ENTREVISTA A RAFAEL CAMINO

Based on the basic research questions, questionnaires and interviews were developed and administered. Data collected through surrey questionnaire, interview and document analysis were presented, analyzed and interpreted. Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions are provided.

1. Regarding teachers principals and vice principals attitude towards ROTPA the findings show that the majority of teachers and principals do not have favorable attitude towards ROTPA criteria based on the BSC system. Some of the teachers principals and vice principals said that ROTPA criteria based on the BSC system did not include teachers behavior such as work initiative, loyalty, cooperatives, enthusiasm, creativity and the like. Teachers were rated against performance level that would not be achieved under normal condition. As described in the literature, performance standards must be set by the mutual agreement of the appraiser and appraisee. Performance measurement is a way of translating corporate goals in to achievable objectives that cascaded down throughout the organization to produce optimum results.

2. Regarding teachers participation in ROTPA criteria, based on the BSC system, the findings revealed that teachers’ participation is low. Teachers were called for meeting only to give comment and approve the criteria developed by the school principals, vice principals and officials of education. Teachers were not acting as decision makers to change or modify the objectives set. As described in the literature when an employee is involved in planning and setting the objectives and determining the measure, a high level of commitment and performance may result. Result-oriented performance appraisals discussed in different literature and training manuals is participatory type of

66

appraisal criteria. But in practice this could not be implemented because of inadequate training given to principals, vice principals and teachers.

3. With regard to appraiser competency, the findings revealed that because of inadequate training and lack of administrative experience, the appraiser in this case, the school principals and vice principals are not competent enough to appraise teachers’ performance objectively. The majority of teachers reported that, teachers would be appraised best if multi- raters method would be employed and they preferred multi raters appraisal to minimize appraisal error rather than being appraised by a single person that is the vice principal (TDP). The majority of teachers also suggested that the school principals, vice principals, unit leaders, department heads and students in a committee form could better appraise teachers’ performance result. The majority of principals and vice principals suggested only school principals and vice principals alone can better appraise teachers’ performance result. Both the principals, vice principals and teachers must get a continuous training until the program is fully adopted. The training should encompass method of developing appraisal criteria and method of reducing the common appraisal errors that were revealed because of inadequate training and lack of managerial expertise and experience.

4. The practice of formative evaluation conducted by the school principal and vice principals is not participatory. The vice principal conducted formative evaluation only to document performance defaults of teachers. As many scholars greed that during formative evaluation, objectives are modified mutually and progress is discussed during this period. Vice principals conducted formative evaluation to maintain and enforce the overall teacher’s performance appraisal result on the normal frequency distribution curve. In formative evaluation periodic meeting are required and to be held subsequently to discuss the employees’ progress by considering the attainment of mid period targets.

5. Regarding practice of post appraisal interview, the findings show that, the majority of the school principals and vice principals do not conduct post appraisal interview with all appraised teachers. Rather those teachers who were apprised as low performers go to the principal office to negotiate why they were rated as low performers. Because of fear

67

of disagreement that would be raised during conversation that principals were not welcome for discussion. As different scholars agree that the superior should facilitate counseling and encouragement session with subordinate to inspire teachers’ future performance. Self-rating can enhance and facilitate post appraisal discussion with teachers being appraised.

6. The research findings also revealed that there were major problems when ROTPA criterion was practiced. The majority of teachers and principals and vice principals reported that inadequate training was the tackle. The avoidance of teachers’ behaviors in the appraisal criteria using normal distribution curve to force and distribute teachers appraisal result as low, medium, high and very high, teachers appraised against the performance standards that couldn’t be achieved under normal condition and the absence of grievance committee at school level were some of the major problems revealed on practicing ROTPA criteria.

7. The majority of teachers principals, vice principals also suggested the following as a solution to curve the problems revealed. Giving adequate and continuous training to both teachers and school principals, vice principals enhance forming a grievance committee that should be selected by the school teachers involvement at school level, including teachers behavior in the appraisal criteria, implementing normal distribution curve according to the actual situation of the school environment, the officials of education must give a due support to schools principals, vice principals and teachers until the new appraisal criteria is fully adapted.