• Save
Global hr forum2009-seyeoung_chun-growth centered teacher evaluation in korea
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Global hr forum2009-seyeoung_chun-growth centered teacher evaluation in korea

on

  • 1,015 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,015
Views on SlideShare
1,015
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Global hr forum2009-seyeoung_chun-growth centered teacher evaluation in korea Global hr forum2009-seyeoung_chun-growth centered teacher evaluation in korea Presentation Transcript

  • Global HR Forum 2009 / Nov. 3-6, 2009 Growth-centered Teacher Evaluation in Korea Prof. Se-yeoung Chun, Chungnam National University sychun@cnu.ac.kr L/O/G/O
  • Presentation Outline 1 Why Teacher Policy? 2 Why Growth-centered Teacher Policy in Korea? 3 Teacher Evaluation: Plans and Pilot Operations 4 Characteristics Revealed by Pilot Operations 5 Controversies and Future Prospects 2 www.themegallery.com
  • Why Teacher Policy? 3 www.themegallery.com
  • Revisit the Importance of Teacher Quality Teachers: the most Largest portion of education budget: influential resource in 64% of budget goes school education to teacher salary :OECD average Essential to raise the Lifting teacher quality, quality of education, the policy most likely but performance to improve student vary widely performance 4 www.themegallery.com
  • The traditional roles of teachers are changing → expected to have much broader roles • Initiating and managing learning processes At the individual • Responding individual learners needs effectively student level • Integrating formative and summative assessment • Dealing with classrooms with multi-cultural learners At the • Integrating students with special needs Classroom level • New cross-curricular emphases • Working and planning in teams At the • Evaluation and systematic improvement planning school level • ICT use in teaching and administration • Management and shared leadership → changing schools as “learning community” At the • Providing professional advice to parents level of parents • Building community partnerships for learning and community 5 www.themegallery.com
  • International Concern: Difficulty of Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers many other job possibilities for graduates 1 Image and status of teacher salaries teaching decrease, have fallen relative while teacher workload to GDP per capita and stress increase 5 Loss of 2 competitive edge of teaching because of : mixed perceptions of limited prospects the work (“important for teacher but difficult”) 4 3 career growth 6 www.themegallery.com
  • Why Growth-centered Teacher Policy in Korea? 7 www.themegallery.com
  • International vs. Korean Concerns International Korea Concerns Maintaining an adequate supply of Teacher good quality teachers, especially in abundant candidates as teaching shortage? high-demand subject areas e.g. career is still attractive math, ICT, foreign languages Long-term trends in the high achievers, but fewer males at High achievers composition of the teaching elementary and secondary level and males? workforce  fewer “high achievers”, due to relatively competitive salary, and fewer males especially at the top scale High teacher high turnover rate as low as 1.2% in 2006 turnover rate? Enough more serious than other countries professional on-going professional development • low participation level of teachers development activities are not enough • teachers are not satisfied with the content and quality 8 activities? www.themegallery.com
  • Profiles of Korean Education Number of Schools, Students, Teachers (2008) Unit: Persons Classification No. Schools No. Students No. Teachers Elementary 5,814 3,925,043 163,645 Middle 3,089 2,043,204 108,700 Academic High 1,493 1,149,486 86,500 Vocational High 697 487,492 36,406 Total 10,463 7,622,449 403,799 9 www.themegallery.com
  • Parental Perceptions on Schools and Teachers(2008): “not that good for their job securities” 평균 average 10.7 45.0 34.9 8.3 1.1 High 고등학교 7.5 42.2 36.3 11.3 2.7 school middle 중학교 7.1 44.0 38.8 9.2 0.9 School elementary 초등학교 4~6학년 grade 4-6 16.3 48.1 30.5 5.0 0.2 초등학교 1~3학년 elementary 16.1 47.3 30.1 5.9 0.7 grade 1-3 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% highly 매우 그렇다 somewhat보통이다 그렇다 average not 그렇지 않다 not at all 매우 그렇지 않다 10 www.themegallery.com 10
  • Korean teacher policy oriented to evaluation toward quality education Searching for the proper options of teacher evaluation, while sustaining the current abundance of good quality teachers Choosing right answer among challenging options ⇒ professional development thru growth-centered evaluation, for  they are already well-qualified and almost tenured .  they claim for problems of teaching caused by government policy, not by their own faults .  they scare at popularity voting of biased evaluators 11 www.themegallery.com
  • Korea needs more attention to “Professional Development of Teachers ” Need measures to boost teachers’ continued professional development Connecting teacher evaluation with professional development ⇒ Growth-centered Teacher Evaluation is necessary  Not to focus exclusively on individual teachers but on school as a whole  To use as a means to improve teacher quality rather than to punish  To give poor-performing teachers to remedy deficiencies 12 www.themegallery.com
  • Teacher Evaluation: Plans and Pilot Operations 13 www.themegallery.com
  • 2003.2. “strengthening teacher professionalism” emphasized as a priority of the Roh’s Government. 2004 A large-scale policy project was conducted to improve teacher evaluation ~ 2005. system. 2005.5. “New Teacher Evaluation Scheme” was prepared by the Ministry of Education and faced severe resistance by teacher unions. 2005.11 67 pilot schools were selected and operated. ~ 06.1. 2006.9. Pilot operation results were carefully analyzed to modify the evaluation model ⇨ growth-centered model gained popularity 2006.12. full-scale implementation failed due to controversies on the purposes of teacher evaluation: Professional growth vs. Accountability 2007.2 506 + 669 more pilot schools were selected and operated. ~ 08.12. 2009.2. 1,570 + 1.551 pilot schools (30% of entire elementary and secondary schools ~ 09.9. in Korea) implemented the new teacher evaluation scheme. 2009.3. According to a national survey, 76.3% of the general public and 63% of teachers and school administrators supported the introduction of the scheme. 2009.9. Education Minister announced the full implementation of the scheme from 2010. www.themegallery.com 14
  • Characteristics Revealed by Pilot Operations 15 www.themegallery.com
  • Major Characteristics Utilization of Results: The head of the Evaluation Management Committee Purposes: to diagnose and 6 1 improve professional expertise Provides summary results to individual teachers to be utilized as bases of in-service education Evaluators: Teacher Principals, Evaluation Period: 5 2 Vice-principals, Once a year Evaluation Peer –teachers, Students, and Parents Methods: Multi-source Being Evaluated: 4 3 assessment using Principals, Vice-principals, check lists + open Classroom Teachers -ended descriptions (including Non-Teaching Staffs) 16 www.themegallery.com
  • Peer Evaluation of teachers(2008) average 평균 58. 4 34. 2 6. 9 0. 5 0. 1 High 고등학교 50. 8 40. 0 8. 6 0. 5 Excellent 매우우수 school 0. 1 Good 우수 average 보통 미흡 middle 중학교 56. 9 34. 7 7. 5 매우미흡 0. 8 School 0. 2 elementary 초등학교 67. 5 27. 8 4. 0. 5 2 0. 0 School 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 95.3% of elementary, 91.6% of middle, and 90.8% of high school teachers evaluated either excellent or good 17 www.themegallery.com 17
  • Student Evaluation of teachers(2008) average 평균 33. 3 29.8 25. 3 7.2 4.5 5.3 High 고등학교 27.8 29. 4 29.1 8. 5 Highly satisfied 매우만족 school 만족 satisfied Some average 보통 불만족 middle 중학교 27.6 29.3 28. 1 9.1 매우불만족 5.9 School elementary 초등학교 44.5 30. 6 18. 6 4.1 2.2 School 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 95.1% of elementary, 57.2% of high, 56.9% middle school students answered their teachers’ teaching was highly or somewhat satisfied 18 www.themegallery.com 18
  • Parental Evaluation of teachers(2008) 평균 19.1 40.4 31.3 7.3 average 1.8 High 고등학교 14.2 35.5 37.2 10.0 3.1 매우만족 Highly satisfied school 만족 satisfied Some average middle 중학교 14.9 39.8 34.4 8.9 보통 School 2.0 elementary 3.1 초등학교 28.0 46.0 22.5 School 0.4 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 74% of elementary, 54.7% of middle, and 49.7% of high school parents were Highly or somewhat satisfied with their children’s school life 19 www.themegallery.com
  • Evaluation helped Teachers’ self- improvement most: Teachers’perception(2008) Teachers perceived peer teachers’ evalution helped them most(54%), followed by students(40.4%) 3.6 average 평균 54.0 40.4 2.0 2.4 High 고등학교 39.5 57.2 0.9 school 3.5 middle 중학교 48.2 47.5 0.7 School 4.5 초등학교 elementary 69.4 22.1 4.0 School 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% teachers 동료교사 학생 administrators 학부모 students 교장·교감 parents 20 www.themegallery.com
  • Controversies and Future Prospects 21 www.themegallery.com
  • Major Controversies Is the participation of parents appropriate? Do they have enough information and expertise necessary to evaluate teachers? Do students evaluate teachers fairly and objectively? Are they mature enough to evaluate teaching? How do we utilize the evaluation results? How can we connect the evaluation results with in-service education programs? Is it necessary to combine various forms of teacher evaluation to reduce the burden of teachers? 22 www.themegallery.com
  • Future Prospects Despite the controversies among education stakeholders, growth-centered evaluation will be implemented across Korea from 2010 Very serious and long-term effort to raise the quality of teaching force Evaluation alone cannot raise the quality; it should be well synchronized with on-going professional development programs Without doubt, dedicated teachers and administrators are the most essential component in delivering high quality education. 23 www.themegallery.com
  • Thank you for your attention! L/O/G/O 24