International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1949-4270   |  e-ISSN: 1949-4289
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research
International Association of Educators

Original article | Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2022, Vol. 17(1) 142-163

Teacher Performance Evaluation System in a Private School: A Case Study

Muhammet Emin Türkoğlu & Ahmet Aypay

pp. 142 - 163   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2022.248.8   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2106-09-0002

Published online: March 01, 2022  |   Number of Views: 141  |  Number of Download: 320

Save PDF

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to reveal how the performance evaluations of teachers in a private school were made and the results of those evaluations. The research was designed as a case study, which is one of the qualitative research methods. The research was carried out in the 2013-2014 academic year. The participants of this research were 15 teachers, 3 administrators, 6 students and 4 parents. The data were obtained through semi-structured interviews. Findings revealed that the performance evaluation of the teachers were based on the surveys from students, school administrators and parents, general observations made by school administrators, course inspections and follow-up with digital cameras.  In this context, teachers were awarded during the year and at the end of the year depending on their performance evaluation results. Participants also mentioned some positive and negative consequences of the performance evaluation in the school. The rewards given vary based on the performance of the teachers. The main rewards were as follows: salary increase, plaques and certificates with symbolic value, and contract renewal. On the other hand, teachers were punished due to their low performance. The consequences of the punishment were as follows: verbal or written warning penalties, low pay raise in salary, termination of some duties at the school and non-renewal of contract/dismissal.

Keywords: Performance evaluation, Accountability, Private school

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Turkoglu, M.E. & Aypay, A. (2022). Teacher Performance Evaluation System in a Private School: A Case Study . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 17(1), 142-163. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2022.248.8

Harvard
Turkoglu, M. and Aypay, A. (2022). Teacher Performance Evaluation System in a Private School: A Case Study . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 17(1), pp. 142-163.

Chicago 16th edition
Turkoglu, Muhammet Emin and Ahmet Aypay (2022). "Teacher Performance Evaluation System in a Private School: A Case Study ". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 17 (1):142-163. doi:10.29329/epasr.2022.248.8.
References
  1. Açıkalın, A. (1989). Özel ve devlet liselerinde veli beklentilerinin örgütsel ve yönetsel boyutları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4,  85-91. [Google Scholar]
  2. Altınkurt, Y., & Yılmaz, K. (2012). Relationship between school administrators’ organizational power sources and teachers' organizational citizenship behaviors. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(3), 1843-1852. [Google Scholar]
  3. Altun, S. A., & Memişoğlu, S. P. (2008). Performans değerlendirmesine ilişkin öğretmen, yönetici ve müfettiş görüşleri. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 53(53), 7-24. [Google Scholar]
  4. Amrein-Beardsley, A., & Holloway, J. (2019). Value-added models for teacher evaluation and accountability: Commonsense assumptions. Educational Policy, 33(3), 516-542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904817719519 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  5. Aslan, M., & Ağıroğlu Bakır, A. (2014). Resmi ve özel okul öğretmenlerinin paylaşılan liderliğe ilişkin görüşleri. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15 (1), 117-142. https://doi.org/10.17679/iuefd.75431 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  6. Ayeni, A. J. (2012). Assessment of principals’ supervisory roles for quality assurance in secondary schools in ondo state, Nigeria. World Journal of Education, 2(1), 62-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/wje.v2n1p62 [Google Scholar]
  7. Aypay, A. (2015). Eğitim Politikası. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.  [Google Scholar]
  8. Bacher-Hicks, A., Chin, M. J., Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2019). An experimental evaluation of three teacher quality measures: Value-added, classroom observations, and student surveys. Economics of Education Review, 73, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2019.101919 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  9. Balıkçı, A., & Aypay, A. (2018). An investigation of school principalship in the context of bureaucracy. Electronic Turkish Studies, 13(11). 1535-1560. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.13395 [Google Scholar]
  10. Birekul, M. (2018). Özel öğretim kurumlarında okul müdürlerinin liderlik rolleri. Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences Research, 5(24), 1652-1671. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bozan, S., & Ekinci, A. (2017). Okul müdürlerinin öğretmen performans değerlendirme yeterliliklerinin okul müdürleri ve öğretmen görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18(69), 142-161.     https://doi.org/10.17755.esosder.412344 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  12. Bradford, C. & Braaten, M. (2018). Teacher evaluation and the demoralization of teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 49-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.05.017 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  13. Cleveland, J. N., Murphy, K. R., & Williams, R. E. (1989). Multiple uses of performance appraisal: Prevalence and correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 130-135.  [Google Scholar]
  14. Cochran-Smith, M., Baker, M., Burton, S., Chang, W. C., Cummings Carney, M., Fernández, M. B., Keefe, E. S., Miller, A. F., & Sánchez, J. G. (2017). The accountability era in US teacher education: Looking back, looking forward. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5), 572-588. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1385061 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  15. Cope, S., Leishman, F., & Starie, P. (1997). Globalization, new public management and the enabling state: Futures of police management. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 10(6), 444-460. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513559710190816 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  16. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice. [Google Scholar]
  17. Cuevas, R., Ntoumanis, N., Fernandez-Bustos, J. G., & Bartholomew, K. (2018). Does teacher evaluation based on student performance predict motivation, well-being, and ill-being?. Journal of School Psychology, 68, 154-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.03.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  18. Çimen, B., & Karadağ, E. (2020). Özel okullarda çalışan öğretmenlerin çalışma şartları ve gelecek kaygıları üzerine görüşleri. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi, 21(2), 518-541.  https://doi.org /10.17679/inuefd.476428 [Google Scholar]
  19. Çelebi, N., Babaoğlan, E., Selçuk, G., & Peker, S. (2018). Performans değerlendirme formuna ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(2), 211-233. https://doi.org /10.7822/omuefd.425403 [Google Scholar]
  20. Çevikbaş, R. (2012). Yeni kamu yönetimi anlayışı ve Türkiye uygulamaları. Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1 (2), 9-32.  [Google Scholar]
  21. Dahlstedt, M., & Fejes, A. (2019). Shaping entrepreneurial citizens: A genealogy of entrepreneurship education in Sweden. Critical Studies in Education, 60(4), 462-476. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2017.1303525 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  22. Derrington, M. L., & Campbell, J. W. (2018). Teacher evaluation policy tools: Principals’ selective use in instructional leadership. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 17(4), 568-590.   https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2017.1326143 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  23. Dommeyer, C. J., Baum, P., & Hanna, R. W. (2002). College students' attitudes toward methods of collecting teaching evaluations: In-class versus on-line. Journal of Education for Business, 78(1), 11-15.   https://doi.org/10.1080/08832320209599691 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  24. Donaldson, M. L., & Firestone, W. (2021). Rethinking teacher evaluation using human, social, and material capital. Journal of Educational Change, 1-34. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09405-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  25. Donaldson, M. L., & Woulfin, S. (2018). From tinkering to going “rogue”: How principals use agency when enacting new teacher evaluation systems. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(4), 531-556. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373718784205 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  26. Dyke, M., Harding, A., & Liddon, S. (2008). How can online observation support the assessment and feedback, on classroom performance, to trainee teachers at a distance and in real time?. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 32(1), 37-46.   https://doi.org/10.1080/03098770701781432 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  27. Ehren, M., & Perryman, J. (2018). Accountability of school networks: Who is accountable to whom and for what? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(6), 942-959. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217717272 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  28. Erdağ, C., & Karadağ, E. (2017). Öğretmenler ve okul müdürleri perspektifinden okul hesap verebilirliği politikaları.  Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(13), 459-496. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.292614 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  29. Erdoğan, İ. (2002). Yeni bir binyıla doğru Türk eğitim sistemi: Sorunlar ve çözümler. Ankara: Sistem Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  30. Erichsen, K., & Reynolds, J. (2020). Public school accountability, workplace culture, and teacher morale. Social Science Research, 85, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2019.102347 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  31. Espinoza, O. (2017). Paulo Freire’s ideas as an alternative to higher education neo-liberal reforms in Latin America. Journal of Moral Education, 46(4), 435-448. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2017.1363601 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  32. Ferguson, R. F. (2012). Can student surveys measure teaching quality?. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(3), 24-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171209400306 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  33. Figlio, D. N. (1997). Teacher salaries and teacher quality. Economics Letters, 55(2), 267-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(97)00070-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  34. Finefter-Rosenbluh, I. (2020). ‘Try walking in my shoes’: teachers’ interpretation of student perception surveys and the role of self-efficacy beliefs, perspective taking and inclusivity in teacher evaluation. Cambridge Journal of Education, 50(6), 747-769. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2020.1770692 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  35. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2015.1094144 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  36. Ford, T. G., Urick, A., & Wilson, A. S. P. (2018). Exploring the effect of supportive teacher evaluation experiences on U.S. teachers’ job satisfaction. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(59). 1-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3559 [Google Scholar]
  37. Ford, T. G., Van Sickle, M. E., Clark, L. V., Fazio-Brunson, M., & Schween, D. C. (2017). Teacher self-efficacy, professional commitment, and high-stakes teacher evaluation policy in Louisiana. Educational Policy, 31(2), 202-248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815586855 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  38. Frase, L. E. (1989). Effects of teacher rewards on recognition and job enrichment. The Journal of Educational Research, 83(1), 52-57. [Google Scholar]
  39. Fusarelli, L. D. & Johnson, B. (2004). Educational governance and the new public management. Public Administration and Management: An Interactive Journal, 9(2), 118-127. [Google Scholar]
  40. Gaventa, J., & McGee, R. (2013). The impact of transperancy and accountability initiatives. Development Policy Review, 31(1), 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12017 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  41. Grissom, J. A. & Bartanen, B. (2019). Strategic retention: Principal effectiveness and teacher turnover in multiple-measure teacher evaluation systems. American Educational Research Journal, 56(2), 514-555. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218797931 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  42. Guarino, C. M., Reckase, M. D., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2015). Can value-added measures of teacher performance be trusted? Education Finance and Policy, 10(1), 117-156. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00153 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  43. Gümrükçüoğlu, Y. B. (2016). 5580 sayılı özel öğretim kurumları kanunu kapsamında yapılan zincirleme iş sözleşmesinin sona ermesinde kıdem tazminat. İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası, 74, 223-249. [Google Scholar]
  44. Hesapçıoğlu, M., & Nohutçu, A. (1999). Velîlerin özel okul tercihlerini etkileyen faktörler ve özel okulların reklam stratejileri. Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(11), 183-202. [Google Scholar]
  45. Holloway, J., Sørensen, T. B., & Verger, A. (2017). Global perspectives on high-stakes teacher accountability policies: An introduction.  Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(85), 1-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.3325 [Google Scholar]
  46. Hood, C. (1995). The “new public management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2-3), 93-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(93)E0001-W [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  47. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, G. C. (2010). Eğitim yönetimi: Teori, araştırma ve uygulama. (S. Turan, Çev. Ed.). Ankara: Nobel. [Google Scholar]
  48. Hvidston, D. J., McKim, C. A., & Mette, I. M. (2016). Principals' supervision and evaluation cycles: perspectives from principals. Education Leadership Review, 17(1), 100-113. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ingersoll, R. M., & Collins, G. J. (2017). Accountability and control in American schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(1), 75-95.    https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1205142 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  50. Iroegbu, E. E., & Etudor-Eyo, E. (2016). Principals’ instructional supervision and teachers’ effectiveness. British Journal of Education, 4(7), 99-109. [Google Scholar]
  51. Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2008). Can principals identify effective teachers? Evidence on subjective performance evaluation in education. Journal of Labor Economics, 26(1), 101-136. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kallio, K. M., & Kallio, T. J. (2014). Management-by-results and performance measurement in universities–implications for work motivation. Studies in Higher Education, 39(4), 574-589.    https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.709497 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  53. Kantos, Z. E. (2013). Performans değerlendirme süreci ve 360 derece geri bildirim sistemi. Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama Dergisi, 12(23), 59-76. [Google Scholar]
  54. Karaköse, T., & Kocabaş, İ. (2006). Özel ve devlet okullarında öğretmenlerin beklentilerinin iş doyumu ve motivasyon üzerine etkileri. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 2(1), 3-14. [Google Scholar]
  55. Kim, J. (2018). School accountability and standard-based education reform: The recall of social efficiency movement and scientific management. International Journal of Educational Development, 60, 80-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.11.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  56. Kocabaş, İ., & Karaköse, T. (2005). Okul müdürlerinin tutum ve davranışlarının öğretmenlerin motivasyonuna etkisi (özel ve devlet okulu örneği). Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(1), 79-93. [Google Scholar]
  57. Konan, N., & Yılmaz, S. (2018). Öğretmen performans değerlendirmeye ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri: Bir karma yöntem araştırması. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 219, 137-160. [Google Scholar]
  58. Kulaksızoğlu, A., Çakar, M., & Dilmaç, B. (1999). Türkiye'de ve dünyada özel okulların yapısı ve işleyişi. Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(11), 219-232. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kurt, M., & Uğurlu, Ö. Y. (2007). Yeni kamu yönetimi ve yeni kamu yönetimi yaklaşımının gelişiminde Avrupa birliğinin rolü: İlerleme raporlarının içerik analizi. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi, İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 9 (2), 81-109. [Google Scholar]
  60. Lavigne, A. L., & Chamberlain, R. W. (2017). Teacher evaluation in Illinois: School leaders’ perceptions and practices. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 29(2), 179-209. https://doi.org/87-109. 10.1007/s11092-016-9250-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  61. Lavy, V. (2007). Using performance-based pay to improve the quality of teachers. The Future of Children, 17(1), 87-109. [Google Scholar]
  62. Liang, J. (2015). Live video classroom observation: an effective approach to reducing reactivity in collecting observational information for teacher professional development. Journal of Education for Teaching, 41(3), 235-253.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2015.1045314 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  63. Lillejord, S., Elstad, E. & Kavli, H. (2018). Teacher evaluation as a wicked policy problem. Assessment in education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 25(3), 291-309.   https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1429388 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  64. Liu, S., Xu, X., & Stronge, J. H. (2016). Chinese middle school teachers’ preferences regarding performance evaluation measures. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28(2), 161-177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-016-9237-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  65. Looney, J. (2011). Developing high‐quality teachers: Teacher evaluation for improvement. European Journal of Education, 46(4), 440-455. [Google Scholar]
  66. Loyalka, P., Sylvia, S., Liu, C., Chu, J., & Shi, Y. (2019). Pay by design: Teacher performance pay design and the distribution of student achievement. Journal of Labor Economics, 37(3), 621-662. https://doi.org/10.1086/702625 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  67. Mathiesen, T. (1997). The viewer society: Michel Foucault's panopticon revisited. Theoretical Criminology, 1(2), 215-234. [Google Scholar]
  68. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  69. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2020). Retrieved from (20. 04.2021) https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2020_09/04144812_meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2019_2020.pdf.  [Google Scholar]
  70. 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. [Google Scholar]
  71. Moran, R. M. (2017). The impact of a high stakes teacher evaluation system: Educator perspectives on accountability. Educational Studies, 53(2), 178-193.    https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2017.1283319 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  72. Murray, H. G. (1997). Does evaluation of teaching lead to improvement of teaching?. The International Journal for Academic Development, 2(1), 8-23. [Google Scholar]
  73. Nartgün, Ş., & Kaya, A. (2016). Özel okul velilerinin beklentileri doğrultusunda okul imajı oluşturma. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5 (2), 153-167. [Google Scholar]
  74. Neuman, L. W. (2010). Toplumsal araştırma yöntemleri: Nicel ve nitel yaklaşımlar (Çev. S. Özge). İstanbul: Yayın Odası.  [Google Scholar]
  75. Orphanos, S. (2014). What matters to principals when they evaluate teachers? Evidence from Cyprus. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 42(2), 243-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213499262 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  76. Ozga, J. (2013). Accountability as a policy technology: accounting for education performance in Europe. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 79(2), 292-309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852313477763 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  77. Özdemir, A., & Tüysüz, F. (2017). Özel okul yatırımları için Türkiye’deki 81 ilin çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ile stratejik analizi. Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 45, 93-114.  https://doi.org/10.15285/maruaebd.29529 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  78. Özer, M. A. (2005). Günümüzün yükselen değeri: Yeni kamu yönetimi. Sayıştay Dergisi, 59, 3-46. [Google Scholar]
  79. Öztaş, N., & Gürcüoğlu, S. (2018). Türk kamu yönetiminde performans yönetimi: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı örneği. Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(14), 537-549. [Google Scholar]
  80. Page, D. (2017). The surveillance of teachers and the simulation of teaching. Journal of Education Policy, 32(1), 1-13.    https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2016.1209566 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  81. Parlar, H. (2006). Velilerin özel okul tercihlerini etkileyen faktörler ve özel okulların durumu: Kahramanmaraş örneği (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Yeditepe Üniversitesi, İstanbul. [Google Scholar]
  82. Paufler, N. A., King, K. M., & Zhu, P. (2020). Promoting professional growth in new teacher evaluation systems: Practitioners’ lived experiences in changing policy contexts. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 65, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100873 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  83. Perry-Hazan, L., & Birnhack, M. (2019). Caught on camera: Teachers’ surveillance in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 78, 193-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.11.021 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  84. Podgursky, M. J., & Springer, M. G. (2007). Teacher performance pay: A review. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(4), 909-949. [Google Scholar]
  85. Press, F., Woodrow, C., Logan, H., & Mitchell, L. (2018). Can we belong in a neo-liberal world? Neo-liberalism in early childhood education and care policy in Australia and New Zealand. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 19(4), 328-339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949118781909 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  86. Range, B. G., Scherz, S., Holt, C. R., & Young, S. (2011). Supervision and evaluation: The Wyoming perspective. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 23(3), 243-265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-011-9123-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  87. Reid, D. B. (2019). What information do principals consider when evaluating teachers? School Leadership and Management, 39(5), 457-477. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1576167 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  88. Reinhorn, S. K., Johnson, S. M., & Simon, N. S. (2017). Investing in development: Six high-performing, high-poverty schools implement the Massachusetts teacher evaluation policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(3), 383-406.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373717690605 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  89. Sağbaş, N. Ö., & Özkan, C. (2019). 360 derece performans değerlendirme sistemine ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri. Uluslararası Liderlik Çalışmaları Dergisi: Kuram ve Uygulama, 2(1), 1-18. [Google Scholar]
  90. Sever, M., & Aypay, A. (Ed.) (2014). Öğretmenlik halleri: Türkiye’de öğretmen olmak üzerine nitel bir araştırma. Ankara: PEGEM [Google Scholar]
  91. Sharma, S., Yusoff, M., Kannan, S., & Baba, S. B. (2011). Concerns of teachers and principals on instructional supervision in three Asian countries. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 1(3), 214-217. [Google Scholar]
  92. Springer, M. G., & Gardner, C. D. (2010). Teacher pay for performance: Context, status, and direction. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 8-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009100803 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  93. Steinberg, M. P., & Kraft, M. A. (2017). The sensitivity of teacher performance ratings to the design of teacher evaluation systems. Educational Researcher, 46(7), 378-396. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17726752 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  94. Storey, A. (2002). Performance management in schools: could the balanced scorecard help?. School Leadership & Management, 22(3), 321-338.   https://doi.org/10.1080/1363243022000020435 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  95. Su, Y., Feng, L., & Hsu, C. H. (2017). Accountability or authenticity? The alignment of professional development and teacher evaluation. Teachers and Teaching, 23(6), 717-728.   https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1255189 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  96. Şişman, M. (2011). Eğitimde mükemmellik arayışı: Etkili okullar. Ankara: Pegem.  [Google Scholar]
  97. Taylor, E. (2010). I spy with my little eye: the use of CCTV in schools and the impact on privacy. The Sociological Review, 58(3), 381-405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2010.01930.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  98. Taylor, E. (2011). UK schools, CCTV and the Data Protection Act 1998. Journal of Education Policy, 26(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2010.493226 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  99. Taylor, E. S., & Tyler, J. H. (2012). The effect of evaluation on teacher performance. American Economic Review, 102(7), 3628-51. https://doi.org/ 10.1257/aer.102.7.3628 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  100. Topçu, İ. (2010). Devlet ve özel ilköğretim okullarında yöneticilerin öğretimin denetimi görevlerini yerine getirme biçimleri. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 34(2), 31-39. [Google Scholar]
  101. Topuz, M., & Yılmaz, K. (2019). Okul müdürleri ve öğretmenlerin performans değerlendirme süreci hakkındaki görüşleri: Nitel bir araştırma. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(2), 82-113. http://dx.doi.org/10.22521/jesr.2019.92.3 [Google Scholar]
  102. Torrance, H. (2017). Blaming the victim: Assessment, examinations, and the responsibilisation of students and teachers in neo-liberal governance. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 38(1), 83-96.   https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2015.1104854 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  103. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1203770 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  104. Uygun, S. (2003). Türkiye'de dünden bugüne özel okullara bir bakış (gelişim ve etkileri). Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 36(1), 107-120. [Google Scholar]
  105. Webb, R., Vulliamy, G., Hämäläinen, S., Sarja, A., Kimonen, E., & Nevalainen, R. (2004). Pressures, rewards and teacher retention: A comparative study of primary teaching in England and Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 48(2), 169-188. [Google Scholar]
  106. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  107. Yariv, E. (2009). The appraisal of teachers’ performance and its impact on the mutuality of principal-teacher emotions. School Leadership and Management, 29(5), 445-461. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430903152302 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  108. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  109. Yılmaz, V., & Turan, A. (2019). Kamuda performans yönetiminin önemi. Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 33(46), 313-342. [Google Scholar]
  110. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 17 Issue 1

March 2022

All Articles

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research

International Association of Educators.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License.
Privacy policy     |     Terms of Use     |     Use of Cookies
Creative Commons Lisansı
© 2012 - 2024 - THDSoft e-Journal Management System.