Authors : Dennis Perez

Volume/Issue : Volume 9 - 2024, Issue 10 - October

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/bd76yr9a

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/55jywywc

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24OCT1195

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : This study explored the lived experiences, challenges encountered, coping mechanisms and insights of public elementary school heads on evaluating teachers in schools using the RPMS-IPCRF in the new normal. The participants were coming from DepEd Region XI, Division of Davao City, specifically in the schools of Paquibato District. There were eight (8) school heads who participated in the study, and were purposely selected. This study made use of a phenomenological approach to extract the ideas from the participants. The virtual in- depth interview was employed to gather significant information with regard to their respective lived experiences. Using the thematic analysis, the following themes emerged pertaining to their lived experiences: evaluation for performance improvement, evaluation as a difficult task, teachers providing outstanding educational services, and hurdling evaluation challenges. Further, there were also three (3) subthemes that emerged on the challenges experienced by the participants. These are the lack of RPMS-IPCRF orientations, unattainable key results areas, and rater-ratee relationship issues. The coping mechanisms of participants on the challenges they experienced were: RPMS-IPCRF re-orientations, team building for strengthening relationships, and regular coaching and monitoring. The educational management insights drawn from the participants were the importance of LAC sessions in schools and the value of rater-ratee collaborations. Thus, it is crucial to provide effective evaluation strategy training to school heads with additional support and continual professional development endeavors to boost their effectiveness and foster desirable management and evaluation skills amidst the pandemic.

Keywords : RPMS-IPCRF, School Heads, Elementary Schools, Lived Experience.

References :

1. Amrein-Beardsley, A., & Geiger, T. J. (2019). Potential sources of invalidity when using          teacher value-added and principal observational estimates: Artificial inflation,      deflation, and conflation. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability,    31(4), 465–493. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.bridgeport.edu/10.1007/s11092-019- 09311-w
2. Chambers, D., Scala, J., & English, D. (2020). Promising practices brief: Improving                student engagement and attendance during COVID-19 school closures. Arlington,    VA: Insight Policy Research and the American Institutes for Research. Retrieved                  from https:// insightpolicyresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/NSAES_COVID19_Whitepaper_ Final_508.pdf
3. Coggshall, J. G., Rasmussen, C., Colton, A., Milton, J., & Jacques, C. (2012). Generating teaching effectiveness: The role of job-embedded professional learning in teacher evaluation. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved from https://gtlcenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/GeneratingTeachingEffectiveness.pdf
4. Danielson, C. (1996, 2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (1st and 2nd eds). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
5. Derrington, M. L. (2013). Metaphors and meaning: Principals’ perceptions of teacher evaluation implementation. Education Leadership Review, 14(3), 22–28.
6. Derrington, M. L., & Campbell, J. W. (2015). Implementing new teacher evaluation systems: principals’ concerns and supervisor support. Journal of Educational Change, 16(3), 305– 326. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.bridgeport.edu/10.1007/s10833-015-9244-6
7. Derrington, M. L. & Campbell, J. W. (2018). High-stakes teacher evaluation policy: US         principals’ perspectives and variations in practice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory          and Practice, 24(3), 246–262.
8. Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do     students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,            10(2), 1–13
9. 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 Analyses, 40(4), 531–556. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/0162373718784205
10. Goe, L., Bell, C., & Little, O. (2008). Approaches to evaluating teacher effectiveness: A        research synthesis. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED521228
11. Hunter, M. (1984). Knowing, teaching, and supervising. In P. Hosford (Ed.), Using what we know about teaching. (pp. 169–192). Alexandria, VA: ASCD
12. Ingle, K., Rutledge, S., & Bishop, J. (2011). Context matters: Principals’ sensemaking of       teacher hiring and on-the-job performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(5), 579–610.
13. Kish, P. (2018). The virtual school teacher evaluation process. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/ ?id=ED590888
14. Knowles, M. S. (1978). Andragogy: Adult learning theory in perspective. Community College Review, 5(3), 9–20. https://doi.org.libproxy.bridgeport.edu/10.1177/009155217800500302 .
15. Knowles, M. S., Holton III, E. F., Swanson, R. A, Robinson, P. A. (2020). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (9th ed.). Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
16. Lacayanga, R. (2022).  Problems Encountered Among Teachers on RPMS: Inputs for Teachers Enhancement Program, Online Article, Teacher PH-Professional Learning Online Community of Teachers and for Teachers. https://www.teacherph.com/action-research-rpms-teachers-enhancement-program/
17. Marzano, R. J. (2012). Teacher Evaluation: What’s fair? What’s effective? The two purposes of teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 14–19. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership/nov12/vol70/num03/The-              Two-Purposes-of-Teacher-Evaluation.aspx     
18. Marzano, R., Frontier, T., & Livingston, D. (2011). Effective supervision: Supporting the art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
19. McBrien, J. L., Cheng, R., & Jones, P. (2009). Virtual spaces: Employing a synchronous online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(3).
20. Namuag, S., and Antonio, L., (2022). Results-Based Performance Management System: Its Implementation Challenges In San Antonio Elementary School, International Journal of Arts, Sciences and Education ISSN: 2799 – 1091, Volume 3 Issue 1 | March 2022 Page No. 1-10
21. Nortvig, A. M., Petersen, A. K., & Balle, S. H. (2018). A literature review of the factors influencing e-learning and blended learning in relation to learning outcome, student satisfaction and engagement. Electronic Journal of E-learning, 16(1), 46–55.
22. Reid, D. B. (2019). Shared leadership: A comparative case study of two first year US principals’ socialization around teacher evaluation policy. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(3), 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217739362
23. Rigby, J. G. (2015). Principals’ sensemaking and enactment of teacher evaluation. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(3), 374–392. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-04-2014-0051
24. Santiago, P., & Benavides, F. (2009). Teacher evaluation: A conceptual framework and examples of country practices. Organization for Economic Cooperation and  Development (OECD). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/school/44568106.pdf
25. Sawchuk, S. (2015, September 3). Teacher Evaluation: An issue overview. Education Week. Retrieved from www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/teacher-performance-evaluationissue-overview.html
26. Sayavedra, M. (2014). Teacher evaluation. ORTESOL Journal, 31, 1–9.