An Analysis of Critical Issues in Korean Teacher Evaluation Systems
Keywords:
Korea teacher evaluation system, teacher evaluation for professional development, teacher performance-based pay system, teacher performance rating
Abstract
Korea has used three different teacher evaluation systems since the 1960s: teacher performance rating, teacher performance-based pay and teacher evaluation for professional development. A number of studies have focused on an analysis of each evaluation system in terms of its advent, development, advantages and disadvantages, but these studies have been
critically limited in that they have focused only on the partial integration of the three current teacher evaluation systems, without addressing the problems embedded in each of them. The present study provides a systematic analysis of the three current Korean teacher evaluation systems based on a sound analytical framework and proposes appropriate directions for designing an effective and efficient system. It is found that the three systems share commonalities in terms of stakeholders, evaluators, scope, criteria and methods, further supporting the rationale for developing a single comprehensive teacher evaluation system in Korea. Finally, several steps to establish a comprehensive teacher evaluation system based on the analysis results are suggested.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Choi, H. J., & Park, J. H. (2013). Historical analysis of the policy on the college entrance system in South Korea. International Education Studies, 6(11), 106–121.
Clayton, C. (2013). Understanding current reforms to evaluate teachers: A literature review on teacher evaluation across the career span. Retrieved 16. 5. 2015 from http://scholar.google.co.kr/scholar?q=Understanding+current+reforms+to+evaluate+teachers%3A+A+literature+review+on+teacher+evaluation+across+the+career+span&btnG=&hl=ko&as_sdt=0%2C5.
Coolahan, J., Santiago, P., Phair, R., & Ninomiya, A. (2004). Attracting, developing, and retaining effective teachers–country note: Korea. Paris: OECD Education and Training Policy Division.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for effectiveness and improvement. New York: Teachers College Press.
Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). Theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public
elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877–896.
GreatKids (n.d.). What makes a great teacher? Retrieved 16. 7. 2015 from http://www.greatschools.org/gk/articles/what-makes-a-great-teacher/.
Isoré, M. (2009). Teacher evaluation: Current practices in OECD countries and a literature review. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 23, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/223283631428.
Jackson, C. K., & Bruegmann, E. (2009). Teaching students and teaching each other: The importance of peer learning for teachers. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Jeon, J. S. (2009). Alternative exploring of improvement and unification for the multi policy of teachers’ evaluation system. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 26(2), 387–410.
Jeon, J. S., Cho, D. S., Shin, S. M., & Kim, S. Y. (2008). Utilization of the results from the teacher evaluation for professional development. The Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology
Research Report.
Kang, Y. W., & Kim, J. H. (2004). Directions of the performance rating for the professional development of teachers. Korean Policy Sciences Review, 8(1), 149–174.
Kim, H., & Joo, Y. (2014). A discriminant analysis of the effect of teacher evaluation system for professional development and performance appraisal system on rating of performance-based pay system. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 31(3), 59–80.
Kim, K. T., Park, K. Y., & Joo, Y. H. (2009). A political analysis of teacher evaluation policy streams in Korea. The Journal of Politics of Education, 16(1), 35–61.
Kim, K., Jung, M., Jeon, J., Shin, S., & Kang, S. (2010). A study on how to re-establish teacher evaluation system. Korean Educational Development Institute Research Report RR 2010–10.
Lee, J. H. (2006). The study of limit factors embedded in the decision-making process of merit pay: Based on the path dependency of new institutionalism. Journal of Educational Studies, 37(1), 77–100.
Lee, J. S., Yoon, Y. J., Kwak, C. K., & Lee, J. W. (2014). New public administration 2.0. Seoul: Daeyoung Co.
Lee, Y. S. (2006). Development trends of teacher evaluation system in foreign countries. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 23(1), 98–145.
McCaffrey, D. F., Koretz, D., Lockwood, J. R., & Hamilton, L. S. (2005). Evaluating value-added models for teacher accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Ministry of Education (2015). Public hearing on the improvement of teacher evaluation system (press release) Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development (2005). Public hearing on the improvement of teacher evaluation system (press release).
Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development (2006). Policy initiative on the teacher evaluation for professional development (press release).
Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (2001). The implementation plan of performancebased pay system for educational public officials (press release).
Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (2010). Guidelines on the performance-based payment for educational public officials (press release).
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (2005). Induction into learning communities. Washington, D. C.: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
Park, C. H. (2010). A study of performance-based pay system development in the history of public administrative perspective: Focused on the system of performance-based pay for teachers. Korea Public Administration History Review, 27(12), 55–79.
Park, J., Choi, J., & Choi, C. (2009). Exploration of the applicability of the new teacher evaluation or the teacher performance rating. Educational Research, 29(1), 103–122.
Strong, J. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2012). Handbook on teacher evaluation: Assessing and improving performance. Moorabbin, VIC: Hawker Brownlow Education.
Toch, T., & Rothman, R. (2008). Rush to judgment: Teacher evaluation in public education. ERIC Document No: ED502120.
Clayton, C. (2013). Understanding current reforms to evaluate teachers: A literature review on teacher evaluation across the career span. Retrieved 16. 5. 2015 from http://scholar.google.co.kr/scholar?q=Understanding+current+reforms+to+evaluate+teachers%3A+A+literature+review+on+teacher+evaluation+across+the+career+span&btnG=&hl=ko&as_sdt=0%2C5.
Coolahan, J., Santiago, P., Phair, R., & Ninomiya, A. (2004). Attracting, developing, and retaining effective teachers–country note: Korea. Paris: OECD Education and Training Policy Division.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for effectiveness and improvement. New York: Teachers College Press.
Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). Theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public
elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877–896.
GreatKids (n.d.). What makes a great teacher? Retrieved 16. 7. 2015 from http://www.greatschools.org/gk/articles/what-makes-a-great-teacher/.
Isoré, M. (2009). Teacher evaluation: Current practices in OECD countries and a literature review. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 23, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/223283631428.
Jackson, C. K., & Bruegmann, E. (2009). Teaching students and teaching each other: The importance of peer learning for teachers. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Jeon, J. S. (2009). Alternative exploring of improvement and unification for the multi policy of teachers’ evaluation system. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 26(2), 387–410.
Jeon, J. S., Cho, D. S., Shin, S. M., & Kim, S. Y. (2008). Utilization of the results from the teacher evaluation for professional development. The Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology
Research Report.
Kang, Y. W., & Kim, J. H. (2004). Directions of the performance rating for the professional development of teachers. Korean Policy Sciences Review, 8(1), 149–174.
Kim, H., & Joo, Y. (2014). A discriminant analysis of the effect of teacher evaluation system for professional development and performance appraisal system on rating of performance-based pay system. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 31(3), 59–80.
Kim, K. T., Park, K. Y., & Joo, Y. H. (2009). A political analysis of teacher evaluation policy streams in Korea. The Journal of Politics of Education, 16(1), 35–61.
Kim, K., Jung, M., Jeon, J., Shin, S., & Kang, S. (2010). A study on how to re-establish teacher evaluation system. Korean Educational Development Institute Research Report RR 2010–10.
Lee, J. H. (2006). The study of limit factors embedded in the decision-making process of merit pay: Based on the path dependency of new institutionalism. Journal of Educational Studies, 37(1), 77–100.
Lee, J. S., Yoon, Y. J., Kwak, C. K., & Lee, J. W. (2014). New public administration 2.0. Seoul: Daeyoung Co.
Lee, Y. S. (2006). Development trends of teacher evaluation system in foreign countries. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 23(1), 98–145.
McCaffrey, D. F., Koretz, D., Lockwood, J. R., & Hamilton, L. S. (2005). Evaluating value-added models for teacher accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Ministry of Education (2015). Public hearing on the improvement of teacher evaluation system (press release) Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development (2005). Public hearing on the improvement of teacher evaluation system (press release).
Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development (2006). Policy initiative on the teacher evaluation for professional development (press release).
Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (2001). The implementation plan of performancebased pay system for educational public officials (press release).
Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (2010). Guidelines on the performance-based payment for educational public officials (press release).
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (2005). Induction into learning communities. Washington, D. C.: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
Park, C. H. (2010). A study of performance-based pay system development in the history of public administrative perspective: Focused on the system of performance-based pay for teachers. Korea Public Administration History Review, 27(12), 55–79.
Park, J., Choi, J., & Choi, C. (2009). Exploration of the applicability of the new teacher evaluation or the teacher performance rating. Educational Research, 29(1), 103–122.
Strong, J. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2012). Handbook on teacher evaluation: Assessing and improving performance. Moorabbin, VIC: Hawker Brownlow Education.
Toch, T., & Rothman, R. (2008). Rush to judgment: Teacher evaluation in public education. ERIC Document No: ED502120.
Published
2016-06-30
How to Cite
Jun Choi, H., & Park, J.-H. (2016). An Analysis of Critical Issues in Korean Teacher Evaluation Systems. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 6(2), 151–171. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.93
Section
VARIA
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitted article, which will be published online in the Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal (for short: CEPS Journal) by University of Ljubljana Press (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). The Author’s/Authors’ name(s) will be evident in the article in the journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in the hands of the publisher.
- The Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit themselves to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
