Human resource policy and teacher appraisal in Ontario in the era of professional accountability

Abstract

This article suggests that the implementation of human resource policies such as teacher performance appraisal (TPA) is a disturbance to the school organizational climate. Based on my cross-examination of both school managers’ and teachers’ discourse, I suggest that a new leadership approach needs to be developed at the school level to effectively coordinate TPA implementation in such a way that it can enhance teacher professional growth.

Keywords

Ontario school managers teacher appraisal teachers

Introduction

One of the subcultures of any bureaucratic organization is the exertion of human resource (HR) policies on employee professional growth. Thousands of books and refereed articles have been written about the implication of HR policies in corporate organizations. But it is still unconventional to find scholarly articles that deal with the issue of HR policy in educational organizations. A study of HR policies is paramount because research (see Alfes et al., 2013; Huselid, 1995; Kehoe and Wright, 2013) suggests that they are factorial in affecting employee behavior. It is generally accepted in the community of management scholars (Armstrong and Taylor, 2014; Phillips and Phillips, 2016) that these policies shape the practices of staffing, training, mentoring, allocating incentives, personnel appraisal and knowledge-sharing mechanisms (Gittell et al., 2010). With reference to Canadian educational organizations, the implementation of performance management systems across elementary and secondary schools in Ontario is rarely discussed through the discourse of both school managers and teaching personnel. If we solely rely on school principals’ opinions, we might run the risk of having an ephemeral cognizance of HR practices in those organizations. Indeed, Stanley (2003), in the book Next Generation Leader, argues that leaders have the tendency of denying the fallacy of their leadership paroxysm. Based on a systematic review of existing findings on teacher appraisal in Ontario, this article seeks to discuss to what extent teacher performance appraisal (TPA) affects school organizational climate. By organizational climate, I mean the work environment as perceived directly or indirectly by organization members (Ivancevich et al., 2014). To avoid any political imbrication, I would like to inform readers that I am not insinuating that teachers are incompetent, nor advocating for an implementation of pedantic HR appraisal praxes. My intent of penning this article is not to castigate the quality of their work input or output. I personally pledge them my respect for benevolently instructing our youth despite working under precarious employment conditions (Hargreaves, 1994; Weiner and Jerome, 2014).

Observation-based measure

Broadly speaking, the most common HR practice that is employed in school settings to gauge teacher performance is the observation-based measure (OM). This HR practice is employed in the classroom context and entails a summative appraisal approach. School managers are required to assess their teaching personnel and write review reports. Studies (McCaffrey et al., 2009; Weisberg et al., 2009) show that classroom observations are not always reliable to provide a fair assessment. This paucity is well discussed in the articles published by Steinberg and Garrett in the Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis journal and by Papay in the Harvard Education Review. Steinberg and Garrett (2016) argue that teacher rating is not only determined by teacher input but also by the workplace environment in which they work. It can be biased and present some limitations because non-measurable variables such as student demography affect pedagogical praxes. Teachers working with economically advantageous students are more likely to fare better in their work performance. Those teaching in pauperized schools often struggle to succeed in their endeavor (Cookson, 2013). Steinberg and Garrett (2016) call for a revision of the school appraisal system to make it more objective. On the implication of principal leadership, Medley and Coker (1987) argue that the accuracy of school managers’ judgments of teacher performance can be flawed. The results of their study of a sample size of 322 school teachers revealed that principals are not always proficient observers. Plus, there is no guarantee that workplace conflicts cannot interplay in the appraisal process. Papay (2012) stresses that ‘one typical concern with standards-based observations is that evaluators may not provide objective assessments of classroom practice because of underlying prejudices against the teacher.’ It has often occurred that a school manager unfairly underrates a teacher because of interrelational conflicts with that teacher (Papay and Johnson, 2012). In that situation, the OM ceases to be a tool for merit taxonomy but rather becomes an opportunity for retribution. Furthermore, Papay (2012) argues that limiting bias in the OM is pernicious because such appraisals solely rely on human judgment. Arguably, the point raised by Papay denotes that, if not fairly conducted, the OM can drive down the impetus of organizational justice. In an organizational school context where school managers’ work agenda is engulfed by administrative tasks, they might not have enough time to thoroughly assess teachers. The reliability of reports based on the OM can be compromised because high-quality observations are time demanding (Papay, 2012). School managers will be more inclined to make inadequate appraisals. Another concern with the OM is that ensuring its fairness requires training evaluators about effective teaching practices. Without a proper training, Johnson et al. (2010) outcry that school managers can struggle to clearly identify teachers’ teaching pitfalls. Critics against the validity and objectivity of the OM do not date from today. Three decades ago, Epstein (1985), in his study of teacher appraisals in the USA, argued against solely using the principal–teacher modality of performance appraisal. Epstein (1985: 10) wrote that both principals’ and parents’ judgments may be needed in a comprehensive system of evaluation because these raters have interests in different educational processes and products, different competencies to judge particular aspects of teaching, and different cumulative experiences with teachers and students. Basically, he proposed that teacher appraisals by school managers should be supplemented by parent evaluations of teachers’ merit. Bias risks are not only limited to the OM practices – Rothstein (2010) states that value-added estimates can also be biased. Value-added models based on coding students’ test scores history (Barlevy and Neal, 2012; Hanushek, 2011) to determine teacher performance are used in certain OECD countries such as the USA, although not across all states’ school districts. However, in Canada, this HR managerial model is neither commonly employed across school districts nor supported by teacher unions. Put differently, tenure and pay in the teaching profession are based on seniority and not on student performance metrics. According to the Canadian Federation of Teachers, uniform salary schedules rather than outcomes-based salary systems are largely employed across all provincial school districts (Shanahan, 2010). For many years now, the OM has been limited to assessing the observational behavior of Canadian school teachers. Ross and Bruce (2007) argue that amid the OM and value-added evaluations, teacher self-assessment represents another way of monitoring professional accountability. It involves teachers making cognitive self-judgments on their past and present teaching practices and behaviors to improve their pedagogical and classroom management skills. More than the other two HR practices, teacher self-appraisal is suitable for professional growth and self-improvement. Within the jurisdiction of Ontario school districts, the OM is the main institutionalized appraisal practice and enacted in the following HR policy: teacher performance appraisal (TPA).

Method

A systematic literature review was conducted on the findings of Larsen (2009) and Maharaj’s (2014) studies about TPA implementation in Ontario school jurisdictions. These studies were selected because they are two of the rarest scholarly articles that have been published about TPA. The method employed in the selection of existing literature consisted of finding scholarly articles on TPA published in refereed journals for research credibility. In addition, only empirical studies that were informed by field data such as teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of TPA could be selected. For reliability purposes, only those studies published in the past decade could be considered. Larsen (2009) and Maharaj’s (2004) studies were the only ones which met all the required criteria. The study of Larsen was based on a survey of 125 teachers and interviews with 25 teachers. It focused on understanding the perspectives and attitudes of teachers about this HR policy. Larsen (2009: 1) stated that it focused on the implementation stage of TPA and demonstrates the disparate ways TPA has been taken up across the province. Through a survey study, Maharaj (2014) investigated how school administrators perceive the process of TPA, namely the practice of classroom observations. His sample size was comprised of 178 respondents. After analyzing the findings of these researchers, I conducted a cross-examination on the discourse of school managers and teachers to identify the perceptual differentials and similarities. Based on the outcomes of this cross-examination, I provided a sociological portrait of school organizational climate. Prior to discussing the issue of school climate, I also analyzed existing policy literature on school administration to comprehend the policity of TPA in Ontario. To provide a comprehensive study on the organizational phenomenon around the implementation of TPA, I also conducted a systematic analysis on TPA literature in some OECD countries who somewhat share the same sociological and cultural characteristics with Canada. Table 1 summarizes the findings of Larsen (2009) and Maharaj’s (2014) studies.

Table 1.

Teachers and principals’ perceptions of TPA.

Larsen (2009)	Maharaj (2014)
Only 8% of teachers felt that the TPA process had positively impacted their relationship with their principal.	Administrators did not feel strongly that the classroom observations were adequate in accurately assessing teacher practice, with only 26% stating that they were extremely or very adequate. Most felt that the pre-planned nature of the classroom observations did not allow for an accurate assessment of a teacher’s regular teaching practice.
80% of teachers did not feel that they had received the support they expected from their vice/principal during the TPA process.	Most of them also reported utilizing sources of information outside of those strictly dictated by the current TPA process. This included informal visits to the teacher’s classes throughout the year.
The researcher concluded that, for most participants in the study, the TPA process had several unintended, negative impacts, including undue stress, self-doubt, and the deterioration of teachers’ relationship with their evaluators.	Almost all administrators reported rarely having to deal with teachers disagreeing with their assessment, with 97% reporting that this happened only occasionally or never.
Less than half of teachers felt that the TPA process had enhanced their sense of themselves as professionals.	Most administrators did not feel that their role as an evaluator negatively affected relations with their teaching staff, with 83% stating that they disagreed or strongly disagreed. Most administrators stated that they embraced the evaluation role as part of their job and that in fact it had often enhanced their relations with their teaching staff.
Almost half of 150 teachers in the study reported that the TPA was a stressful process. Stressors identified included preparing overly detailed lesson plans, updating daybooks, pressure to demonstrate their competency, and feeling that they were being judged.	Most administrators appeared not to view the TPA process as a major vehicle for improving teacher practice. Instead, many indicated that improvements in teacher practice were the result of ongoing professional development in the school during staff meetings, and coaching and mentoring amongst administrators and staff.
Teachers were also frustrated by what they perceived as evaluators’ reluctance to give exemplary or unsatisfactory ratings.	They believe that assessing the effectiveness of a teacher based on a single, pre-planned classroom observation is inadequate.

Teacher performance appraisal

In the latest TPA legislation enacted in 2010 by the Ontario Ministry of Education, new and experienced teachers are required to undergo performance appraisals to enhance their professional growth and student achievement. New teachers are instructed to take part in two performance appraisals within the first year of their career inception. Every 5 years, experienced teachers must undergo a performance appraisal at least once. Among the technical guidelines provided in that HR policy, school managers are mandated to implement a classroom-based OM to evaluate teacher effectiveness. This HR policy neither provides room for parent evaluations of teachers’ merit, nor counts teacher self-assessment. It represents one of the political emblems of new public management in today’s school administration. Hood (1995) accredits new public management with driving organizational accountability, efficiency, and cost optimization. It is the driver of the ‘accountingization’ (a concept coined by Power and Laughlin, 1992: 133) of social exchanges in public service organizations. This analogy refers to holding public servants accountable of their organizational habitus. Prior to the legislation of TPA by Dalton McGuinty Jr. (2003–2013), teacher appraisal programs were first introduced by David Peterson (1985–1990), Bob Rae (1990–1995), Mike Harris (1995–2002), and Ernie Eves (2002–2003). For instance, the Education Quality and Accountability Office Act was introduced in Ontario in 1996, then replaced by the Educational Accountability Act in 2000 to legislate the role of educators involved in student learning. Along the same lines, in 2001, Bill 80 of the Stability and Excellence in Education Act and the Quality in the Classroom Act of 2003 were passed. In 2010, the TPA was launched to achieve one goal: the institutionalization of professional accountability. Although historical records show that successive provincial governments in Ontario, including Wynne’s (2013–present) cabinet, have regulated teacher effectiveness, not all provinces have enjoyed the same political courtesy. For example, in Quebec, governments have failed to pass HR regulations in that regard because of a staunch resistance from teacher unions. Consequently, many teachers in that province are not regularly or formally appraised. Minguy (1978) reported 40 years ago that only 18 per cent of schools across Quebec evaluated their teaching staff. She argued that in most cases these evaluations were conducted with no proper official HR appraisal policies. Richard and Michaud’s (1982) spoke about the same issue. In their comparative study of teacher appraisals in Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario, they reported that about 31 per cent of French Canadian teachers stated not being evaluated. In contrast, about 100 per cent of Ontarian teachers asserted that their teaching practices were appraised. Until today, the status quo has remained the same in Quebec, whereas things have evolved in Ontario.

TPA and organizational climate

Existing findings suggest that perceptual differentials exist between teaching staff and school managers when it comes to the OM. Most teachers (82%) believe that this HR practice negatively affects their workplace relations with school managers. Only 8 per cent of them think otherwise than what the majority of managers (83%) believe. The lack of enthusiasm among teaching employees can be interpreted as a token of distrust in the TPA process. Not only that, it may also be construed as an aversion against the modality of management in Ontarian schools. Meanwhile, the practice of the OM has a positive impact on the way school managers perceive manager–employee relations. At the same time, it somewhat represents a hygiene factor and a source of chilly workplace climates. In Herzberg’s (1966) words, hygiene factors represent organizational characteristics that cause job dissatisfaction among employees. In other words, the TPA process can be an impediment to the climate of trust. Mone and London (2014), in their book Employee Engagement, describe the climate of trust as the everyday feeling of employees towards an organization. To paraphrase a statement made by the National Union of Teachers in the UK, any lack of consistency simply erodes trust in the whole enterprise of teacher evaluation. The fact that about 80 per cent of teachers claimed that they have not received any form of managerial support from their school managers shows that the implementation of performance management systems in public schools has not been conducted to the extent of creating organizational conditions favorable to teacher professional development. It calls us to question the leadership quality of today's school managers and the organizational accountability of today's public schools. Are school principals assuredly transformational leaders as acclaimed in some literature (Andersen, 2010; Marks and Pinty, 2003) on public administration? The answer is that the lack of administrative support as outlined in existing findings indicates that transformational leadership in all its forms is not fully etched in the managerial habitus of school managers. Although teachers believe that the process of TPA negatively affects their relations with school managers, it is seldom to hear them voicing out their concerns to their school managers. A proof of this lack of openness is corroborated by what 97 per cent of school managers stated in Maharaj’s (2014) study. They reported that it was rare to be confronted by teachers who disagreed with appraisal outcomes, which implies that teacher performance aversion does not translate into grievances against the members of their hierarchy, but it does not mean that conflicts do not exist in the school workplace. The fact that teachers do not voice their grievances to school managers can be interpreted as a sign of employee silence behavior. Brinsfield (2014) argues that employee silence behavior refers to the attitude of employees to withhold information or not to fully express their opinions, whether intentionally or unintentionally. A survey study conducted by Vakola and Bouradas (2005) on 677 employees revealed that organizational forces lead to employees’ silent behavior. These authors wrote that the fear of suffering negative consequences and being characterized as a troublemaker, and lack of supportive supervisory leadership, affect the way employees adopt silent behavior. Given that this issue was not raised in the findings of Maharaj (2014) and Larsen’s (2009) studies, I posit that perhaps teachers are afraid of causing workplace conflicts. At this stage, it is pernicious to identify the organizational factors that prevent them from speaking out about work-related concerns with the management. I suggest that a further study should be conducted to identify those factors. Another way to explain teachers' silence behavior is the fact that the outcomes of performance appraisals tend to be less punitive, and less threatening to their job security or tenure. To my credit, Menuey (2005) who led a survey study on teacher professional incompetency and dismissal barriers on a sample size of 200 elementary school teachers pointed out that underperforming teachers are rarely laid off. An article published in July 2009 by Maclean’s reported that, ‘of the roughly 200,000 educators licensed by the Ontario College of Teachers to teach, only 27 have been terminated due to poor performance since 2004—an annual average of just 0.002 per cent’ (Mendleson, 2009).

Although teachers’ and school managers’ opinions differ in how TPA affects their workplace relations, all agree that it does not enhance teacher professionalism. For teachers, the process of TPA does not lead to self-actualization but rather causes trepidation and is time-consuming. School managers question the validity of the OM in rating teacher performance and believe that the appraisal process is inadequate. The fact that they employ appraisal standards outside of those defined in TPA guidelines substantiates what Papay (2012), Medley and Coker (1987), and Steinberg and Garrett (2016) wrote about the flaws of the OM. Arguably, the implementation of TPA does not fully eliminate bias risks in the appraisal process. The issue of bias and validity is not only peculiar to TPA system in Ontario because it is a universal workplace phenomenon . For instance, a report published in 2013 by the Ministry of National Education in France raised the same concern. It stated that macro HR practices related to the appraisal of its teaching workforce were not fair enough and should be improved (Doriath et al., 2013). In the UK, the same question has been debated among education policy-makers. To address the paucity of the OM, a paper circulated by a British-based education think tank, The Sutton Trust, suggested that a tripartite approach in appraising teacher effectiveness should be considered by British school administrations. The OM should be employed alongside pupil surveys of teachers and student achievement scores (Murphy, 2013). Applied individually, each HR practice can present some weakness, but applied together, they are more likely to produce an objective appraisal outcome. Not only that, such synchronization may produce in-depth assessment reports and feedback for teachers to reflect upon. Education leaders in Ontario may consider implementing a new TPA based on this tripartite formula. Such managerial modality may not fully address the issue of fairness and teachers’ professional development, but it is still worth trying. Alternatively, informal peer reviews as used in some universities may be employed in lieu of this proposed model.

Within the walls of Ontarian schools, teachers are not the only staff members who are formally evaluated. The managerial performance of school managers is appraised as well (see the Ontario Leadership Strategy on Principal/Vice-principal Performance Appraisal; Ontario Government, 2013). Every 5 years, school principals are required to be appraised once by superintendents. In that HR policy, it is also stated that principals should also evaluate vice-principals within the same timeframe unless the school board decides that the evaluation will be conducted by a supervisory officer. But there is no substantial study to date that has addressed how principalship evaluations affect school managers’ organizational behavior in Ontario. An article written by Normore (2004) could have helped us to understand the self-perceptions of school administrations about the appraisal of their work performance. Alas, that study is limited in its scope and only discusses the modality of such appraisal. Meanwhile, a study completed in New England School District by Casavant et al. (2012) on school managers sheds some light on the appraisal of principalship. They found that: ‘principals reported that there was little to no assistance provided for personal professional growth…and did not see a correlation between the evaluation criteria and improved professional practice.’ Although not related to the Canadian context, Casavant et al.’s (2012) findings imply that the implementation of TPA in school settings does not affect the professional development of school managers. In comparing the discourses held by their respondents with those of Larsen (2009) and Maharaj’s (2014) study participants, it appears that there is a consensus among teachers and school managers that work-related performance appraisal does not add value to their professional growth. But a report published in 2016 by the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership on the outcomes of teacher appraisals in Australian elementary and secondary schools differs with the above inference. It pointed out that there was a positive relationship between the implementation of TPA and teachers’ professional development. Organizational factors related to this positive correlation consisted of supportive leadership, adequate resources, a high level of teacher engagement, a supportive culture around the implementation of TPA, and a clear communication and collaboration about appraisal standards (see Final Report – Evaluation of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers; Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2016). In comparative terms, the lack of correlation between the implementation of TPA and teachers’ professional development in Ontario is not ubiquitous. Perhaps such correlation is lacking because the organizational stimuli outlined in the aforesaid report are not holistically embedded in Ontarian schools’ organizational culture and teacher appraisal system.

Conclusion

Pondering on the crux of existing findings, I argue that the way TPA is currently implemented in Ontario represents a disturbance to school organizational climate. The problem does not lie with the substance of this HR policy but with the process by which it is implemented. A new leadership approach needs to be developed to effectively coordinate its implementation in a way that it will enhance teacher self-actualization and professional growth. It is up to school managers to take up this challenge if they want to improve their school organizational climate. At the same time, school districts should come to terms with equipping school managers with leadership tools and skills that will enable them to appraise teacher performance effectively. Last, but not the least, I suggest that a study about the evaluation of principalship in Ontarian schools should be conducted to have a comprehensive picture of the school appraisal system and the subculture behind this system. So far, this article cannot address this subject because it does not have the empirical data to do so.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Alfes

Shantz

Truss

Soane

(2013) The link between perceived human resource management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: A moderated mediation model. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 24(2):330–351.

Andersen

(2010) Public versus private managers: How public and private managers differ in leadership behavior. Public Administration Review 70(1):131–141.

Armstrong

Taylor

(2014) Armstrong’s Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice. Philadelphia: Kogan.

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (2016) Final Report – Evaluation of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. Available at: https://www.aitsl.edu.au/tools-resources/resource/final-report-evaluation-of-the-australian-professional-standards-for-teachers (accessed 23 July 2017).

Barlevy

Neal

(2012) Pay for percentile. American Economic Review 102(5):1805–1831.

Brinsfield

(2014) Employee voice and silence in organizational behavior. In: Wilkinson

Donaghey

Dundon

Freeman

(eds) Handbook of Research on Employee Voice. Northampton: Edward Edgar, 114–134.

Casavant

Collins

Faginski-Stark

McCandless

Tencza

(2012) Perceptions of the principal evaluation process and performance criteria: A qualitative study of the challenge of principal evaluation. Boston: Boston College.

Cookson

(2013) Class Rules: Exposing Inequality in American High Schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Doriath

Montaigu

Poncelet

Richon

(2013) L’evaluation des enseignants. Inspection Generale de l’Education Nationale. Paris, France.

10.

Epstein

(1985) A question of merit: Principals’ and parents’ evaluations of teachers. Educational Researcher 14(7):3–10.

11.

Gittell

Seidner

Wimbush

(2010) A relational model of how high-performance work systems work. Organization Science 21(2):490–506.

12.

Hanushek

(2011) The economic value of higher teacher quality. Economic of Education Review 30(3):466–479.

13.

Hargreaves

(1994) Changing Teachers, Changing Times: Teachers’ Work and Culture in the Postmodern Age. New York: Teachers College Press.

14.

Herzberg

(1966) Work and the Nature of Man. Oxford: World Publishing Company.

15.

Hood

(1995) The new public management in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting Organizations and Society 20(2):93–109.

16.

Huselid

(1995) The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal 38(3):635–672.

17.

Ivancevich

Konopaske

Matteson

(2014) Organizational Behavior and Management. New York: McGraw Hill.

18.

Johnson

Papay

Fiarman

Munger

Qazilbash

(2010) Teacher to teacher: Realizing the potential of peer assistance and review. Washington: Center for American Progress.

19.

Kehoe

Wright

(2013) The impact of high-performance human resource practices on employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management 39(2):366–391.

20.

Larsen

(2009) Stressful, hectic, daunting: A critical policy study of the Ontario teacher performance appraisal system. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy 95:1–44.

21.

McCaffrey

Sass

Lockwood

Mihaly

(2009) The intertemporal variability of teacher effect estimates. Education Finance and Policy 4:572–606.

22.

Maharaj

(2014) Administrators’ views on teacher evaluation: Examining Ontario’s teacher performance appraisal. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy 152:1–58.

23.

Marks

Pinty

(2003) Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Education Administration Quarterly 39(3):370–397.

24.

Medley

Coker

(1987) The accuracy of principals’ judgments of teacher performance. The Journal of Educational Research 80(4):242–247.

25.

Mendleson

(2009) Why it’s so hard to fire bad teachers. Maclean’s, 8 July. Available at: https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/why-its-so-hard-to-fire-bad-teachers/ (accessed 23 July 2017).

26.

Menuey

(2005) Teachers’ perceptions of professional incompetence and barriers to the dismissal process. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 18(4):309–325.

27.

Minguy

(1978) Évaluation du personnel enseignant dans les écoles élémentaires et les écoles secondaires du Quebec. Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, Québec.

28.

Mone

London

(2014) Employee Engagement Through Effective Performance Management: A Practical Guide for Managers. New York: Routledge.

29.

Murphy

(2013) Testing teachers: What works best for teacher evaluation and appraisal. The Sutton Trust, London.

30.

Normore

(2004) Performance appraisals of school administrators in one Canadian school district: A contemporary model. Alberta Journal of Educational Research 50(3):283–298.

31.

Ontario Government (2013) Ontario Leadership Strategy on Principal/Vice-principal Performance Appraisal. Available at: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/leadership/PPA_Manual.pdf (accessed 4 June 2017).

32.

Papay

(2012) Refocusing the debate: Assessing the purposes and tools of teacher evaluation. Harvard Educational Review 82(1):123–141.

33.

Papay

Johnson

(2012) Is PAR a good investment? Understanding the costs and benefits of teacher peer assistance and review programs. Educational Policy 26(5):696–729.

34.

Phillips

(2016) Handbook of Training and Measurement Evaluation. New York: Routledge.

35.

Power

Laughlin

(1992) Critical theory and accounting. In: Alvesson

Willmott

(eds) Critical Management Studies. London: SAGE, 113–135.

36.

Richard

Michaud

(1982) La pratique de l’évaluation des enseignants au Nouveau-Brunswick, au Québec et Ontario. Revue des Sciences de l’Education 8(2):255–270.

37.

Ross

Bruce

(2007) Teacher self-assessment: A mechanism for facilitating professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education 23(2):146–159.

38.

Rothstein

(2010) Teacher quality in educational production: Tracking, decay, and student achievement. Quarterly Journal of Economics 125(1):175–214.

39.

Shanahan

(2010) Teacher merit pay: A literature review. Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association, Toronto.

40.

Stanley

(2003) Next Generation Leader. New York: Multnomah.

41.

Steinberg

Garrett

(2016) Classroom composition and measured teacher performance: What do teacher observation scores really measure? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 38(2):293–317.

42.

Vakola

Bouradas

(2005) Antecedents and consequences of organisational silence: An empirical investigation. Employee Relations 27(5):441–458.

43.

Weiner

Jerome

(2014) Urban Teaching: The Essentials. New York: Teachers College Press.

44.

Weisberg

, Sexton

, Mulhern

and Keeling

(2009) The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. The New Teacher Project, Brooklyn.