HOW TEACHERS FEEL ABOUT FEEDBACK FROM ADMINISTRATORS

The problem investigated for this research study was communication disparity evidenced by how teachers interpret and react to principal’s feedback. Principal-to-teacher communication disparity is causing teachers to become dissatisfied and elevating teacher attrition. This study identified and helped to understand how K-12 teachers in a representative school district perceive their principal’s evaluations and feedback in the forms of written, verbal, and a combination of the two. The intent of this qualitative inquiry and phenomenological design was to explore the essence of the phenomenon of principal-to-teacher performance evaluation to better understand objective feedback and evaluation. Of the 200 K-12 teachers recruited, 129 completed and submitted an online survey requesting their perceptions of principal feedback (response rate of 65%). Based on the submitted survey, 15 participants were selected to participate in interviews. Selection was based on having an administrative evaluation in the past three years and their willingness to participate in a live interview. Interviews and survey results from this study indicate teachers understood the importance of evaluations and thought their principal’s intentions were respectable. More than half believed principal evaluations were unproductive and their manner of communication had an effect on teachers’ job satisfaction. Keywords/phrases: teacher discontentment, feedback, communication disparity, teacher retention, job satisfaction, teaching performance assessment Introduction The social dynamic between professionals in schools may not be accurately portrayed. Feedback may not be effective in some instances as some teachers, for various reasons, fear being evaluated (Conley & Glasman, 2008). Many subordinates may be able to relate to a boss being critical of an employee’s performance. However, there is also research showing there are administrators psychologically and emotionally abusing teachers (Blasé & Blasé, 2006, Blasé, Blasé, & Du, 2008). In these cases, feedback for those directly and indirectly affected may never be the same, as teachers’ trust of administrators will be damaged. Politicians, taxpayers, and the media are scrutinizing public education more than ever. Some motivations to analyze education include the increased cost of education, the funding of education through taxes, and the increase in home-schooling now deemed acceptable by 43% of the population (Cooper & Sureau, 2007). The passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002, whose aim is to increase schools’ and teachers’ accountability, has contributed significantly to putting education under the microscope. The pressure to increase student performance has affected the relationships between teachers and administrators. Teacher evaluations are not accomplishing what they were designed for; improving teaching and student performance (Shao, Anderson, & Newsome, 2007). Teacher evaluations are causing dissention between teachers and administrators. This dissention will be defined as the phenomenon communication disparity. The problem investigated in this research study was how communication disparity between teachers and administrators regarding performance feedback contributes to teacher discontentment. The result is teachers are leaving the school they teach in or the teaching profession entirely (Brown & Schainker, 2008). Fundamental communications between teachers and principals, which have a propensity to be sensitive, are teacher evaluations. Many teacher evaluations are subjective and are heavily influenced by student achievement including standardized test scores (Torff & Sessions, 2009). Furthermore, principals approach teacher evaluations as supervisory duties rather than an evaluation of teacher job performance (Range, Holtz, Scherz, & Young, 2011). Whether these occurrences are intentional or accidental needs further attention to improve teacher-administrator relations, which can improve teacher job satisfaction and lower teacher attrition. The working and social components of the school setting can be complex and challenging. The working conditions that the leader creates, including psychological and emotional conditions, can dictate whether quality teachers stay or leave a school (Blasé & Blasé, 2006; Conley & Glasman, 2008; Ladd, 2011). This is important to bear in mind for the purpose of this study and improving the quality of communication between teacher and principal. This study was intended to determine the barriers of communication between teachers and administrators in an effort to bridge that gap in the research, and to determine if and what differences between teacher and administrator perceptions exist. Neglecting research in the area of principal-to-teacher The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education July 2018 Volume 8, Issue 3 www.tojned. net Copyright © The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education 68 communication may further compromise the relationship between the two and affect future teacher recruitment and retention (Doti & Cardinal, 2005). Literature Review Communication is fundamental to any relationship particularly feedback and evaluations from superior to subordinate. The relationship between administrative leadership and employee commitment is a significant working dynamic every employer should consider (Fugate, et al., 2008). The role of leader and their relationship with the people that they oversee are also critical to the effectiveness of the organization (Yariv, 2009). This is especially true for our public schools as the importance of education has grown exponentially. Education is currently experiencing difficult challenges as many try to measure and quantify our schools’ performance; notably teachers’ performance. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is adding to the accountability that we hold for our education system and the teachers facilitating learning. This added pressure is straining an already arduous relationship between principals and teachers, as principals must evaluate teachers’ performance more critically and effectively (Namaghi, 2010; Danielson, 2000). The Purpose of Teacher Evaluations and Feedback In the past, teachers perceived evaluations as a method to find fault with teachers in any subjective manner the principal chose. The evaluation was viewed or perceived as a means to reprimand and not as a mechanism to improve teaching (Sullivan, 2012). Evaluation procedures were performed by the principal or superintendent utilizing subjective judgment of the teachers’ performance and ability. In the 1950s and 1960s, evaluation was seen more as supervision where if the principal saw the teacher performing teacher acts like writing on the chalkboard, lecturing the class, and using pushpins, they were teaching (Range, 2011; Sullivan, 2012). Teachers perceived any focused conversation and attention regarding their performance, outside of being told “good job”, as threatening. In the 1970s and 1980s, teacher evaluation was substantially modified to be more objective. The focus was shifted away from the prescribed curriculum model and teacher character traits and more to a prescribed teaching model (Kersten & Israel, 2005). Checklists were used to verify the curriculum model and that its various structures were being followed. Indications were that “The building principal was equipped with a checklist to document simultaneous interdependence, student roles, and individual productivity” (Kersten & Israel, 2005, p. 48). Teaching was much more quantifiable and was looked upon as black and white, especially by the teacher unions and administration. Evaluations and feedback are also designed to show support for teachers (Feeney, 2007). By providing regular attention through evaluations, administrators show that they care about what is going on in their schools and about the individuals inside the schools. Supervision can have highly positive effects on the quality of teaching and schooling (Frase, 2005). Considering the stakes involved by the NCLB act, supervisory direction should be informed by research. As the emphasis on student standards and standardized testing increases, it is important to identify and research how these and other factors change teachers’ working conditions and contribute to teachers’ job satisfaction (Ladd, 2012). Evaluations of teachers could be similar to evaluations of students. Some of the same questions are used when evaluating a teacher as are used to enhance student assessment. “Where am I going? Where am I now? How can I close the gap” (Chappius & Chappius, 2008, p.17)? These questions are essentially what Danielson and McGreal (2000), Jensen and Overman (2003), Namaghi (2010) and others recommended as necessary in teacher evaluation. These questions should also take priority when teachers are formulating goals. The student who desires a grade of an ‘A’ must design a strategy to receive their desired mark, and so to must a teacher design a strategy to produce their goals. Teachers perceive that the responsibility of the administrator is to provide resources for them to attain their goals (Celebi, 2010). For teacher evaluation to be effective some crucial areas need to be addressed; a consistent definition of good teaching, a transparent and credible evaluation system, opportunities to engage in meaningful conversations about practice, and a focus on what really matters (Danielson, 2011). For novice teachers, the principal's role in establishing a healthy school climate and meeting the perceived personal needs of the novice teachers is a key part of formative evaluation (Bickmore & Bickmore, 2010). However, research on teacher evaluations indicates that very little helpful feedback is offered to teachers and that a teacher evaluation is frequently viewed as little more than a ritual required by state lawmakers (Mahar & Strobert, 2010). Teacher evaluations are not accomplishing what they were designed