Administrators’ Perceptions of Physical Education Teacher Evaluation

Abstract

Purpose: Using a mixed methods approach, this study aimed to develop a better understanding of school administrators' perceptions of teacher evaluation systems, specific to physical education (PE). Method: This study used two sources of data collection: (a) a survey sent to administrators (n = 19) in one urban school district and (b) a formal semistructured interview with 10 administrators from the original surveyed group. Results: Statements from the survey indicated that administrators valued PE, but could not control policies concerning amount and quality of PE. Administrators also felt that they were not properly trained in PE teacher evaluation and needed help. Four common themes that emerged from the interview data were (1) I value PE, but I live in reality (administrators value PE, but practice within their reality); (2) good teaching is good teaching; (3) I know my limitations, and I want/need help (relative to teacher evaluation in PE); and (4) where's the training? (administrators felt there were shortcomings in their training specific to teacher evaluation). Conclusion: Evidence from this study suggests more training for administrators in PE teacher evaluation is needed, along with a content-specific evaluation instrument.

School Administrators and Physical Educators: A Scoping Review of Perceptions and Partnerships From 2000 to 2020

“…Regarding the participants' settings, most indicated they gathered participants from urban, suburban, and rural areas (n = 5; Amis et al, 2012;Dyson et al, 2011;Kern & Graber, 2018;Nielsen et al, 2019;Urtel & Vogel, 2011). There were two studies with participants from only urban areas (Barney & Prusak, 2016;Norris et al, 2017), and two studies with participants from only suburban areas (Deslatte & Carson, 2014;Dillon et al, 2010 ). Other locations that were represented within a single study included a rural area (Lynch & Soukup, 2017), suburban and urban areas (Barnett et al, 2006), and urban and rural areas (Ellison & Woods, 2019).…”

“…SAs' perceptions of a variety of other areas specific to PE were also examined, these included: PE school and local policies (Amis et al, 2012;Dyson et al, 2011;Lounsbery et al, 2011;Rainer et al, 2012), PE teacher evaluations (Bahadir, 2013;George & Curtner-Smith, 2017;Lounsbery et al, 2011;Norris et al, 2017), PE teacher hiring practices (Dillon et al, 2010;Jenkins et al, 2005;Stier & Schneider, 2007), PE teaching strategies (Barney & Prusak, 2016;George & Curtner-Smith, 2017), level of PA achieved from PE (Barnett et al, 2006), and their ability to effectively lead PE teachers (Tzeni et al, 2019;Urtel & Vogel, 2011). Notable findings from these studies included: (a) important factors in the hiring of PE teachers included physical appearance, interpersonal skills, and the ability to coach extracurricular sports (Dillon et al, 2010;Jenkins et al, 2005;Stier & Schneider, 2007); (b) PE and PA school policies are often not properly implemented which is likely due to a lack of proper funding and administrative support (Amis et al, 2012;Dyson et al, 2011;Lounsbery et al, 2011;Rainer et al, 2012); and (c) SAs often felt largely unprepared to adequately evaluate PE teachers (Norris et al, 2017) and these evaluations should be conducted by a diverse team using objective criteria (Bahadir, 2013;George & Curtner-Smith, 2017;Norris et al, 2017).…”

“…Within the studies that examined SAs' perceptions toward the collaboration and perceptions with PE the primary data collection tool most commonly used were surveys and questionnaires (n = 19;Bahadir, 2013;Barnett et al, 2006;Barney & Prusak, 2016;Deslatte & Carson, 2014;Dillon et al, 2010;D'oum & Anannza, 2012;George & Curtner-Smith, 2017;Jenkins et al, 2005;Kurkova et al, 2010;Lounsbery et al, 2011;Lynch & Soukup, 2017;Norris et al, 2017;Stevens-Smith et al, 2006;Stier & Schneider, 2007;Tzeni et al, 2019;Urtel & Vogel, 2011;Zeng & Wang, 2015). Additional data collection tools included interviews (n = 9; Amis et al, 2012;De Knop et al, 2004;Deslatte & Carson, 2014;Dyson et al, 2011;Elliott et al, 2013;Kurkova et al, 2010;Nielsen et al, 2019;Norris et al, 2017;Rainer et al, 2012), observations (n = 4;Amis et al, 2012;Deslatte & Carson, 2014;Dyson et al, 2011;Kurkova et al, 2010), and focus groups (n = 2; Amis et al, 2012;Dyson et al, 2011).…”