Keywords
professional activity
assessment models
principal (head) of a general secondary education institution
the goal of professional activity
factors of influence
How to Cite
Abstract
The article presents the results of a study of the attitude of directors of general educational institutions to various aspects of assessing the effectiveness of their professional activities. To obtain the information necessary for the study, an online survey of 565 heads of general secondary education institutions from several regions of Ukraine was used based on Google Forms software. The internal consistency of the questionnaire questions was determined using Cronbach’s α-criterion, the value of which (α> 0.8) indicates a sufficiently high reliability of the questionnaire as a measurement tool. The results of the study revealed the presence of certain statistically significant differences by gender in the respondents’ vision of the conceptual foundations of the organizational model for assessing their professional activities, namely: the content of the main goal of the professional activity of the director of a general secondary education institution; the level of management responsible for the development and approval of general rules and criteria for assessing professional activities; the feasibility of using the results of surveys of different groups of participants in the educational process when making a decision on the effectiveness of the professional activity of the head of an educational institution. The study identified specific features and confirmed structural differences in the perceptions of male and female school principals regarding the influence of several variables. These include the appraiser’s business qualities, the socio-demographic and professional characteristics of the principal, the procedures of the assessment methodology, and certain external conditions affecting the management activities and behavior of the heads of general secondary education institutions. These findings were supported by factor analysis.
References
Державна наукова установа «Інститут освітньої аналітики». (2024). Заклади загальної середньої освіти Міністерства освіти і науки України, інших міністерств і відомств та приватні заклади (2023/2024 н. р.): Інформаційний бюлетень. https://iea.gov.ua/diyalnist/naukovo-analitichna-diyalnist/analitika/informatsijni-byuleteni/informaczijni-byuleteni-3/
Державна наукова установа «Інститут освітньої аналітики». (2024). Зведений звіт закладів загальної середньої освіти на початок 2023/2024 навчального року. https://iea.gov.ua/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/1-76-rvk-derzh-kom-pr-2023-2024.pdf
Державна наукова установа «Інститут освітньої аналітики». (2024). Про чисельність і склад педагогічних працівників закладів загальної середньої освіти Міністерства освіти і науки України, інших міністерств і відомств та приватних закладів (2023/2024 н. р.): Інформаційний бюлетень.
Жук, Ю., & Ващенко, Л. (2024). Оцінювання педагогічної діяльності вчителів: пілотне дослідження. Український педагогічний журнал, 3, 52–65. https://doi.org/10.32405/2411-1317-2024-3-52-65
Лукіна, Т. (2024). Стандартизація професійної діяльності директора середньої школи як механізм управління якістю освіти: зарубіжні підходи. Український педагогічний журнал, 2, 35–50. https://doi.org/10.32405/2411-1317-2024-2-35-50
Лукіна, Т.О. (2008). Моніторинг в освіті. У Енциклопедія освіти (с. 519‒521). https://lib.iitta.gov.ua/4048/
Лукіна, Т. О. (2011). Управління якістю. У Ю. В. Ковбасюк (Ред.), Енциклопедія державного управління (Т. 4, с. 620–621). Київ: НАДУ.
Лукіна, Т.О. (2022). Зарубіжні підходи до розроблення моделей самооцінювання закладів загальної середньої освіти. Український педагогічний журнал, 2, 19‒30. https://doi.org/10.32405/2411-1317-2022-2-19-30.
Лукіна, Т. О. (2007). Моніторинг якості освіти як інформаційна основа управління якістю освіти в Україні. У Педагогічна і психологічна науки в Україні (Т. 2: Дидактика, методика, інформаційні технології, с. 134–144). Київ: Педагогічна думка.
Ляшенко, О.І. (Ред.). (2011). Організаційно-методичне забезпечення моніторингових досліджень якості загальної середньої освіти [Монографія]. Київ : Педагогічна думка. https://lib.iitta.gov.ua/id/eprint/2967/
Ляшенко, О.І., Лукіна, Т.О., Булах, І.Є., & Мруга, М.Р. (2012). Методика і технології оцінювання діяльності загальноосвітнього навчального закладу [Посібник]. Київ: Педагогічна думка. https://lib.iitta.gov.ua/id/eprint/2969/
Міністерство економіки України. (2021, 17 вересня). Наказ № 568-21 «Про затвердження професійного стандарту “Керівник (директор) закладу загальної середньої освіти”.
Протасова, Н. Г. (Ред.). (2012). Реформування освіти в Україні: державно-управлінський аспект. Київ; Львів: НАДУ.
Профіль українського вчителя і директора: що ми про них знаємо. (2020, 21 травня). Освіторія Медіа. https://osvitoria.media/experience/profil-ukrayinskogo-vchytelya-i-dyrektora-shho-my-pro-nyh-znayemo/
Brinia, V., Katsionis, C., Gkouma, A., & Vrekousis, I. (2023). Attitudes and Perceptions of School Principals about the Contribution of Evaluation to the Efficient Operation of Schools Both at the Administrative and Educational Levels. Education Sciences, 13(4):366. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040366
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Condon, C., & Clifford, M. (2020). Measuring principal performance: How rigorous are commonly used principal performance assessment instruments? Learning Point Associates. (A Quality School Leadership Issue Brief, No. 2).
Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02310555
Davis, S. H., Kearney, K., Sanders, N. M., Thomas, C. N., & Leon, R. J. (2011). The policies and practices of principal evaluation: A review of the literature. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Donaldson, M., Mavrogordato, M., Dougherty, S. M., Al Ghanem, R., & Youngs, P. (2021). Principal evaluation under the elementary and secondary Every Student Succeeds act: Acomprehensive policy review. Education Finance and Policy, 16(2), 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00332.
Eddy-Spicer, D., Bubb, S., Earley, P., Crawford, M., & James, C. (2019). Headteacher performance management in England: Balancing internal and external accountability through performance leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(2), 170‒188. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217739361
Erdogan, B. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions in performance appraisals. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 555‒578.
Fitzpatrick, J., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2011). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Fuller, E. J., & Hollingworth, L. (2014). A Bridge Too Far? Challenges in Evaluating Principal Effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(3), 466‒499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13506595
Grissom, J. A., Blissett, R. S. L., & Mitani, H. (2018). Evaluating School Principals: Supervisor Ratings of Principal Practice and Principal Job Performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(3), 446‒472. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373718783883
Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. (2021). How principals affect students andschools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. Wallace Foundation. http://www.wallacefoundation.org/principalsynthesis
Grissom, J., Kalgorides, D., & Loeb, S. (2012, November). Using student test scores to measure principal performance (Working Paper No. 18568). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (2009). The personnel evaluation standards: How to assess systems for evaluating educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Keser Ozmantar, Z. & Gök, F. (2024). Gender differences in school principals’ ethical decision-making processes. International Journal of Educational Management, 38(6), 1667‒1684. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-01-2024-0030
Reeves, D. B. (2005). Assessing educational leaders:Evaluating performance for improved individual and organizational results. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Swisher, A. & Saenz-Armstrong, P. (2022). State of the States 2022: Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies. Washington, D.C.: National Council on Teacher Quality. https://www.nctq.org/publications/State-of-the-States-2022:-Teacher-and-Principal-Evaluation-Policies
Brinia, V., Katsionis, C., Gkouma, A., & Vrekousis, I. (2023). Attitudes and Perceptions of School Principals about the Contribution of Evaluation to the Efficient Operation of Schools Both at the Administrative and Educational Levels. Education Sciences, 13(4):366. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040366 (in English).
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. (in English).
Condon, C., & Clifford, M. (2020). Measuring principal performance: How rigorous are commonly used principal performance assessment instruments? Learning Point Associates. (A Quality School Leadership Issue Brief, No. 2). (in English).
Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02310555 (in English).
Davis, S. H., Kearney, K., Sanders, N. M., Thomas, C. N., & Leon, R. J. (2011). The policies and practices of principal evaluation: A review of the literature. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. (in English).
Derzhavna naukova ustanova «Instytut osvitnoi analityky». (2024). Zaklady zahalnoi serednoi osvity Ministerstva osvity i nauky Ukrainy, inshykh ministerstv i vidomstv ta pryvatni zaklady (2023/2024 n. r.): Informatsiinyi biuleten. https://iea.gov.ua/diyalnist/naukovo-analitichna-diyalnist/analitika/informatsijni-byuleteni/informaczijni-byuleteni-3/ (in Ukrainian).
Derzhavna naukova ustanova «Instytut osvitnoi analityky». (2024). Zvedenyi zvit zakladiv zahalnoi serednoi osvity na pochatok 2023/2024 navchalnoho roku. https://iea.gov.ua/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/1-76-rvk-derzh-kom-pr-2023-2024.pdf (in Ukrainian).
Derzhavna naukova ustanova «Instytut osvitnoi analityky». (2024). Pro chyselnist i sklad pedahohichnykh pratsivnykiv zakladiv zahalnoi serednoi osvity Ministerstva osvity i nauky Ukrainy, inshykh ministerstv i vidomstv ta pryvatnykh zakladiv (2023/2024 n. r.): Informatsiinyi biuleten. (in Ukrainian).
Donaldson, M., Mavrogordato, M., Dougherty, S. M., Al Ghanem, R., & Youngs, P. (2021). Principal evaluation under the elementary and secondary Every Student Succeeds act: A comprehensive policy review. Education Finance and Policy, 16(2), 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00332 (in English)..
Eddy-Spicer, D., Bubb, S., Earley, P., Crawford, M., & James, C. (2019). Headteacher performance management in England: Balancing internal and external accountability through performance leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(2), 170‒188. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217739361 (in English).
Erdogan, B. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions in performance appraisals. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 555‒578. (in English).
Fitzpatrick, J., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2011). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. (in English).
Fuller, E. J., & Hollingworth, L. (2014). A Bridge Too Far? Challenges in Evaluating Principal Effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(3), 466‒499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13506595 (in English).
Grissom, J. A., Blissett, R. S. L., & Mitani, H. (2018). Evaluating School Principals: Supervisor Ratings of Principal Practice and Principal Job Performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(3), 446‒472. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373718783883 (in English).
Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. (2021). How principals affect students andschools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. Wallace Foundation. http://www.wallacefoundation.org/principalsynthesis (in English).
Grissom, J., Kalgorides, D., & Loeb, S. (2012, November). Using student test scores to measure principal performance (Working Paper No. 18568). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. (in English).
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (2009). The personnel evaluation standards: How to assess systems for evaluating educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. (in English).
Keser Ozmantar, Z. & Gök, F. (2024). Gender differences in school principals ethical decision-making processes. International Journal of Educational Management, 38(6), pp. 1667-1684. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-01-2024-0030 (in English).
Liashenko, O.I. (red.). (2011). Orhanizatsiino-metodychne zabezpechennia monitorynhovykh doslidzhen yakosti zahalnoi serednoi osvity [Monohrafiia]. Kyiv: Pedahohichna dumka. https://lib.iitta.gov.ua/id/eprint/2967/ (in Ukrainian).
Liashenko, O.I., Lukina, T.O., Bulakh, I.Ie., & Mruha, M.R. (2012). Metodyka i tekhnolohii otsiniuvannia diialnosti zahalnoosvitnoho navchalnoho zakladu [Posibnyk]. Kyiv: Pedahohichna dumka. https://lib.iitta.gov.ua/id/eprint/2969/ (in Ukrainian).
Lukina, T. (2024). Standartyzatsiia profesiinoi diialnosti dyrektora serednoi shkoly yak mekhanizm upravlinnia yakistiu osvity: zarubizhni pidkhody. Ukrainskyi pedahohichnyi zhurnal, 2, 35–50. https://doi.org/10.32405/2411-1317-2024-2-35-50 (in Ukrainian).
Lukina, T.O. (2007). Monitorynh yakosti osvity yak informatsiina osnova upravlinnia yakistiu osvity v Ukraini. In Pedahohichna i psykholohichna nauky v Ukraini (T. 2: Dydaktyka, metodyka, informatsiini tekhnolohii, pp. 134–144). Kyiv: Pedahohichna dumka. (in Ukrainian).
Lukina, T.O. (2008). Monitorynh v osviti. In Entsyklopediia osvity (pp. 519‒521). https://lib.iitta.gov.ua/4048/ (in Ukrainian).
Lukina, T.O. (2011). Upravlinnia yakistiu. In Kovbasiuk, Yu.V. (Ed.), Entsyklopediia derzhavnoho upravlinnia (T.4., pp. 620‒621). Kyiv: NADU. (in Ukrainian).
Lukina, T.O. (2022). Zarubizhni pidkhody do rozroblennia modelei samootsiniuvannia zakladiv zahalnoi serednoi osvity. Ukrainskyi pedahohichnyi zhurnal, 2, 19‒30. https://doi.org/10.32405/2411-1317-2022-2-19-30 (in Ukrainian).
Ministerstvo ekonomiky Ukrainy. (2021, September 17). Order No.568‒21 «Pro zatverdzhennia profesiinoho standartu «Kerivnyk (dyrektor) zakladu zahalnoi serednoi osvity». (in Ukrainian).
Profil ukrainskoho vchytelia i dyrektora: shcho my pro nykh znaiemo. (2020, 21 travnia). Osvitoriia Media. https://osvitoria.media/experience/profil-ukrayinskogo-vchytelya-i-dyrektora-shho-my-pro-nyh-znayemo/ (in Ukrainian).
Protasova, N. H. (Ed.). (2012). Reformuvannia osvity v Ukraini: derzhavno-upravlinskyi aspekt. Kyiv; Lviv: NADU. (in Ukrainian).
Reeves, D. B. (2005). Assessing educational leaders:Evaluating performance for improved individual and organizational results. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. (in English).
Swisher, A. & Saenz-Armstrong, P. (2022). State of the States 2022: Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies. Washington, D.C.: National Council on Teacher Quality. https://www.nctq.org/publications/State-of-the-States-2022:-Teacher-and-Principal-Evaluation-Policies (in English).
Zhuk, Yu., & Vashchenko, L. (2024). Otsiniuvannia pedahohichnoi diialnosti vchyteliv: pilotne doslidzhennia. Ukrainskyi pedahohichnyi zhurnal, 3, 52–65. https://doi.org/10.32405/2411-1317-2024-3-52-65 (in Ukrainian).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.