This study explores the perceptions of elementary school principals on the Compass teacher evaluation system in a Southern Louisiana school district in the United States. There were seven themes that emerged from the qualitative data analysis: compliance, subjectivity, accountability, expectation, confinement, inconsistency, and helpfulness. Data analysis led to the following major findings: (a) all principals comply with the functions of Compass; (b) principals experience subjectivity when using the Compass teacher evaluation system; (c) principals believe that Compass holds teachers accountable for their performances; (d) principals would like Compass to be consistent, unambiguous, and not place limitations on teacher practices; and (e) principals experience a lack of involvement and support from the central office.
AugusteV. T. (2015). Public school educators' perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of compass: The Louisiana teacher evaluation system (Order No. 3701173). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1680244253). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1680244253?accountid=10920
2.
BriniaV., & PapantoniouE. (2016). High school principals as leaders: Styles and sources of power. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(4), 520–535.
3.
BredesonP. V. (2000). The school principal's role in teacher professional development. Journal of In-Service Education, 26(2), 385–401.
4.
CatanoN., & StrongeJ. H. (2007). What do we expect of school principals? Congruence between principal evaluation and performance standards. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(4), 379–399.
5.
CreswellJ. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DanielsonC. (2007). The many faces of leadership. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 14–19.
8.
DanielsonC., & McGrealT. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional learning.Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
9.
Darling-HammondL. (2011). Evaluating teacher evaluation: We know about value-added models and other methods. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(6), 1–18.
10.
FletcherJ., & NicholasK. (2016). What can school principals do to support students and their learning during and after natural disasters?Educational Review, 68(3), 358–374.
11.
FordT. G., Van SickleM. E., ClarkL. V., Fazio-BrunsonM., & SchweenD. C. (2017). Teacher self-efficacy, professional commitment, and high stakes teacher evaluation policy in Louisiana. Educational Policy, 31(2), 2002–2248.
12.
Ganon-ShilonS., & SchechterC. (2017). Making sense of school leaders' sense-making. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(4), 682–698. doi:10.1177/1741143216628536.
13.
GermanyK. C. (2014). Analysis of the relationship between the professional practice and growth indices to student outcomes when evaluating high school teachers using COMPASS, the Louisiana evaluation model (Order No. 3646222). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1639153466). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1639153466?accountid=10920
14.
GlickmanC., GordonS., & Ross-GordonJ. (2001). Supervision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
15.
HillK. (2013). Walking the tightrope: Secondary school principals' perceptions on teacher evaluation.Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest.
16.
HollandP., & AdamsP. (2002). Through the horns of a dilemma between instructional supervision and the summative evaluation of teaching. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 5(3), 227–247.
17.
HowardB. B., & GullicksonA. R. (2010). Setting standards for teacher evaluation. In KennedyM. (Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality (pp. 34–44). New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.
18.
IwanickiE. F. (2001). Focusing teacher-evaluations on student-learning. Educational Leadership, 58(5), 57–63.
19.
JacobB. A., & LefgrenL. (2008). Can principals identify effective teachers? Evidence on subjective performance evaluation in education. Journal of Labor Economics, 26(1), 101–136.
KerstenT. A., & IsraelM. S. (2005). Teacher evaluation: Principal's insights and suggestions for improvement. Planning and Changing, 36(1-2), 47–67.
25.
KingD. (2002). The changing shape of leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 61–63.
26.
KlarH. W., HugginsK. S., HammondsH. L., & BuskeyF. C. (2016). Fostering the capacity for distributed leadership: A post-heroic approach to leading school improvement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 19(2), 111–137. doi:10.1080/13603124.2015.1005028.
27.
KowalskiT. J. (2010). The school principal: Visionary leadership and competent management.New York, NY: Routledge.
28.
LochmillerC. R., & ChesnutC. E. (2017). Preparing turnaround leaders for high needs urban schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(1), 85–102. doi: 10.1108/JEA-11-2015-0099.
MarshallK. (2005). It's time to rethink teacher supervision and evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(10), 727–735.
33.
OvandoM. N., & RamirezA. (2007). Principals‘ instructional leadership within a teacher performance appraisal system: Enhancing students’ academic success. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20(1-2), 85–110.
34.
OwensC. D. (2013). Exploring the relationship between COMPASS students learning measures and high school math teachers' sense of efficacy in two northeast Louisiana school districts (Order No. 3578811). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1503667595). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1503667595?accountid=10920
35.
PendletonK. H. (2014). Misunderstanding and miscommunication: How stakeholders interpret the teacher evaluation process in Louisiana (Order No. 3624731). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1553840415). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1553840415?accountid=10920
36.
PetersonK. D. (1995). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
37.
PetersonK. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
38.
PijanowskiJ. C., & BradyK. P. (2009). The influence of salary in attracting and retaining school leaders. Education and Urban Society, 42(1), 25–41.
39.
StraussA., & CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
WeinerJ. M., & WoulfinS. L. (2017). Controlled autonomy: Novice principals' schema for district control and school autonomy. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(3), 334–350.
43.
WolffR. R. (2002). Self-reflection: An essential quality for phenomenological researchers. Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
