampling methods was adopted. The data was collected through focus group interviews and individual interviews by using semi-structured interview forms and data were analyzed with content analysis. Based on the research findings, it is understood that most of the teachers and administrators have positive perspectives on performance evaluation process provided that teacher performance evaluation policies are applied democratically. On the other hand, some of the participants showed negative attitude toward the subject. They think that teachers will have difficulty accepting performance system and resist to it. In addition to these findings, participants stated that authorities who will implement this system should be experts in their fields to be able to prevent teachers from experiencing any difficulties. The participants were also asked about the criteria and qualifications to be used in the evaluation of teacher performance, and they offered a variety of ideas that could be applied in teacher performance evaluation system.

Keywords

Performance pay, teacher performance, performance pay policies

Supporting Institution

Gaziantep university

References

• Adnett, N. (2003). Commentary. Reforming teachers' pay: incentive payments, collegiate ethos and UK policy. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 27(1), 145-157. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/27.1.145
• Agam, K., Reifsneider, D., & Wardell, D. (2006). The teacher advancement program (TAP): National teacher attitudes. Teacher Advancement Program Foundation. Retrieved, 10(2), 09.
• Aguinis, H. (2009). Performance management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Retrieved from https://www.homeworkforyou.com/static_media/uploadedfiles/Performance %20Management%20(3rd%20Edition) %20-%20Herman%20Aguinis.pdf
• Annells, M. (2006). Triangulation of qualitative approaches: hermeneutical phenomenology and grounded theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 56(1), 55-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03979.x
• Ballou, D. (2001). Pay for performance in public and private schools. Economics of education review, 20(1), 51-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(99)00060-6
• Boyacı, A. (2003). İlköğretim örgütlerinin performans yönetim sistemi süreçleri açısından değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of primary education organizations in terms of performance management system processes]. Retrieved from http://libra.anadolu.edu.tr/tezler/2003/168847.pdf
• Bruns, B., Filmer, D., & Patrinos, H. A. (2011). Making schools work: New evidence on accountability reforms. The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-8679-8
• Burns, J. M., Noell, G. H., & Gansle, K. A. (2009). Value Added Teacher Preparation Assessment Model: A Bold Step Forward in Preparing, Inducting, and Supporting New Teachers Qualitative Research Study. (PHD Dissertation). Louisiana State University and A&M College Department of Educational Theory, Policy, & Practice.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı [Data analysis handbook for social sciences statistics]. Ankara: PegemA Publishing.
• Chamberlin, R., Wragg, T., Haynes, G., & Wragg, C. (2002). Performance-related pay and the teaching profession: A review of the literature. Research Papers in Education, 17(1), 31-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520110102534
• Crick, R. D. (2012). Deep engagement as a complex system: Identity, learning power and authentic enquiry. Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 675-694). Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_32
• Dagar, A. (2014). Review of performance appraisal techniques. International Research Journal of Commerce Arts and Science, 5(10), 16-23. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/ 36716816/2284.pdf
• Erford, B. T., Hays, D. G., Crockett, S., & Miller, E. M. (2015). Mastering the national counselor examination and the counselor preparation comprehensive examination. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
• Evetts, J. (2006). Introduction. Trust and Professionalism: Challenges and Occupational Changes. Current Sociology, 54(4), 515-531. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0011392106065083
• Farrell, C., & Morris, J. (2009). Still searching for the evidence? Evidence-based policy, performance pay and teachers. Journal of Industrial Relations, 51(1), 75-94. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022185608099666
• Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The qualitative report, 8(4), 597-607.
• Gotcheva, N. (2009). Book Review: International Human Resource Management: Policies and Practices for Multinational Enterprises. Work, Employment and Society, 23(3), 577-579. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/23749224
• Guthrie, J. W., & Reed, R. J. (1991). Educational administration and policy: Effective leadership for American education. Allyn & Bacon.
• Heneman III, H. G., Milanowski, A., & Kimball, S. (2007). Teacher performance pay: Synthesis of plans, research, and guidelines for practice. doi: 10.12698/cpre.2007.rb46
• Heneman III, H. G., Milanowski, A., Kimball, S., & Odden, A. (2006). Standards-based teacher evaluation as a foundation for knowledge-and skill-based pay.
• Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2011). Overview of the symposium on performance pay for teachers. Economics of Education Review, 30(3), doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.12.005 Holdford, D. (2008). Content analysis methods for conducting research in social and administrative pharmacy. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 4(2), 173-181.
• Jacob, B., & Springer, M. G. (2008). Teacher Attitudes toward Pay for Performance: Evidence from Hillsborough County, Florida. Working Paper 2008-08. National Center on Performance Incentives. Retrieved (19.01.2018) from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED510517
• Jensen, U., Yamashiro, G., & Tibbetts, K. (2010). What do we know about teacher pay-for-performance. Kamehameha School Research and Evaluation (pp. 2-20). Honolulu. Retrieved (17.09.2018) from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1124793.pdf
• Kirunda, H. K. (2004). Performance-based rewards and the performance of teachers in private secondary schools in Kampala district. MA Dissertation, Makerere University. Retrieved(05.06.2018)from http://hdl.handle.net/10570/2229
• Kobakhidze, M. N. (2010). Teacher incentives and the future of merit-based pay in Georgia. european education, 42(3), 68-89. https://doi.org/10.2753/EUE1056-4934420304 Lazear, E. P. (2001). Paying Teachers for Performance: Incentives and Selection (Hoover Institution and Graduate School of Business, Stanford University).
• Lundström, U. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of individual performance-related pay in practice: A picture of a counterproductive pay system. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(3), 376-391. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1741143212436954
• Mathis, R. L., & Jackson, J. H. (2011). Human Resource Management: Essential Perspectives. Cengage Learning.
• McCombs, B. L. (2008). From one-size-fits-all to personalized learner-centered learning: The evidence. The FM Duffy Reports, 13(2), 1-12.
• McCombs, B. L., Daniels, D. H., & Perry, K. E. (2008). Children's and teachers' perceptions of learner-centered practices, and student motivation: Implications for early schooling. The Elementary School Journal, 109(1), 16-35. Retrieved (30.07.2018) from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/592365
• Milanowski, A. T., & Heneman, H. G. (2001). Assessment of teacher reactions to a standards-based teacher evaluation system: A pilot study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 15(3), 193-212.
• Mohrman Jr, A. M., Mohrman, S. A., & Odden, A. R. (1996). Aligning teacher compensation with systemic school reform: Skill-based pay and group-based performance rewards. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(1), 51-71.
• Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2013). Leading via teacher evaluation: The case of the missing clothes?. Educational Researcher, 42(6), 349-354. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X13499625 Newmann, F. M. (1997). Accountability and School Performance: Implications from Restructuring Schools. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 41-74.
• Odden, A., Odden, A. R., & Kelley, C. (2002). Paying teachers for what they know and do: New and smarter compensation strategies to improve schools. Corwin Press.
• OECD. (2009a). Evaluating and rewarding the quality of teachers: International practices. Paris: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264034358-en
• OECD. (2009b). Creatig Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALıs. Paris: OECD. Retrieved (01.08. 2018) from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/51/43023606.pdf
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
• Podgursky, M. J., & Springer, M. G. (2007a). Policy Retrospectives. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(4), 909-949. DOI: 10.1002/pam.20292
• Podgursky, M. J., & Springer, M. G. (2007b). Teacher performance pay: A review. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management: The Journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, 26(4), 909-950. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20292
• Simsek, H., & Yıldırım, A. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Qualitative research methods in the social sciences]. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Springer, M. G. (2009). Rethinking teacher compensation policies: Why now, why again. Performance incentives: Their growing impact on American K-12 education, 1-22.
• Springer, M. G., Ballou, D., Hamilton, L., Le, V. N., Lockwood, J. R., McCaffrey, D. F., ... & Stecher, B. M. (2011). Teacher Pay for Performance: Experimental Evidence from the Project on Incentives in Teaching (POINT). Paper presented at Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED518378.pdf
• Waine, B. (2000). 14 Managing Performance through Pay. New Managerialism, New Welfare? London: Sage Publication.
• Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (No. 49). Sage.
• Winters, M., Greene, J., Ritter, G., & Marsh, R. (2008). The Effect of Performance Pay in Little Rock, Arkansas on Student Achievement. Research Brief. National Center on Performance Incentives. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED510731
• Woessmann, L. (2011). Cross-country evidence on teacher performance pay. Economics of Education Review, 30(3), 404-418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.12.008
• Wragg, C. M., Haynes, G. S., & Chamberlin, R. P. (2012). Performance pay for teachers. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203357972
• Zuber, J., & Altrichter, H. (2018). The role of teacher characteristics in an educational standards reform. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 30(2), 183-205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-018-9275-7