Principals' perceptions regarding the role of the professional development and appraisal system in teacher supervision in Texas

Historically, many principals understood the purpose of teacher supervision to be the improvement of instruction. Increasingly, mandated evaluation systems force principals to prove rather than improve the quality of instruction. Most school administrators and teachers find evaluations stressful, of little or no value, and a barrier to high faculty morale. Recent literature documents the growing ambiguity and dissonance that principals face as supervision for the purpose of improving instruction shifts to a more legalistic emphasis on teacher surveillance.;The data from this study is based on a larger project that focused on public school principals' attitudes and perceptions related to their leadership functions (Waxman, MacNeil, and Lee, 2006). A convenience sample of 310 principals from a large metropolitan area in the southwest region of the U.S. responded to a questionnaire in a cognitive interview setting that covered several topics including principals' beliefs, attitudes, values, and practices regarding teacher supervision within the context of the Professional Development and Appraisal System (PDAS), the Texas state-developed and recommended instrument and protocol for conducting teacher performance appraisal.;Analysis of the responses revealed that principals do not hold strong, central beliefs as to the purpose of teacher supervision, the efficacy of the PDAS system, or even who is the best person to conduct teacher supervision. Further, there is widespread inconsistency in the practices of principals in their formal documentation of teacher performance appraisals.;Recommendations include strengthening principals' recognition of the link between teacher performance and professional development; revision of the PDAS instrument and protocol to include more directed collaboration between teachers and principals in determining not only teacher performance, but also individual teacher professional development planning; and the conduct of similar, large-scale surveys of principals in other states with state-mandated systems for teacher supervision and appraisal in order to identify commonalities and facilitate the open sharing of best practices for consideration and inclusion in future iterations of such state systems. These recommendations are in conceptual alignment with the ideals expressed in mandatory training for principals and others as a prerequisite qualification for certification to conduct teacher evaluation under the state's Instructional Leadership Development (ILD) program. The ideas are not new, yet a damaging disparity persists between principle and practice and it is toward the resolution of this disparity that the recommendations are intended to assist.