ENTREVISTA A LEÓN SIERRA

Different organizations conduct different forms of evaluations. Some organizations use immediate or direct supervision to appraise their employees. And other organizations also use committee of different departments and still others use direct manager to appraise their subordinate’s performance. The pre 2004 teachers’ evaluation in Ethiopia used to involve committee from different bodies (Berhanu, 2006).

4.2.5 Who better appraise teachers’ performance?

Regarding the current ROTPA system a questionnaire was distributed and administered to teachers, principals and vice principals to investigate who appraise teachers in the current appraisal system and collect opinion that would better apprise teachers’ performance criteria.

51

Table 6: Teachers and principals preference to teachers appraiser(s)

No Items Responses Respondents

In ROTA criteria teachers can better be appraised by: No of teachers 125 No of P &V/p 27 Total No % No % No % A Principal/vice principal alone Agree 9 7.2 17 62.9 26 17.1 Disagree 116 92.8 8 29.6 124 81.5 Uncertain - - 2 7.4 2 1.3 Total 125 100 27 100 152 100 B Principal, vice principal, department head and unit leaders

Agree 102 81.6 12 44.4 114 75 Disagree 23 18.4 15 55.5 38 25 Uncertain - - - - Total 125 100 27 100 152 100 C Principal, vice principal, department head, unit leaders and students together

Agree 109 87.2 6 22.2 115 75.6

Disagree 12 9.6 21 77.7 33 21.7

Uncertain 4 3.2 - - 4 2.6

Total 125 100 27 100 152 100

Table 6 reveals that item A, shows 9(7.2 %) of teachers and 17 (62.9 %) of principal and vice principals prefer principal or vice principal alone as teachers’ appraiser. While the majority 116(92.8 %) of teachers and a few of principal and vice principals 8(29.6 %) of them disagreed with principal or vice principal alone as teachers appraiser. Only 2(7.4%) of the principals and vice principals responded that they were uncertain in item A. regarding item B, the principal, vice principal, department head and unit leader were preferred by 102 (81.6%) of teachers and 12(44.4%) of principals and vice principals. While 23 (18.4 %) of teachers and 15 (55.5%) of principals and vice principal disagree with it. Moreover in item C, majority of the teachers 109 (87.2%) preferred principal, vice principal, department head, unit leader and students as appraisers while 21(77.7%) of principals and vice principals disagree with it. On the other hand, 12(9.6%) of teachers did not prefer to be appraised by a committee form, while only 6(22.2%) of principals and vice principals preferred principal, department head, unit leader and students as appraisers. The remaining 4 (3.2%) of teachers responded that they were uncertain with it. The data analysis revealed that majority of the teachers which means 109 (87.2 %) of them prefer to be appraised by committee form comprising principal, vice principal, depart meathead unit leader and students. But, majority of the principal and vice principals 17(62.9 %)

52

preferred teachers to be appraised either by principal or vice principal. Therefore the practice of ROTPA is implementing contrary to the interests of teachers which seems un fair. Additional questions were raised in the questionnaire such as: (i) in the current appraisal BSC systems who appraise teachers? And (ii) Do you have enough awareness about BSC as a result-oriented teacher performance measurement? The case of question numbers 1, the response given by the respondents was as follows: Regarding the appraiser of the current appraisal system almost all respondents 123 (98.4 %) of teachers and 24 (88.8%) of principals and vice principals responded that the TDP was responsible to appraise teachers and finally approved by the principal. The remaining 2(1.6%) of teachers and 1(1.2%) principals, responded that department heads appraise teachers performance. Regarding the response given for question number 2, majority of the teachers, principals and vice principals 121(96.6%) and 20(74%) respectively responded that they had very limited awareness about BSC to apprise teachers performance, while the remaining 4(3.4%) of teachers and 7(26%) of principals reported that they had awareness of BSC. This response shows contrary to the interest of teachers because teachers preferred a committee consists of principals, vice principals, department head, unit leader and students to be appraised. But they are apprised by a single person that is the TDP. According the appraisal system of BSC. Hence, teaches have low preference to be appraised by a single person. Therefore it seems unfair.

Regarding the interview conducted ten of the teachers suggested the following idea as to why they prefer the principal, vice principal, department head, unit leader and student to appraise them. (i) Those bodies can better judge teachers performance and can rate fairly. (ii) A committee form of appraisers can reduce appraisal error such as central tendency, hallo effect and error in distribution. And (iii) Class room students can better judge instructional performance of teachers. On the other hand five principals suggest the following reasons as to why they prefer themselves as good appraises of teachers: i, As rule and regulation the current teachers’ performance appraisal based on BSC allows principals and vice principals to appraise teachers. And ii, Principals and vice principals have direct relationship with teachers instructional performance so that they can easily appraise teachers. Where as six education officials responded that training was given to principals and the problems is exaggerated. The suggestions of teachers seem to be acceptable. According to Melaku (2010:41) multiple appraisal approach such as peer appraisal, student appraisal and self appraisal are also vital to

53

reduce appraisal errors and create trust and confidence in the school organization. The data analysis revealed that teachers’ to be appraised by a committee form rather than a single appraiser hence it seems unfair to appraise teachers by a single appraiser. The document analysis also shows that performance result were signed only by the vice principals and approved by principals. Hence seems unfair.

4.2.6 Appraiser Knowledge and skill

To reduce appraisal errors it is vital to use multi raters or train the appraisers adequately. An experienced and skillful appraiser can reduce appraisal errors and apprise the subordinates objectively. To this effect, questionnaires were developed and distributed to teachers to check whether the appraisers, in the case of principals and vice principals, have adequate skill or not to appraise teachers objectively.

Table 7: Appraiser’s knowledge and skill

No Items R e sp on d e n ts Scale of responses Appraiser knowledge and skill: Very high 5 High 4 Medium 3 Low 2 Very low 1 Total Mean value No % No % No % No % No % No % 1 ROTPA and Bsc document T - - 2 1.6 49 39.2 65 52 9 7.2 125 100 2.3 2 Developing appraisal criteria T - - 11 8.8 37 29.6 41 32.8 36 28.8 125 100 2.2 3 Reducing appraisal errors T - - - - 36 28.8 56 44.8 33 26.4 125 100 2 4 Communicating timely performance default T - - 28 22.4 31 24.8 46 36.8 20 16 125 100 2.5 5 Documenting ongoing performance evaluation and providing feed back T - - 8 6.4 41 32.8 53 42.4 23 18.4 125 100 2.2 Key: T= teachers

54

Table 7 depicts that 74 (59.2%) of teachers responded that appraisers knowledge and skill in ROTPA and BSC document was low, and the mean value is also 2.3, while 49 (39.2%) of teachers responded that appraisers knowledge of ROTPA and BSC documents as medium. The remaining 2 (1.6%) teachers responded as high. Regarding item 2, 77 (61.6%) of teachers reported that appraiser knowledge and skill in developing appraisal criteria was low the mean also revealed 2.2. On the other hand 11 (8.8%) and 37 (29.6%) of teachers responded that appraiser knowledge and skill in developing appraisal criteria was high and medium respectively. Regarding item 3, 88 (71.2%) of teachers responded that appraiser’s knowledge and skill reducing appraisal error was low the same is true the mean shows 2, while 36(28.8%) medium. Concerning item 4, 66 (52.8%) of teachers responded that appraiser knowledge and skill in communicating timely performance defaults was low. On the other hand, 28 (22.4%) and 31 (24.8%) of teachers reported that appraiser knowledge and skill in communicating timely performance default was high and medium respectively. In the case of item 5, 78(62.4%) of teachers reported that appraiser knowledge and skill in documenting ongoing performance evaluation and providing feedback was low the mean also shows which is 2.2. The remaining 8 (6.4%) and 41 (32.8%) of teachers reported that appraiser knowledge and skill in documenting ongoing performance evaluation and providing feedback was high and medium respectively. In regard to the above responses in all items the data analysis revealed that appraiser knowledge and skill was low and this shows due to the incapacitation of proper appraising, teachers were not obtaining their valid and reliable performance results. Therefore the mean value which is 2.2 also shows appraiser competency is low, hence ROTPA was not practiced adequately.

An interview was conducted regarding appraiser knowledge and skill as low or very low? All (ten) teachers responded such as: i, Training given to principals and vice principals and teachers was inadequate. ii, Majority of the principals and vice principals had less experience in school leadership. And iii, the appraiser level of education was low. In addition to this the respondents also reported that “the appraiser, the principals or the vice principals themselves do not want to discuss formally and correct appraisal results, because of the fear of disagreement or conflict that will be caused during conversation period.” Five of the principals reported that they had competence to appraise teachers except minor limitations. Six of the woreda education officials reported that several trainings were given to principals to upgrade their

55

competence how ever it was not enough. By and large, the teachers explained that it was difficult for future improvement either in discussion or correction form when appraisers rate teachers based on their own judgments. This becomes contrary to the literature that discusses post appraisal conference or interview paves to greater achievement. According to Mickirchy (1998:95) appraising and interviewing performance is so vital. The appraiser needs a skill that helps him/her constructively and communicates more successfully with every employee. Post appraisal improve the communication and performance regarding what, when and how must be done between the superior and subordinates. An interview was also administered over some selected teachers and Woreda education officials about whether the appraiser conducts pre appraisal conference at the beginning of the academic year or not? Majority of the them responded that “ there was no detail information and discussion about the appraisal system except distributing the formats of evaluation such as the readymade objectives, criteria and standards of ROTPA to be implemented based on the BSC system.’’ This seems paradox with training document of ROTPA that discusses both the superior and subordinate mutually discuss and agreed up on the objectives to be performed.

4.2.7 Purpose of post appraisal interview

According to Pratt and Benett (1990:244) suggested post appraisal interview between the manager and the subordinate can permit and enhance problem solving capacity and there by develop positive relationship between the subordinate and superior. For this part, questionnaire was designed and its approach at school context for both teachers, principals and vice principals. Regarding this a questionnaire was developed and administered both to principals, vice principal and teachers.

56 Table 8: Purpose of post appraisal interview

No Items Responses Respondents

No of teachers No of principal Total No % No % No % 1 Appraiser conduct post appraisal discussion with the appraisee

Yes 87 69.6 27 100 114 75

No 38 30.4 - - 38 25

Uncertain - - - -

Total 125 100 27 100 152 100

2 The purpose of post appraisal conversation are to: A To encourage teachers’ performance behavior Yes 49 39.2 27 100 76 50 No 70 56 - - 70 46 Uncertain 6 4.8 - - 6 3.9 Total 125 100 27 100 152 100 B Improve the appraiser- appraisee job relationship Yes 51 40.8 27 100 78 51.3 No 71 56.8 - - 71 46.7 Uncertain 3 2.4 - - 3 1.97 Total 125 100 2 100 152 100 C To provide developmental training to low performance Yes 38 30.4 27 100 65 42.7 No 87 69.6 - - 87 57.2 Uncertain - - - - Total 125 100 2 100 152 100

The above table depicts that, regarding item 1 the majority of teachers 87(69.6%) and all principals and vice principals 27(100%) responded that, the appraiser conducted post appraisal discussion where as 38(30.4%) of teachers responded negative. In the case of item A, with respect to the purpose of post appraisal discussion 76(50%) of respondents the purpose of post appraisal interview was conducted to encourage teacher performance and 70(46%) of the respondents responded negative whereas 6(3.9%) of the respondents responded uncertain. Regarding item B 78(51.3%) of the respondents reported positive towards the purpose of post appraisal is to improve appraiser-appraisee relationship whereas 71(46.7%) of respondents reported negative and 3(1.9%) of respondents reported uncertain. Finally, regarding item C

57

87(57.2%) of respondents responded negative towards purpose of post appraisal interview to provide developmental training to low performance, while 65(42.7%) of respondents were responded negatively. The data analysis reveal that appraisers practices of purpose of post appraisal interview was low. This shows the purpose of appraisal interview was inadequate. Regarding the document analysis there were no documents regarding post appraisal discussion. Hence, the purpose of post appraisal is not adequately practiced.

4.2.8 Formative evaluation of teacher performance

According to Duke (1995:46) formative evaluation is an evaluation cycle that current judgments are given to teachers in the form of narratives in order to improve future goals or objectives. To this end, questionnaire was developed and administered to check whether formative evaluation was operated based on its objectives or not.

Table 9: Implementations of formative evaluation of teacher performance

No Items respondents Scale of respondents

No of teachers 125 No of P & Vp 27 Total No % No % No % 1 Formative evaluation conducted by the appraiser

Yes - - 25 92.6 25 16.4 No 125 100 2 7.41 127 83.5 Uncertain - - - - Total 125 100 27 100 152 100 2 Formative evaluation of teachers performance is more important than the summative one

Yes 121 96.8 13 48.1 134 88.1

No 4 3.2 14 51.8 18 11.8

Uncertain - - - -

Total 125 100 27 100 152 100

As table 9 depicts, item 1 shows that 125 (100%) of teachers reported that the appraiser did not conduct formative evaluation and feed back while majority 25 (92.52%) of the principals and vice principals responded as if formative evaluation and feedback was given. Regarding the second items, majority of the teachers 121 (96.8%) and 13 (48.1%) of principals and vice principals responded that formative evaluation was more important for appraisal than that of the summative one. The data analysis revealed that the appraiser was not used formative

58

evaluation to detect current task defaults made and provide feedback to be corrected earlier. The appraiser mainly used summative evaluation to appraise teacher’s performance. On the other hand summative evaluation was less preferred by the teachers because it is vulnerable to bias and prejudice. But, the majority of the principals and vice principals which means 14 (51.8%) of them did not prefer formative evaluation they explained that their attribution was in order to minimize effort, time and conflict and also lack of adequate knowledge and interest. The data analysis reveal that implementation of formative evaluation was low therefore this shows ROTPA was not effectively implemented specially regarding to formative evaluation. The document analysis also revealed that there were very few formative evaluation conducted this implies it was poorly practiced.

4.2.9 Methods of data collection on performance information

It is imperative to design multi data collection instruments to documents objectives information. Appraisers should document teachers’ positive and negative critical incidents and to solve or minimize negative incidents though feedback and support. Regarding this questionnaire was developed and administered to respondents to check what data collection instruments were employed to appraise teachers’ performance.

59

Table 10: Instruments used to collect information on performance

As table 10 depicts that, item A 56 (44.8%) teachers and 27 (100%) of principals and vice principals responded that observation was used as data collection tools to gather performance evaluation. On the other hand 118 (94.4%) of teachers and 27 (100%) of principals and vice principals reported that, the appraiser used performance report submitted by teachers as the main data collection tools together information about teachers’ ongoing performance. A few of teachers 35 (28%) and 10 (37%) of principals and vice principals reported that student evaluation was used as data collection tool. Regarding item D and E all teachers, principals and vice principals responded that, the appraiser did not use teachers self evaluation and peer evaluation as tools for data collection for performance evaluation. The data analysis revealed that the appraiser used only limited number of tools to gather information for performance information. The appraiser seems mainly used teachers’ performance report and observation as

No Items Respondents Scale of responses

Yes No Uncertain Total

No % No % No % No % Data collection instruments used by the appraisers A Observation Teachers 56 44.8 66 52.8 3 2.4 125 100 P and Vp 27 100 - - - - 27 100 Total 83 54.6 66 43.4 3 1.97 152 100 B Peer evaluation Teachers - - 125 100 - - 125 100

P and Vp - - 27 100 - - 27 100 Total - - 152 100 - - 152 100 C Teachers’ self evaluation Teachers - - 125 100 - - 125 100 P and Vp - - 152 100 - - 27 100 Total - - 151 100 - - 152 100 D Performance report submitted by teachers Teachers 118 94.4 7 5.6 - - 125 100 P and Vp 27 100 - - - - 27 100 Total 145 95.3 7 4.6 - - 152 100

E Student evaluation Teachers 35 28 79 63.2 11 8.8 125 100

P and Vp 10 37 17 62.9 - - 27 100

60

the major tools to gather information about teachers’ ongoing performance. Other important tools like self – rating, peer evaluation and students’ evaluation were given less emphasis. Therefore as the data analysis revealed that data collection an instrument for ROTPA was not practiced adequately.

4.2.10 Major problems related to practice of ROTPA

Teaching-learning processes are very sophisticated and difficult to assess teachers’ teaching performance using single criteria. ROTPA has been employee in Ethiopia since 2004, but not all school in Ethiopia has been practicing it. Recently the BSC system of ROTPA is introduced however, because of the complex nature of the criteria, many schools face problems to practice and this was indicates in the studies conducted by Berhanu (2006). The 2004 ROTPA practice was challenging more over the current practice of ROTPA based on the BSC system worsen the already existed problem of ROTPA. For this part a questionnaire was designed based on the problems related to the appraisal criteria and appraisal process and suggestions given to improve practice of ROTPA are provided.

4.2.10.1. Problems related to an appraisal criteria

A Questionnaire was developed and administrated to both teachers, principals and vice principals to study what problems were there when ROPTA has been implemented and practiced.

Table 11: Problems related appraisal criteria. No Problems related appraisal criteria according the weight

of the problem Responses of frequency No teachers 125 No of P and V/p 27 Total 152 Item No % No % No %

1 Excluding teachers behaviors

Such as cooperatives job knowledge, enthusiasm, loyally, relationship with the students creativity and etc. in the appraisal criteria

102 81.6 21 77.7 123 80.9

2 Forcing teachers appraisal result on the bell shaped cure with small number as low, high and very high and large number as satisfactory

113 90.4 24 88.8 137 90.1

3 Using number and percentage to determine the quality of performance result

119 95.2 27 100 146 96

4 Giving zero weigh to additional tasks 125 100 27 100 152 100 5 It is time consuming and tiresome to appraise large staff - - 27 100 27 100

61

Table 11 shows item 1, 102(81.6%) of teachers and 21(77.7%) of principals responded that the un-measurable trait behaviors such as cooperativeness loyalty and the like were not highly implemented. Regarding item 2, the weight of the problem indicates that forcing teachers appraisal result on the bell shaped cure was high which means 113(90.4%) of teachers and 24(88.8%) of principals responded in item 1. In the case of item 3 the weight of the problem is 119(95.2%) and 27(100%) principals responded that numbers and percentage were used to determine quality of performance result. Regarding item 4, the weight of the problem shows 125(100%) teachers 27(100%) principals responded respectively. Finally, item 5, principals 27(100%) responded that It is time consuming and tiresome to appraise large staff. The data analysis revealed that the weight of the problem of the above items is very high which means as the numbers and percentages of the responses of the respondents increases the weight of the problem is also increased in the above table. So problem related appraisal criteria are very high. Hence this shows it is unfair to practice ROTPA with poor quality performance by the appraisers.

4.2.11 Exclusion of teachers’ behaviors in appraisal criteria

As reported by 118(94.4%) teachers and the 20(74%) of the principal and vice principals teaching and learning tasks are very complex and teacher’s performance cannot be assessed using a single criterion. While 7(5.6%) of teachers and 7(25.9%) of principals reported that performance appraisal included trait behaviors and teachers were rated against these criteria. This indicates the trait behavior measurements were not implemented as needed hence, the practice of ROTPA to measure teacher trait behavior was poor. What is commonly observed is measuring only the measurable part of teaching, learning process while ignoring the important