Assistant Principals and Teacher Evaluations - Research Paper Example

Order 479660 Topic: Assistant Principals and Teacher Evaluations Introduction An assistant principal assists the principal and usually takes upadministrative duties in the absence of the school principal. The rank of an assistant principal has been made competitive since it is the prerequisite of becoming the principal in most public schools. According to Glanz (2004), an assistant principal must have certain leadership qualities acquired foremost through the long process of formal schooling and work experience. Reports by Marshall & Hooley (2006) underline the importance of academic prowess in assistant principals working in public schools as opposed to those in the private ones. In their views, the minimum acceptable credentials for the former include a master’s degree in education administration while a bachelor’s degree is permissible for the latter. For those aspiring to become principals, they are required to acquire a doctorate degree in education administration. This educational background is deemed critical in enabling assistant principals to carryout their duties diligently. In addition to this, assistant principals must possess the right job qualities of leadership, determination, confidence, innovativeness, and motivation as underlined by Armstrong (2009). Moreover, proficiency in computer technology has become mandatory in modern work environments. From the foregoing arguments, it is the intention of this paper to describe the pertinent roles of assistant principals as well as analyze data collected using semi structured interview questions. The paper is presented by addressing the purpose, rationale, duties of assistant principals as well as teacher evaluations. Statement of purpose The purpose of this paper is resident in the fact that assistant principals are faced by a myriad of challenges as they carry out crucial duties assigned to them. Peske & Donaldson (2010) agree that assistant principals must attend to their teaching duties amidst the mire of other equally important assignments enumerated in later sections of this paper. Apart from the daunting task of instructional supervision, the author feels that the delicate responsibility of teacher evaluations has become more challenging to the assistant principal than anything else. Consequently, the author strives to discover more amicable methods available to the assistant principal in accomplishing this task. Rationale for choosing the topic The rationale for choosing this topic is critical in attempting to address the numerous challenges that hinder the assistant principals from accomplishing their mandate in the education sector. The author finds it disturbing to see assistant principals in public schools being unable to effectively offer their services as demanded by their job descriptions. Studies show that assistant principals play a key role in the daily running of school programs especially the implementation of instructional supervision. They are best suited to carry out this task because of their constant interaction with teachers and students as they participate in the learning process. Because of the increased emphasis placed over the issue of accountability in school systems (Wooten et al, 2010), it becomes more fundamental to address all the parameters that are directly involved with the smooth running of school programs. There is no better way to do this than explore the chosen topic in totality. Duties of Assistant Principals in schools Traditionally, the mandate of decision making in the school as regards administrative matters has vested upon the principal. The arrangement has not changed to date safe the assistant principal can only exercise limited authority through delegation. However, Armstrong (2009) notes that assistant principals wield some decision making power among students which diminishes when it comes to the school board. According to Glanz (2004), the assistant principal works in close consultation with the principal on a daily basis to ensure the smooth overall operation of the school. Additionally, the assistant principal is charged with onus of coordinating staff and parent committees that function to create an enabling environment for the students and the larger community. Johnson and partners (2009) name the tendering committee chaired by the assistant principal as a practical example. Danielson (2007) and Glanz (2004) further contend that the assistant principal is primarily charged with the core duty of teaching students, developing rapport with them, handling their discipline issues as well as standing in for the principal as cases may arise. The assistant principal has variously been termed as a ‘mediator’ for resolving conflicts between individuals involved in the education arena (Danielson, 2007). In relation to this, the assistant principal must have strong interpersonal skills to interact with others. The same skills are crucial when the assistant principal is conducting yearly teacher evaluations accompanied by the eminent guidance and counselling sessions accorded to staff and students alike. This effort has been lauded by Wooten et al (2010) to be essential in encouraging a positive climate in the school. It is further argued that this responsibility helps the assistant principal to carry out yet another important duty of organising students to assemble for special events taking place in the school. Reports by Marshall & Hooley (2006) also indicate that the assistant principal must be trained in emergency preparedness for quick response in times of emergencies. In a report by Armstrong (2009) outlining the duties of assistant principals underscored the importance of their computer proficiency necessary in record keeping and updating. In a nutshell, the assistant principal is charged with the duty of ensuring that the students are well behaved, procuring and maintaining asset inventory, planning and organising PTA meetings as well as teacher observations (Glanz, 2004). Additionally, Johnson and associates assert that assistant principals occasionally serve as testing coordinators guiding staff through any new procedures of testing and measurement. They frequently ensure that the necessary testing materials are availed to the staff and students appropriately. In some instances, they take up counselling roles assisting students on career and personal issues. Apart from the role of instructional supervision, assistant principals are largely involved in an increasingly important role of curriculum development (Danielson, 2007). Teacher Evaluations There has not been a universally accepted method of evaluating teachers. The traditional use of student test scores has had its own short comings. Nevertheless, these have been variously used in teacher evaluations and form the basis of this critical analysis. Views by Peske & Donaldson (2010) emphasise that these methods are highly dependent on the students’ motivation to learn. Students who are not really motivated due to distractions by vagaries of life may not accurately assess a teacher’s effectiveness regardless of other intervening factors (Wooten et al, 2010). Likewise, if students hate a teacher due to issues like personality conflict or strictness on the part of the teacher may maliciously perform dismally to hurt the teacher. They will do this disregarding the consequences of a poor score and how it will impact on their personal lives in the future. Based on these demonstrations, a number of assistant principals taking part in the interview indicated that they were deeply suspicious of performance-based teacher evaluations (Peske & Donaldson, 2010). They contended that results are one important aspect that can be used, but it is just one out of a whole plethora of other issues that are equally important. Considering our results-focussed society, this can lead to disproportionate emphasis on grades that students receive and lack of focus on other impacting issues that can contribute to good or bad grades as argued by one of the respondents. But there was consensus on three things that could be done to make performance-based teacher evaluations a good idea. Firstly, student scores must be measured at the end of the year and compared with those same students at the beginning of the year as proposed by Johnson et al (2009). Secondly, progress made must be comparable to that made by other similar students in similar situations. This simply implies that the performance of a teacher should not pegged on a single one time observation but spread severally under similar conditions. Danielson (2007) gives a suggestion that this should be a multi-year process spread across a number of years. While using student test scores in teacher evaluations, a majority of assistant principals felt that this should not be solely used as a basis of major decision regarding the teacher’s pay or job retention. Instead, experts advise that there is need to find a balance for teacher evaluations; a balance that considers test scores along with other relevant categories (Marshall & Hooley, 2006). One respondent opined that a mix of several categories can be used including: teacher attendance, lesson plans, teachers’ pass rate and the number of referrals written by teachers. While the author believe the reasoning behind designing a multi-part evaluation is sound, the evaluation itself seems to have turned into another check-off item for assistant principals. This blocks the facilitation of accountability which is essential for the students’ good because evaluation cards are simply filled at the end of the year and shelved to gather dust (Peske & Donaldson, 2010). Analysis of the data from the semi structured interview questions Suggestions submitted by Marshall & Holly (2006) allude that the process used in supervising and evaluating most teachers in public schools is inefficient, ineffective, and a poor use of assistant principals’ time. The process therefore needs to be drastically streamlined and linked to a broader strategy for improving teaching and learning (Wooten et al, 2010). Results from the interview questions tend to concur that teachers don’t get worthwhile feedback from the assistant principals after visiting classrooms observing lessons’ progression (Armstrong, 2009). A common complain emerged that most assistant principals compile evaluation reports in their offices and usually rate the teacher positively , regardless of the actual situation in the classroom assessment. This is confirmed by responses towards actions meted out on tenured teachers. Although majority of assistant principals interviewed confessed that they haven’t evaluated the well-regarded veteran teachers in a long period, the general explanation to this omission was the assumption that these teachers knew their work and therefore their teaching must be “okay”. But these teachers confessed that they felt lonely and isolated with their students and wished the assistant principal would visit them while teaching and give them some kind of feedback. Similarly, in the evaluation of a new teacher was responded by an overwhelming majority who concurred that this type of teacher is vibrant and has good classroom control and good rapport with students and parents (Johnson et al, 2009). But because of lack of content mastery and exposure, the students register poor scores on standardized tests (Glanz, 2004). A number of assistant principals underscored the importance of mentoring programs to the success of these teachers. The item on the conferencing techniques used during the assessment procedure, it emerged that a good number of assistant principals preferred using closed door meeting as opposed to open conferencing to avoid embarrassing the teacher in front of the others. This kind of strategy had its own disadvantages in that concerned teacher could launch into a litany of complaints and become defensive, blaming the nature of the class. The other cited predicament of this conferencing technique was resident in the fact that the union representatives could take offensive with the assistant principal mentioning test results in a teacher’s evaluation (Wooten et al, 2010). In fact, most post- observation conferences are about correcting anomalies adduced during lesson observation but usually face a lot of residence from the affected teachers. The foregoing only serves to indicate how delicate teacher supervision and evaluation is and the purpose it aims to serve. In fact, proponents believe that the theory of action behind supervision and evaluation is that they will improve teachers’ effectiveness and therefore boost student achievement (Glanz, 2004). This assumption seems logical but in the event to the contrary, the hereunder discourse explores an alternative theory of action. Holding that results from the interview data, the following arguments propose the reasons why the conventional supervision and evaluation process is not an effective strategy for improving teaching and learning. In responding to the third item about the ideal time an assistant principal should spend observing a teacher teach, respondents indicated that assistant principals don’t have time and as such evaluate only a tiny amount of teaching (Danielson, 2007). Studies demonstrate that most assistant principals evaluate only 0.1% of the teacher’s instruction a year at most (Peske & Donaldson, 2010). The other 99.9% of the time leaves the teacher working with students unobserved. Similarly, majority of assistant principals argued that micro-evaluations of individual lessons don’t carry much weight when responding to the fourth item requiring the preferred type of settings when observing teachers (Johnson et al, 2009). They instead suggested the use of extremely thorough evaluations of lessons that are formally observed with prior notice to the teacher. Additionally, the respondents recommended that the observed lessons be truly representative so as to give an accurate picture of a teacher’s overall classroom performance (Danielson, 2007). The use of isolated lessons was equally rated respondents claiming that these give an incomplete picture of instruction (Glanz, 2004). In this aspect, the assistant principal needs to know more about what curriculum unit is in the lesson being evaluated, clearly assessing how the lesson plan was relevant with state standards and how the actual measurement and testing will conducted. Familiarity with the lesson can be achieved by the assistant principal studying the lesson plans beforehand and conducting pre- and post-evaluation conferences with the teacher (Wooten et al, 2010). Peske & Donaldson (2010) argue that evaluation almost never focuses on student learning but virtually on teacher performances. It is clear that the assistant principal can simply assess how much students are being involved in the learning process by walking around classrooms. But majority of assistant principals prefer to focus on teaching performances versus learning results through demonstrated proficiency (Johnson et al, 2009). This form of high-stakes evaluation tends to shut down adult learning since the evaluation process makes teachers nervous as noted by Danielson (2007). In fact, studies have shown that teachers harbour irrational fears of losing their jobs at the prospect of lesson observation despite the good protection they enjoy from their collective bargaining agreements (Armstrong, 2009). More study findings indicate that supervision and evaluation reinforce teacher isolation because teachers shun discussing their work with their colleagues for fear of being thought inadequate (Glanz, 2004). Because assistant principals prefer evaluating teachers in private meetings and confidential documents, teachers are further isolated because they rarely feel free consulting their colleagues. This was in response to item seven which further stressed the irrelevancy of evaluation instruments which often get in the way, hindering the evaluation process. Finally, Peske & Donaldson (2010) argue that evaluations often fail to give teachers “judgmental” feedback because many evaluation instruments allow assistant principals a very narrow leeway. The teachers are never advised accordingly based on the evaluation results. The fact that most assistant principals are too busy with discipline and operational duties, they fail to do a good job on supervision and evaluation (Johnson et al, 2009). Conclusion From the outset, it has been established that the issue of teacher evaluations is a thorn in the flesh of many educators. The author has demonstrated that assistant principals serve a myriad of duties but the most significant one is that of instructional supervision. Johnson and colleagues (2009) observe that the theory of action behind supervision and evaluation is flawed and that the conventional process rarely changes what teachers do in their classrooms. Peske & Donaldson (2010) give an alternative theory suggesting the driver for high student achievement is teachers working collaboratively toward common curriculum expectations and using interim assessments to continuously improve teaching and attend to students who are not successful. Peske & Donaldson (2010) further believe that this approach is a critical element in high achievement and as such should be adopted. But Danielson (2007) warn that if a school adopts this theory, it must change the way teachers are supervised and evaluated. References Armstrong, D. (2009). Administrative passages: Navigating the transition from teacher to assistant principal. New York: Springer Science Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Glanz, J. G. (2004). The Assistant Principal’s Handbook: Strategies for Success. SAGE Publications. Johnson, S. M., Donaldson, M. L., Munger, M., Papay, J., & Qazilbash, E. (2009). Leading the local: Teachers union presidents chart their own course. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(3), 374–393. Marshall, C & Hooley, R. M. (2006). The assistant principal; leadership choices and challenges (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Peske, H., & Donaldson, M. L. (2010). Supporting effective teaching through teacher evaluation: A study of teacher evaluation in five charter schools. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Wooten, A. L., Taylor, E. S., Kane, T. J., & Tyler, J. H. (2010). Identifying effective classroom practices using student achievement data. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Appendix Semi Structured Interview Questions: 1. What is your greatest challenge in the evaluation process? Why do you see it as a challenge? 2. What evaluation process do you use? Would you describe the process? 3. In order to effectively assess a teacher’s performance, how much time should a principal spend observing? Why? 4. In what types of settings do you prefer to observe teachers? Why do you see these settings as important? 5. What can you learn about teachers’ effectiveness from observing settings other than the classroom? 6. What conferencing techniques do you use during the assessment procedure? 7. What should be the primary concern when documenting a teacher for inadequate performance in the classroom? 8. What steps do you take when a teacher warrants a non-renewal of contract? 9. What techniques do you use to support your teachers? 10. How important are mentoring programs to the success of beginning teachers? 11. Have you ever had to terminate a tenured teacher? What was that process like? Read More