Article

Educational Management
Administration & Leadership
An effective model of teacher 2017, Vol. 45(2) 196–218
ª The Author(s) 2015

appraisal: Evidence from Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1741143215597234
secondary schools in journals.sagepub.com/home/ema

Shanghai, China

Xiao-feng Zhang and Ho-ming Ng

Abstract
Teacher appraisal has been widely practised in China for decades. With the introduction, in 2009,
of the teacher performance pay system, however, teacher appraisal has undergone certain
changes. This study explores the practice of teacher appraisal, using a qualitative approach and
taking public schools in Shanghai as its research sites. The methods adopted include interviews
with teachers and school administrators, observation of relevant activities and document analysis.
The study reveals that teacher appraisal in schools in Shanghai is not a one-off event. Although the
procedure for generating appraisal results occurs at the end of each year, data collection activities
for appraisal – including lesson observation, student evaluation of teachers and checking teachers’
tasks – are conducted throughout the whole year. The current teacher appraisal system has been a
success, and this study identifies four factors contributing to that success. First, administrative and
developmental appraisal coexist as one single appraisal system. Second, teacher appraisal is inte-
grated with other aspects of schools’ business. Third, teacher appraisal is perceived by teachers as
credible and fair. Fourth, non-technical aspects of appraisal, such as teachers’ psychology and social
dynamics, are taken into account during the appraisal process.

Keywords
secondary school, Shanghai, teacher appraisal, teacher professional development

Introduction
Teacher appraisal has long been regarded as an important vehicle for promoting educational qual-
ity (Danielson and McGreal, 2000; Hallinger et al., 2014; Mathers et al., 2008; Milanowski and
Heneman, 2001; Zhang and Ng, 2011). It has the potential to facilitate teachers’ professional
development and to stimulate instructional improvement among teachers at large. Because of its
importance, teacher appraisal is commonly implemented in both primary and secondary schools.

Corresponding author:
Xiao-feng Zhang, Faculty of Education, Shanghai Normal University, 100 Guilin Road, 200234, Shanghai, China.
Email: xfzhang@shnu.edu.cn
Zhang and Ng: An effective model of teacher appraisal 197

Although teacher appraisal has taken centre stage in recent efforts to strengthen schooling, it has
often deteriorated into a mechanical and meaningless exercise (Baker et al., 2010; Danielson
and McGreal, 2000; Darling-Hammond et al., 2012; Monyatsi et al., 2006; Murphy et al.,
2013). Teacher appraisal becomes a perfunctory ritual activity that is disjointed from the process
of teaching improvement and teachers’ professional development; this is true not only in Western
settings, but also in China (Chen, 2012; Hou and Wan, 2005; Liu and Teddlie, 2005; Liu and Zhao,
2013; Wang et al., 2014; Zhang, 2008). This suggests that teacher appraisal has not been fully
explored, especially empirically in China, and needs to be further improved. As Danielson and
McGreal (2000: 15) have noted, teachers and administrators have always recognized the impor-
tance of and necessity for appraisal, but have also always had serious misgivings about how it
is done and its effects on teachers. Over the past several years, significant time and money have
been invested in the reform of teacher appraisal (Danielson, 2007; Kelly and Downey, 2010). This
case study of Shanghai unveils current teacher appraisal practice and identifies successful experi-
ences in the appraisal system. Its findings could be valuable in terms of shaping future directions
for teacher appraisal policy and practice both.
In China, teacher appraisal was mainly practised for summative and administrative purposes. It
functioned as an administrative appraisal tool to justify teachers’ rewards and punishments, and did
little to facilitate teacher professional development. This situation changed in the fall of 2001,
when China began implementing its large-scale New Curriculum Reform initiative throughout the
country. The reform is intended to change the Chinese education system’s traditional overemphasis
on knowledge delivery and student passive learning. It challenges traditional educational evalua-
tion, including teacher appraisal, by calling for the establishment of an appraisal system that con-
tinuously facilitates teacher professional development (Ministry of Education, 2001). This was
echoed in a subsequent policy statement (Ministry of Education, 2002) that declared the current
appraisal system to be problematic, and that called for its replacement with a developmental
appraisal system in which teacher professional development was the first priority. As the tradi-
tional administrative and summative appraisal system came under increasing criticism, the con-
struction of a new teacher appraisal system for professional development was increasingly
advocated by education researchers and practitioners alike, with some schools independently mak-
ing efforts to establish developmental teacher appraisal systems (Guo, 2006; Tao, 2005; Wang,
2005). This trend was interrupted by the 2009 introduction of the teacher performance pay system
(Ministry of Education, 2008; State Council, 2008). The new system divided teacher salary into
two parts: 70% as base pay and 30% as merit pay (that is, performance-related pay). As teachers’
salaries are now dependent on performance, increased attention is being paid to teacher perfor-
mance evaluation. Administrative and summative appraisal seems to have once again become pre-
valent, while the developmental aspects of appraisal appear to be somewhat weakened or even
ignored in practice. However, we have little knowledge of the current teacher appraisal system and
its effectiveness, as empirical studies in this area are scarce (Liu and Zhao, 2013).

Literature review
The purpose of this research is to explore the practice of teacher appraisal and its effectiveness.
Therefore, this literature review is focused on the implementation of teacher appraisal, and mainly
covers appraisal criteria, appraisers’ qualities, appraisal processes and contextual factors affecting
teacher appraisal.
198 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 45(2)

Appraisal criteria
Appraisal criteria refer to the standards by which teachers are judged or evaluated. The establish-
ment of quality appraisal criteria is central to an effective teacher appraisal system (Danielson,
2007; Shinkfield and Stufflebeam, 1995: 43–62; Wheeler and Scriven, 1997). Scriven (1994) clas-
sified teachers’ duties into five areas, which together lay the foundation for teacher appraisal:
knowledge of subject matter; instructional competence; assessment competence; professionalism;
and, other duties to the school and community.
One commonly used teacher evaluation instrument is Danielson’s (2013) Framework for
Teaching, which consists of four domains covering a total of 22 components and 76 elements. The
planning and preparation domain includes understanding of the content to be taught and the peda-
gogy used to teach it, knowledge of the students’ backgrounds, and instruction and assessment
design. The classroom environment domain addresses the teacher’s skill in creating an environ-
ment conducive to learning, including both the physical and interpersonal aspects of the environ-
ment. The instruction domain is concerned with the teacher’s skill in engaging students in learning,
and includes a wide range of instructional strategies that enable students to learn. Finally, the pro-
fessional responsibilities domain includes reflection on teaching, communication with families,
growing and developing professionally, and showing professionalism. For each component or ele-
ment, a four-level rubric provides a range of performance descriptions from unsatisfactory to dis-
tinguished teaching practice.

Multiple appraisers
Principals are in a good position to evaluate teachers, because they interact with them on a daily
basis and own information on their work (Orphanos, 2014). However, conducting teacher appraisal
is not the sole responsibility of school principals and administrators; it is important that teachers
and other concerned parties be involved in the development and implementation of teacher apprai-
sal schemes (Peterson, 2000; Robles, 2007; Stiggins and Duke, 1988; Stronge and Tucker, 2003),
as this increases all parties’ understanding and ownership of teacher appraisal. Self-appraisal and
peer appraisal, as part of teachers’ involvement in appraisal, provide teachers the opportunity to
reflect on their teaching practice and are helpful in fostering teacher professional development
(Beerens, 2000: 41–45).
Appraisers should be perceived as credible or trustworthy by teachers (Andrews, 2004; Stiggins
and Duke, 1988: 84) and as competent in conducting evaluation, that is, owning rich knowledge of
subject materials and teaching, and possessing appraisal expertise (Andrews, 2004; Robles, 2007;
Wise et al., 1985). Appraisers should be capable of making appropriate judgments of and concrete
recommendations to teachers (Hallinger et al., 2014) to facilitate improved teaching quality.

Appraisal process
Researchers (Danielson and McGreal, 2000; Hallinger et al., 2014; Peterson, 2000: 91–102;
Stronge and Tucker, 2003) advocate the adoption of multiple data sources to ensure effective eva-
luation of teachers, as doing so has advantages over single source data collection. The most fre-
quently used data source is lesson observation (Donaldson, 2013; Murphy et al., 2013), which is
widely regarded as the best, indeed only, setting in which to witness essential aspects of teaching.
Through lesson observation, an astute observer can note how the teacher structures the physical
Zhang and Ng: An effective model of teacher appraisal 199

environment, engages students in learning, and establishes and maintains standards of conduct
(Danielson and McGreal, 2000: 47).
Student evaluation of teachers is also applicable in secondary and, in some cases, elementary
schools (Andrews, 2004; Dominguez, 1995; Kane and Staiger, 2012). As Dominguez (1995)
revealed, although high school students are not the ‘best’ judges of teaching competency, most are
mature enough to be a data source for teacher evaluation. Nonetheless, questions about the validity
and utility of student evaluation limit its acceptability as a primary instrument for teacher evalua-
tion (Andrews, 2004).
In recent years, teacher portfolios have attracted the attention of practitioners and researchers
(Attinello et al., 2006; Tucker et al., 2003). A teacher portfolio is a structured collection of selected
artefacts that demonstrate a teacher’s competence and performance; their use makes teacher eva-
luation more productive and comprehensive than traditional snapshot observation. The portfolio
system is particularly useful in documenting teacher performance in the areas of assessment and
professionalism – areas not readily observable during classroom visits by administrators; however,
teachers and administrators have concerns about its feasibility given the time needed to develop
comprehensive portfolios (Tucker et al., 2003).
New evaluation methods continue to be developed. For example, the past decade has seen the
emergence of value-added models (VAM), which estimate teachers’ contributions to student
achievement gains after statistically removing extraneous sources of influence (for example, stu-
dent background, classroom composition), as a primary means of evaluating teachers’ instructional
effectiveness (Murphy et al., 2013).

Organizational context
Technical expertise is required in defining what constitutes good teaching and in selecting appro-
priate methods for collecting accurate data; indeed, much of the existing literature on teacher
appraisal focuses on the technical aspects thereof. However, technique alone is not enough to guar-
antee the success of an appraisal system. On the one hand, teacher appraisal cannot be perfect tech-
nically and there is always room for improvement. From an operational standpoint, for instance,
the adoption of multiple data sources helps to capture teachers’ performance, but may require too
much time and effort, and be too awkward and complex, to use (Peterson, 2000); potential teacher
appraisal methods must be defensible in terms of costs, financial and otherwise.
On the other hand, teacher appraisal is a process exercised within, and inevitably affected by, a
certain organizational context. McLaughlin and Pfeifer (1988: 79–80) asserted that, although inef-
fective teacher appraisal efforts are typically ascribed to ineffective instrumentation, the root prob-
lem is primarily organizational, rather than technical; in their opinions, the most critical obstacles
to effective teacher appraisal are teachers’ and administrators’ attitudes about each other, the role
of feedback and the purposes of appraisal. Donaldson (2013) argued that a ‘culture of nice’ in
schools limits evaluation’s potency, discouraging evaluators from observing teachers, giving crit-
ical feedback, or accurately rating poor performance. In a case study of new system design and
implementation, Stronge and Tucker (1999) found that, although technique is essential for an
effective appraisal system, equally important is a sophisticated political understanding of how
to structure the development and implementation processes to optimize the support of various sta-
keholders. Research (Bridges and Groves, 1999; Kyriakides and Demetriou, 2007) has confirmed
that politics is a factor in teacher appraisal; thus, successful appraisal systems are not only char-
acterized by their technical quality and feasibility, but also by their political viability.
200 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 45(2)

These above-noted findings provide reference points for analysing the current practice of
teacher appraisal in the Chinese context, which is lacking in international literature, especially
in terms of studies supported by empirical data (Liu and Zhao, 2013; Zhang and Ng, 2011). This
research makes some contribution to this research gap.

Methodology
This study investigates the current practice of teacher appraisal to uncover what factors might con-
tribute to its effectiveness. It employed a qualitative research approach, selecting three schools in
Shanghai as its research sites. In this paper, the identities of the schools studied are protected by
pseudonyms (that is, Schools A, B and C); all were public schools providing compulsory educa-
tion, and all were located in different districts. Shanghai, which often plays a leading role in policy
initiation and education innovation in mainland China, has made a concerted effort to facilitate the
‘balanced development’ of all public schools, and there is no distinction between key schools and
ordinary schools at the compulsory education stage; accordingly, the teaching quality in all three
case schools was similar, and was rated at or above average. The teacher appraisal methods in
these schools were not necessarily models of good practice; however, they were typical of those
found elsewhere in Shanghai. The background information for the three case schools is set out in
Table 1, below.

Table 1. Background information of the three case schools.

School A B C

Phases Junior secondary Junior secondary Covering primary and junior

school, Grades 6–9 school, Grades 6–9 secondary education, Grades 1–9
Number of staff 90 130 140
(approximately)
Number of students 1000 1100 1700
(approximately)
Location Changning district Jing’an district Putuo district

The methods adopted include in-depth interviews of teachers and school administrators, parti-
cipant observation of activities relevant to teacher appraisal, and document analysis. The inter-
views were mainly semi-structured, involving ‘asking a series of structured questions and then
probing more deeply using open-form questions to obtain additional information’ (Gall et al.,
1996: 310). A total of 70 informants were selected, based on their gender, the subject(s) they
taught, their length of service, and their position; a profile of the informants is presented in
Table 2. Interviews usually took place at a meeting room during office hours and lasted from
45 to 90 minutes. They were conducted in Chinese, audio-recorded to facilitate accurate verbatim
transcriptions, and translated into English when quoted.
In addition to interviews, participant observation was also conducted, as it could allow the
researcher to learn about things the subjects might never volunteer in an interview (Patton,
2002), and obtain first-hand data about events as they unfold (Creswell, 2003). Activities observed
mainly included meetings to arrange the appraisal process, post-lesson conferences, and interac-
tions among staff (especially staff in the process of teacher appraisal). The documents collected
for analysis included school- and system-level policies, rules and manuals pertaining to teacher
Zhang and Ng: An effective model of teacher appraisal 201

Table 2. Profile of the interviewees.

School A B C

Number of informants 22 23 25
Gender Male 7 5 6
Female 15 18 19
Teaching experience Below 5 7 6 4
(years) 5–10 6 8 8
Above 11 9 9 13
Subject Chinese 8 5 5
Mathematics 3 4 7
English 4 4 4
Others 6 9 8
Position School leaders 2 1 2
Middle managers 4 2 2
Department heads 4 4 4
Ordinary teachers 12 16 17

appraisal, as well as appraisal instruments, records and memos, and so on. Data from different
resources and methods were triangulated to minimize biases in data collection and data interpreta-
tion. Teacher appraisal implementation and practice were fully examined, so as to generate a vivid
and thick description of the dynamics of teacher appraisal.
The description of the research findings begins with a brief introduction of the school manage-
ment system, followed by an elaboration on teacher appraisal practices in the selected schools. In
reporting the findings, the authors first focus on the similarities in teacher appraisal among the
schools, usually using one of the schools as an illustrative example, before describing the differ-
ences. The article concludes by identifying the factors contributing to the effectiveness of teacher
appraisal.

Practice of teacher appraisal

Since teacher appraisal is not carried out in a vacuum, it is necessary to explain briefly the context
in which teacher appraisal is practised.

School management system

Although the educational system in China is a centralized one, decentralization is now taking
place, and a school principal now enjoys some degree of autonomy in school management. The
school-based management system is illustrated in Figure 1, taking School A as an example. The
principal and the vice-principal are the school leaders. Below them sits a layer of middle managers,
or directors, who oversee the Office of Teaching Affairs (OTA, Jiaowu Chu) ant the Office of
Moral Education (OME, Deyu Chu), among others. The OTA is responsible for teaching research
activities, during which teachers share and discuss how to improve their teaching practices. Typ-
ical teaching research activities include collaborative lesson observation and subsequent sharing
sessions – teachers observe a lesson together and then attend a post-lesson conference in which
discussion and sharing centre on the lesson. The OME is in charge of students’ education in pol-
itics, social issues, ideology and moral values. Moral education aims, at a minimum, to cultivate
202 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 45(2)

School leaders

Office of Teaching Office of Moral

Affairs (OTA) Education (OME)

Subject Department Year Department

Lesson
Preparation Group

Teachers

Figure 1. School management structure (School A as an example).

students who love the country, internalize societal norms and values, and observe school disci-
plines and rules.
Subject Departments (Jiaoyan Zu) and Year Departments (Nianji Zu) are at the third level of the
school management system. A subject department head mainly deals with teaching matters within
his/her subject department. Within each subject department exist a number of Lesson Preparation
Groups (LPG, Beike Zu), which enable teachers who teach the same subject at the same grade level
to prepare lessons collaboratively. A Year Department comprises all the teachers who teach at a
given grade level, regardless of their subject speciality, and is mainly concerned with issues relat-
ing to students’ moral education. The school management systems in Schools B and C are almost
the same.

Dual appraisal purpose

A synthesis of the extant literature (Duke, 1995; Ovando and Ramirez, 2007; Stronge, 2006; Wise
et al., 1985) indicates that teacher appraisal has two main intentions or purposes – development and
administration. Development-oriented appraisal, also called formative appraisal, provides infor-
mation about teachers’ strengths and weaknesses in order to facilitate remedial training, and thus
promotes teacher professional development. Administration-oriented appraisal, or summative
appraisal, provides information to guide personnel decisions, and thus promotes educational
accountability.
The study finds that the current teacher appraisal system is conducted for the twin purposes of
administration and teacher development. According to the policies of Shanghai’s Putuo District, in
which School C is located, teacher appraisal is supposed to motivate teachers’ initiative and enthu-
siasm for work, facilitate teacher professional development, and lay the foundation for decisions
on teacher appointment, dismissal, rewards, training, job allocation and promotion (Putuo District
Zhang and Ng: An effective model of teacher appraisal 203

Education Bureau, 2012). Teacher appraisal is carried out for similar purposes in Schools A and B.
In short, in all three case schools, teacher appraisal is implemented to make personnel decisions
and facilitate teacher professional development.
Our interviews with administrators in all three schools confirm this. School C, however, seems
to pay more attention to the teacher professional development aspects of appraisal, and has been
experimenting with a developmental appraisal system for several years, without abandoning
administrative appraisal. Almost all interviewees argued, albeit implicitly at times, that both pur-
poses are necessary for teacher appraisal. As one experienced teacher in School C (Interviewee C4)
noted:

Teacher development is certainly one of the purposes for carrying out teacher appraisal. However, the
function of awarding/punishing teachers and holding them accountable for educating students is also
indispensable.

Comprehensive appraisal criteria

An analysis of appraisal instruments, supported by interviews with teachers and administrators,
reveals that, in all three case schools, four aspects of teacher performance are evaluated, with par-
ticular emphasis on teacher achievements in those areas: morality, competence, achievements and
diligence (De, Neng, Ji and Qin, respectively in Chinese).

 Teacher morality mainly refers to teachers’ professional ethics and conduct, and includes
such criteria as being committed to the teaching profession, observing school rules, caring
for and respecting students, and acting as a role model to students.
 Teacher competence. As teachers’ work consists of moral education, teaching, and research,
teachers’ competence in all three fields is covered under this category. Assessment criteria
mainly address the strategies and skills teachers adopt in teaching and moral education, and
their ability to conduct research.
 Teacher achievements include teachers’ research results, awards they or their students
receive in various competitions, students’ examination results, and so on. Teacher achieve-
ments are valued most in appraisal and, as with teacher competence, cover the areas of
teaching, moral education, and research.
 Teacher diligence concerns the extent to which teachers devote themselves to their work,
based on such criteria as participation in collaborative lesson preparation, classroom obser-
vation, training programmes, and other tasks allocated by the school.

Table 3 briefly introduces the appraisal form adopted by School A, which covers teacher mor-
ality, teachers’ work in moral education, teaching and research, and teacher workload. It should be
noted that, while the following four categories differ from those mentioned above (that is, morality,
competence, achievements and diligence), this is only because School A has organized its apprai-
sal indicators in a different manner. The appraisal form consists of 18 appraisal items, each with
detailed descriptions (for example, natural and cordial in teaching practice, accurate and vivid in
language use, and responsive to students’ needs), and each allocated different weights, based on
their importance in the appraisal system. The maximum possible appraisal score is 100.
Teachers normally score rather high in terms of teacher morality. However, those teachers
whose morality is deemed ‘problematic’ – for example, for subjecting students to abuse or corporal
204 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 45(2)

Table 3. Outline of the criteria for teacher appraisal (in School A).

Categories Items

Teacher morality (10%) Political thoughts and attitudes, professional improvement, and rule observance (5’)
Love jobs and respect students (3’)
Unity and collaboration (2’)
Moral education (14%) Ideological education (3’)
Education on student daily behaviour norms, and student management (3’)
Ability in moral education (3’)
Effectiveness in moral education (5’)
Teaching and research Classroom teaching (5’)
(68%) Lesson preparation and assignments (4’)
Teaching reform and innovation (5’)
Self-development (4’)
Teaching effectiveness and achievements (38’)
Resource development (2’)
Integration of IT into teaching (4’)
Education research (3’)
Research achievements (3’)
Workload (8%) Quantity of work (3’)
Attendance (5’)

punishment – will have no chance to be granted any awards or honours regardless of their perfor-
mance level in other areas. Failing to satisfy the morality criterion results in a holistic evaluation of
the teacher as ‘unqualified’. In this sense, teacher morality is particularly important, despite
accounting for merely 10% of the total appraisal score.
Teachers in all three case schools generally accepted the appraisal criteria, variously character-
izing them as ‘clear’, ‘specific’ and ‘quite good’; one ordinary teacher of School C (interviewee
C12) even remarked that ‘they cannot be better.’ In our interviews, when teachers were asked
to point out the appraisal criteria they believed most important, their answers were quite in line
with the criteria listed in the appraisal forms. What teachers valued most was student achievements
(including examination scores), which were seen almost as synonymous with teaching effective-
ness. Although the inclusion of student achievements in teacher appraisal is supported by some
researchers (Danielson, 2007; Hallinger et al., 2014; Ovando and Ramirez, 2007), it does have lim-
itations. As Danielson (2001) remarked, including student achievements as an assessment criterion
raises issues of equity and reliability, as many factors affect student learning, and it is extremely
difficult to attribute learning to the skill of individual teachers. The three schools under study were
aware of such limitations and took measures to balance them, such as comparing student examina-
tion scores among equivalent classes, as will be described next.
Appraisal criteria were not identical in every school. In many ways, individual schools create
criteria or set priorities according to their own situation. School A, for example, was carrying out
an experimental project (teaching for/through multiple intelligence) during our study, and teach-
ers’ performance therein was specified in the appraisal, in order to direct teachers’ efforts and
emphases. Teacher appraisal in School C also emphasized school priorities, and was revised each
year to align with the school’s major concerns or priorities; at the time of this study, for example,
the school organized discussions on ‘the standards of a good lesson’, and teacher participation was
made an appraisal criterion.
Zhang and Ng: An effective model of teacher appraisal 205

Multiple appraisal methods

Teacher appraisal is based on information about teachers. In the three subject schools, the methods
for gathering information concerning teachers included lesson observation, student evaluation,
analysing student examination results and checking teachers’ work. These evaluation activities
were conducted throughout the year.

Lesson observation. Lesson observation has been adopted widely in Shanghai schools, and occurs
frequently. Appraisers collect data on teachers’ classroom behaviours through classroom observa-
tions and compare the results against stated observable standards. Lesson observation plays a very
important role in providing information about teachers and teaching, by allowing appraisers to
observe teaching in action and to gather first-hand information.
Generally speaking, the observed lessons can be divided into public lessons and routine lessons.
Public lessons are often meticulously designed and prepared by teachers, and may be observed by a
group of people, including school leaders, middle managers, teacher colleagues, and even teachers
from other schools. Normally, individual teachers are required to give at least one public lesson
each year. Public lesson observation is generally used to further teacher professional development
by enabling observers to learn from the presenting teacher and to share their observations with oth-
ers in post-lesson conferences, thus deepening their pedagogical understanding. Of course, the
impression that school administrators form of a teacher during the public lesson will be reflected
in that teacher’s appraisal.
While public lessons demonstrate what a high-quality lesson should ideally look like, routine
lessons more accurately reflect the fact of a teacher’s day-to-day teaching practice. As such, the
observation of routine lessons, done casually and without advance notification, is a preferred
means of evaluation. Ordinary teachers attend lesson observations as part of their professional
development, in order to learn from others and improve their own teaching practice. For teachers
with administrative responsibilities (for example, subject department heads and middle managers),
the opinions they form during lesson observations are the basis of their subsequent teacher evalua-
tions. In this regard, the observation of routine lessons serves a teacher appraisal purpose, as one
subject department head and veteran teacher of Chinese in School C (interviewee C7) explained:

Lesson observation made me more aware of teachers and their performance in the classroom. The
impressions I formed from the lesson observation definitely affected my evaluation of teachers, espe-
cially in the area of ‘classroom teaching’.

Student evaluation of teachers. Student evaluation of teachers is a means of collecting, mainly by

questionnaire survey, students’ perceptions of their teachers’ performance. Questionnaires from
the three subject schools collected student impressions of teachers’ attitudes, effectiveness and per-
formance, as well as their assignment marking, classroom discipline, moral education and after-
class tutorials. Compared with lesson observation, student evaluation of teachers covers a broader
scope, addressing not only teachers’ in-class teaching practice but also their work outside the class-
room, and can reveal valuable and otherwise inaccessible information about teachers’ authentic
daily work practice.
Student evaluation of teachers is practised seriously. Schools generally develop a student eva-
luation questionnaire in which students can rate their teachers as excellent, average, or poor in
206 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 45(2)

regards to each evaluation item. Student surveys cover all teachers throughout the whole school.
Normally, not all students participate in the process; instead, one-third to one-half of the students in
each class are randomly selected to fill in questionnaires, anonymously. The survey results are then
calculated for each teacher.
In addition to the questionnaire survey, students were also interviewed regarding their teachers’
work. In School A, for example, four to five students from each class were chosen, usually at ran-
dom and secretly, to attend a conference at which they would be asked to provide their opinions of
their teachers. According to one middle manager of School A (Interviewee A8) who served as an
interviewer, students might be asked whether they liked their teachers’ method of teaching,
whether it were well-structured, whether their teachers offered tutorials after class, and so on; in
her opinion, interviewing students revealed teachers’ true situations.
Teachers’ attitudes towards the use of student evaluation were transformative. As one ordinary
teacher (who was in her 30s and taught Chinese in School A) recounted, most teachers were resis-
tant to student evaluation at first; however, as time went on, they gradually came to accept it.
Teachers’ initial opposition stemmed from fears that student evaluation would not be reliable, and
that students lacked the ability to evaluate teachers fairly and objectively; some students, they wor-
ried, might try to ingratiate themselves with or retaliate against their teachers, for personal reasons.
Despite such worries, almost all of the teachers interviewed acknowledged that, by and large, stu-
dent evaluation reflected their real situations. At the same time, however, they argued that it should
be utilized cautiously, because of its limitations, and its results should be used only as a reference
when teachers are appraised. The transformation of teachers’ attitudes towards student evaluation
demonstrates that changes in attitudes and beliefs might follow, rather than precede, changes in
behaviour.

Analysis of student examination results. The study reveals that student examination scores were seen
as more substantial and factual than other appraisal indicators by both school leaders and ordinary
teachers, and as largely representative of how well a teacher had performed in his/her work. In the
three schools under study, student examination scores were compared among different classes at
the same grade.
In School A, for example, student examination scores were compared not only individually, but
also collectively. Individual comparison involved comparing a teacher’s average student examina-
tion score, pass rate (percentage of students with examination scores of 60 or higher), and excel-
lence rate (percentage of students with examination scores of 85 or higher) with those of other
teachers. As students in different classes might differ in terms of learning ability, student examina-
tion scores were compared among equivalent classes; for example, between two advanced classes
or between two ordinary classes. Collective comparison involved comparing the overall subject
examination scores of a given grade with those of other schools in the same district. In other words,
teachers teaching the same subject at the same grade level (that is, in one lesson preparation group)
were evaluated as a group, based on their students’ collective examination scores.
Following student examinations, schools generated tables comparing the average examination
score, excellence rate and pass rate for each class, and then distributed them to teachers, so that
they could know clearly their situation and those of other teachers. According to a middle manager
in School B (interviewee B2), this showed teachers how their classes compare to others in the same
grade, both within their school and across school boundaries.
Furthermore, student examination results can reflect the strengths and weaknesses of current
teaching practice – those areas in which teachers have done well and those in which they need
Zhang and Ng: An effective model of teacher appraisal 207

to improve further. Therefore, schools do not merely compare student examination scores; they
place much emphasis on analysing student examination results to determine teaching successes
and problems alike, to ensure appropriate remedial measures are taken to improve teaching
practice.

Inspection of teachers’ work. In addition to the above appraisal methods, the practice of inspecting
teachers’ work has also been widely adopted in all three schools. For example, teachers are
required to keep notebooks in which they write down the teaching process of the lessons they
observe, as well as their reflections on the observed lessons; to learn about teachers’ participation
in lesson observation, these notebooks are checked once each semester. Similarly, lesson plans and
assignment marking are also inspected at least once each semester to ‘see how well teachers have
performed in their daily practice’ (to quote one experienced teacher of School B, interviewee B5).
Lesson plans are evaluated in terms of whether teaching purposes are clear and correct, the teach-
ing process is structured and methodical, teaching methods are appropriate and effective, lessons
are prepared fully, and so on. Assignment marking is evaluated in terms of whether assignments
are suitable for students’ situations, marked in a timely and careful manner, and so on.
It should be made clear that, although appraisal methods are described individually, in practice
they are adopted jointly to generate a comprehensive knowledge of teaching and teachers; in addi-
tion, they are used not only for evaluating teachers, but also for improving teaching and teachers, as
teaching quality is the most common of schools’ concerns. Because of their improvement purpose,
evaluation activities are exercised intermittently throughout the year to ensure school administra-
tors are well informed of the current status of teachers’ work and can help them improve as needed
in a timely manner.

Sequential appraisal procedure

Teacher appraisal normally goes through three steps to formulate appraisal results: teacher self-
appraisal, followed by department level appraisal and finally school level appraisal. This procedure
occurs sequentially at the end of each year.

Teacher self-appraisal. Teacher self-appraisal is the first step in the appraisal procedure. Teachers
are required to evaluate themselves against criteria listed on an appraisal form, to reveal teachers’
perceptions and knowledge of themselves and their teaching practice.
However, this study found that teacher self-appraisal does not work well, as it does not reveal
teachers’ real situations. Quite a large proportion of school administrators reported that teachers
usually give themselves a higher score than their actual performance merits. Many teachers also
admitted that they tend to overrate themselves, partly attributing this to high levels of self-
esteem. As one experienced teacher of School B (interviewee B15) remarked, ‘Of course every-
body thinks they do well . . . Nobody would like to associate their performance with terms like
‘‘poor’’ or even ‘‘average’’’. As a result, teacher self-appraisal ‘does not carry any significant
weight’ in determining final appraisal results.
Despite this limitation, however, self-appraisal can serve an important purpose, by making
teachers more aware of what the school requires and expects of them, and offering guidelines for
their future development. As School A’s principal (interviewee A1) noted, self-appraisal is, in part,
done ‘to make teachers aware of what they need to do and to reflect on how well they have done’.
208 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 45(2)

Department-level appraisal. At the departmental appraisal stage, teachers are evaluated within their
subject departments. Department heads take overall responsibility for this stage, evaluating teach-
ers either on their own (in Schools B and C) or as part of an appraisal panel that includes other
teachers (in School A). The appraisal panel in School A consists of three to four department mem-
bers – including the subject department head, lesson preparation group heads and, on occasion,
ordinary teachers – and awards a score based on the same criteria used for teacher self-
appraisal. The panel members usually make their judgements without reference to teacher self-
appraisal results, due to teachers’ tendency to overrate themselves.
However, a teacher is led not only by their subject department head, but also their year depart-
ment head, with the former overseeing teachers’ work in teaching and the latter their work in moral
education. As such, subject department appraisal results are considered tentative, pending later
input from year department heads. In School B and School C, most aspects of teachers’ work are
evaluated by subject department heads, and their work in moral education by year department
heads; unlike in School A, however, ordinary teachers and lesson preparation group heads are not
involved as appraisers at this stage.

School-level appraisal. The ultimate responsibility for appraisal rests with school leaders, or more
precisely, school principals. At this stage, a school-level appraisal committee, consisting of school
leaders and middle managers, evaluates teachers based mainly on: (a) teachers’ achievements
(including student examination scores); (b) student evaluation results; (c) information collected
through lesson observation, inspection of teachers’ daily work and the like; (d) committee mem-
bers’ perceptions and knowledge of the teachers; and (e) departmental appraisal results. The rank-
ings and awards teachers receive as a result of school-level appraisal are seen as final and official
appraisal results.

Substantive appraisal outcome

Teachers are treated differently, based on their appraisal results, which affect not only how teach-
ers are ranked and honoured, but also the size of any bonus they receive.

Ranking teachers. Teachers receive one of four appraisal grades: excellent; qualified; barely qual-
ified; or unqualified (Youxiu, Hege, Jiben Hege and Bu Hege, respectively). Teachers normally are
very concerned about their appraisal results, as they are an official recognition of their efforts.
Moreover, appraisal results are the foundation for key personnel decisions, such as job assignment,
staff promotion, honour and award granting, and salary and bonus distribution. A teacher found to
be performing badly – that is, ranked as barely qualified or unqualified – may be allocated fewer
lessons, moved from teaching graduating to non-graduating classes, reassigned to a non-teaching
position (for example, librarian or clerk), or even dismissed outright.
The lowest of the four rankings (that is, barely qualified and unqualified) effectively mean that
one is unqualified to be a teacher. In China’s subtle culture, barely qualified is negatively construed
and normally understood as actually meaning unqualified; indeed, when a teacher is assessed as
barely qualified twice in a row, the official ranking he/she receives on the second occasion is
unqualified. Thus, to teachers, a barely qualified ranking is actually a warning that they are actually
seen as unqualified and will be treated accordingly if they do not improve. In reality, few teachers
are ranked barely qualified or unqualified, and the vast majority are ranked as qualified. Few teach-
ers receive an excellent ranking, as the appellation is limited to about 10% of the total number of
Zhang and Ng: An effective model of teacher appraisal 209

teachers by district-level policies, and its granting must be approved by the local educational
authority. As such, teacher appraisal is largely about the selection of excellent teachers.
While teacher rankings are mainly based on appraisal results, some other factors are also con-
sidered. School C, for example, requires that a balanced number teachers be ranked as excellent
among the different subject departments. At other times, seemingly unrelated items can affect the
rankings, such as teacher salaries. When a teacher is ranked as excellent on three consecutive occa-
sions, his/her monthly salary is increased, something teachers in general – not only excellent ones –
see as proof of schools’ commitment to improving teachers’ well-being. As teacher salaries are
paid by the government rather than by individual schools, a teacher who has been ranked excellent
twice might therefore be so ranked a third time, even if his/her performance is just satisfactory, a
practice most teachers find reasonable and support wholeheartedly.

Awarding outstanding teachers and teacher teams. Individual schools set up diverse awards and hon-
ours to recognize teachers’ outstanding performance and achievements, granting teachers who
excel in various areas awards or honours, as the following award schemes from School A illustrate:

1. ‘Good teachers in my mind’ awards, a group of six individual awards determined via stu-
dent poll.
 ‘The teachers who are most full of love’.
 ‘The teachers who are most beloved by students’.
 ‘The teachers who teach most meticulously’.
 ‘The teachers who teach most excellently’.
 ‘The teachers who behave most gracefully’.
 ‘The most learned teachers’.
2. Top-10 teacher awards, given to teachers who have made remarkable achievements in
teaching, moral education and research.
3. Outstanding teachers in teaching awards, given to teachers who have made remarkable
achievements or progress in teaching.
4. Outstanding teachers in research awards, granted to teachers who have made remarkable
achievements in research.
5. Outstanding mentors awards, for teachers who perform well in offering guidance to novice
teachers.

In addition to the above individual teacher award schemes, there are also team award schemes;
for example, an ‘outstanding department’ award is offered to subject departments and year depart-
ments that have made remarkable progress.

Summary of teacher appraisal

The practice of teacher appraisal in the three schools under study is similar in all major parameters:
purposes; appraisers; appraisal methods and instruments; appraisal procedure; and use of appraisal
results. Appraisal procedures – teacher self-appraisal, departmental appraisal and school level
appraisal – are carried out at the end of the year, while appraisal data are collected throughout the
year. Moreover, the appraisal procedure mainly seeks to generate a summative appraisal of indi-
vidual teachers, in terms of their morality, competence, achievements and diligence. Summative
appraisal results are finally and officially determined by school leaders. Data collection activities
210 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 45(2)

Beginning year end

Lesson Self-appraisal
observation

Student
evaluation Departmental
Data
appraisal
Analysis of
examination
results

Inspection of School appraisal

teachers’ work

Teacher Summative
improvement appraisal results

Data collection for appraisal Appraisal procedure

Figure 2. Overall process of teacher appraisal.

for appraisal seek not only to gather data for final appraisal, but also to identify problems among
teachers and to help them to improve accordingly. By way of summary, Figure 2, below, illustrates
the overall practice of teacher appraisal, and shows that it is practiced throughout the year, rather
than as a one-off, end-of-the-year event.

Contributors to the current teacher appraisal practice

Teacher appraisal in many places, as mentioned previously, often deteriorates into a meaningless
exercise. However, the appraisal practice in the three subject schools in Shanghai proved to be suc-
cessful, to at least some extent, in facilitating teacher professional development and school
improvement. Some factors are identified, below, that contribute to the success of the current
teacher appraisal system.

Complementariness of administrative and developmental purposes

There is no agreement in the literature as to whether both administrative and developmental pur-
poses can coexist within a single appraisal system (Blase and Kirby, 2009; Day, 1989; Hallinger
et al., 2014; Mercer, 2005; Zhang, 2008). Some researchers (Baker et al., 2010; Evans and Tom-
linson, 1989; Joyce and Showers, 2002; Walker and Dimmock, 2000) have asserted that adminis-
tration and professional development are mutually exclusive, and that different purposes naturally
lend themselves to different appraisal methods and procedures. Some others (Danielson and
McGreal, 2000; Darling-Hammond et al., 2012; McLaughlin and Pfeifer, 1988; Mercer, 2005),
however, have held that the two purposes help to unify efforts at school improvement. This debate
might reflect differences in how teacher appraisal is understood and applied in practice, and
responses may vary in different cultural and organizational contexts.
Zhang and Ng: An effective model of teacher appraisal 211

This study demonstrates that these two purposes can coexist complementarily within one
appraisal system. Although the actual three-stage appraisal procedure for administrative evaluation
of teachers is conducted at the end of the year, related data gathering activities are carried out
throughout the year. The collected data are not only used to determine teachers’ final administra-
tive appraisals, but also to identify weaknesses and problems among teachers and to help them to
improve accordingly. In this way, both administrative and developmental appraisal coexist in a
mutually supportive manner. As argued by Zhang and Ng (2011), administrative appraisal is not
only used for personnel management (that is, to motivate teachers and exert pressure for their
improvement), but also to help ensure the effectiveness of teacher development activities. Devel-
opmental appraisal, in contrast, provides guidelines and directions for teachers’ improvement.
Teacher appraisal triggers teachers’ reflection and enables them to gain a deeper understanding
of themselves and their teaching practice; at the same time, individual schools use appraisal data
and results to develop and organize activities and schemes for teacher development. All in all,
administrative and developmental appraisal complement each other within a single appraisal
system.
An appraisal system built on the assumption that the two objectives are incompatible, however,
will be unable to serve either purpose as effectively as it might. In a pure developmental appraisal
system, teachers may feel little pressure or motivation to develop, as was confirmed by the infor-
mants in this study. Without the administrative aspects and consequences of appraisal, develop-
mental appraisal objectives become empty; at the same time, without such developmental
supports as guidelines, directions and development schemes for teachers, teachers’ accountability for
quality teaching cannot be effectively ensured. The two purposes – holding teachers accountable for
their performance and facilitating teacher development – are harmonious and mutually reinforcing,
rather than competing or conflicting. Both are essential for a successful appraisal system.

Integration of teacher appraisal with school tasks

In Shanghai, teacher appraisal is fundamentally a school-based exercise. Individual schools have
the autonomy to set up their own teacher appraisal practices, although these need to comply with
the relevant policies, regulations and requirements of educational authorities at all levels, and par-
ticularly at the district level. This autonomy gives individual schools the freedom to develop
appraisal systems based on their own conditions and to make timely modifications when necessary.
Teacher appraisal is at the centre of the initiative for school improvement. It should be systema-
tically integrated with other aspects of school business, and rooted in the specific situations of indi-
vidual schools. Only when teacher appraisal is in alignment with the whole school’s tasks and
vision, can it fulfil its potential to facilitate teacher development and promote education quality,
as can be seen in all three case schools.
For example, the New Curriculum Reform process in China has established new requirements
for teachers, in terms of their educational beliefs, professional knowledge, teaching abilities and
skills; in the three schools under study, many efforts – whether routine activities or thematic
schemes – were associated with the implementation of such requirements. All jobs and tasks under-
taken by teachers were evaluated as a part of teacher appraisal, so as to ensure effectiveness. This is
congruent with previous research (McGreal, 1988; Stronge and Tucker, 2003: 5; Zhang and Ng,
2011), which found that teacher appraisal should be implemented in accordance with the whole
school’s development. If school development remains isolated from the appraisal system, devel-
opment efforts often lack consistent focus, and ultimately become fragmented and uncoordinated.
212 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 45(2)

In addition, particular importance should be attached to the process of teacher appraisal, as it

contains elements of teacher development. Appraisal methods such as lesson observation, check-
ing teachers’ tasks and work, and student evaluation can be practised, not only as a means of col-
lecting data for appraisal, but also as a way to facilitate teacher development. Lesson observation
and checking teachers’ tasks are carried out from time to time throughout each semester, and stu-
dent evaluation usually occurs in the middle of the semester. The data collected from the appraisal
process are provided to teachers as timely feedback and constructive guidelines that are conducive
to teacher improvement; the data are also used as a basis for adjusting current school-based poli-
cies. Therefore, from a teacher professional development perspective, the appraisal process should
be, and in fact is, highly valued and carried out in a serious manner.
In short, the teacher appraisal process is not a dead end; rather it is linked to teacher quality and
school development. Teacher appraisal can not only promote teachers various efforts for school
development, appraisal results and the related data can also be used for formulating development
programmes, schemes and strategies.

Credibility and fairness of teacher appraisal

The present study identifies two essential prerequisites for a successful appraisal system – credibil-
ity and fairness. Interviews with teachers and administrators revealed that teachers care greatly
about the credibility and fairness of the appraisal process; absent either, teachers will reject its
results, and the process will have no meaning for either teachers or the school.
Fortunately, although teachers acknowledge that the appraisal process is not technically perfect,
it is generally seen as credible, mainly due to the existence of clear standards, validated instru-
ments, frequent data collection activities, and rigorous evaluation procedures, as described above
in the section of appraisal practice. Apparently, this is primarily a technical requirement for apprai-
sal. Data for appraisal are gathered through multiple channels, including student evaluation, par-
ental feedback, lesson observation, analysis of student examination scores and checks of teachers’
daily work. Obtaining data from different resources not only sheds additional light on teachers’
performance, it also validates the individual data sources and thus reduces the potential of biases
being introduced through any single channel. For example, if a student survey were to depict a par-
ticular teacher as quite unpopular among students, school leaders would consult with and interview
additional students to see whether this were true and why, and would synthesize their findings with
data from other channels to resolve the issue. Appraisal results in the three schools under study
were evidence-based, and teachers generally reported that the appraisal results reflected their
actual situations.
Fairness is also very important to effective teacher appraisal, and one of teachers’ greatest con-
cerns, particularly since, in all three schools, appraisal results are closely linked to the material
benefits and honours teachers receive. This study shows that, for appraisal to be accepted by teach-
ers, the process must be seen to work fairly and equitably for all teachers concerned. As one middle
manager in School B (interviewee B19) remarked:

The whole process of appraisal should be perceived by teachers as fair and equitable. It must be objec-
tive, rather than subjective; for instance, being affected by the personal relationship between appraisers
and appraisees. In a fair appraisal system, even if a teacher has gotten a less than satisfactory evalua-
tion, it can be okay.
Zhang and Ng: An effective model of teacher appraisal 213

On the contrary, the manager added, if teacher appraisal is perceived to be unfair by teachers, it
will dramatically dampen their enthusiasm for and morale at work. As others have noted, it will
‘diminish the spontaneous and unforced commitment which many teachers give to their work far
beyond the call of duty’ (Nisbet, 1986, cited in Day, 1989). Cardy and Dobbins (1994: 54) agreed,
arguing that ‘any appraisal system will be doomed to failure’ if it is seen to be unfair and inequi-
table. Teachers seem to care more about appraisal systems’ potential unfairness than their technical
limitations (for example, potential for inaccuracy when assessing teachers). To teachers, the latter
has nothing to do with appraisers’ intention and cannot be totally avoided because of the complex-
ity of teachers’ work; unfairness, however, mainly results from appraisers’ subjective inclinations
and thus can and must be avoided.
The study finds that measures have been adopted to guarantee the fairness of the appraisal pro-
cess, such as having appraisal results formulated by a committee or panel, rather than by an indi-
vidual appraiser. This measure not only enhances appraisal credibility, it also ensures appraisal
fairness. As appraisal results determined by a single appraiser might easily be affected by his/her
personal feelings or relationship with the teacher being evaluated, some degree of collective deci-
sion making is necessary to ensure fairness. In all three case schools, the appraisal results were
concluded by an appraisal committee consisting of school leaders, middle managers, and some-
times department heads.
Another means of ensuring fairness is appraisal process openness. For instance, at the schools
under study, the list of candidates for important awards, such as an excellent ranking, was made
public several days before the awards were confirmed, to allow dissenting parties to voice their
disagreement. A third measure is to make appraisal criteria applicable to every teacher, so that all
have an equal opportunity to achieve a good evaluation result. At the same time, teachers’ varia-
tions should be taken into account; for example, as old teachers are generally deficient in applying
IT in their teaching practice, it might be unfair to expect them (for appraisal purposes) to use it in
the same way as younger teachers.

Multi-dimensions of teacher appraisal

An effective appraisal system should fulfil certain conditions; to name but three, appraisal criteria
should be clear and specific, appraisers should be objective, and appraisal methods should accu-
rately assess teachers. Taken together, these conditions constitute the technical requirements for
a quality appraisal system. Most existing studies have dealt with these technical aspects of apprai-
sal, and this study has found that the current appraisal system performs quite well in terms of its
technical aspects. All three case schools use multiple channels and methods to gather information
for appraisal, so that the data obtained from one method can validate that obtained from another.
Individual appraisal activities are implemented carefully and seriously, so as to assess teachers’
performance as accurately as possible. Teachers generally perceive the appraisal criteria to be
clear, specific, and not readily improvable. In addition, measures are taken to prevent the appraisal
process from being affected by personal relationships between the appraisers and those whom they
appraise. As such, appraisal is generally seen as reflecting teachers’ real situations.
This study, however, indicates that teacher appraisal is not merely a technical issue, but also a
psychological and social one. Technique alone is not sufficient to implement a quality appraisal
system, and viewing teacher appraisal simply in rational, technical terms conceals more than it illu-
minates (Bridges and Groves, 1999). For teacher appraisal to be successful, its non-technical
aspects cannot be ignored. For example, bonuses are normally distributed based on the quantity
214 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 45(2)

and quality of a teacher’s work; as such, it could be argued (from a technical standpoint) that a
teacher who receives a poor appraisal should have his/her salary reduced accordingly. However,
such action is not taken in practice, because it might discourage less proficient teachers and affect
their morale and performance, to the detriment of their students. Bonus distribution is instead based
on the philosophy of ‘plus rather than minus’; that is, those who excel get larger bonuses, while
those who do not perform well enough may receive no bonus, but will not be penalized. A leader
in school A (interviewee A16) explained this approach:

A school must let teachers feel they are cared for and valued . . . Some school leaders just use appraisal
as a tool to cut teachers’ salaries. They only know how to cut down teachers’ salaries here and there.
Until one day, they find all the teachers stand against them, and they come to an end. The game is over.
The appraisal has totally failed.

Therefore, for appraisal to have a positive impact on teachers, it must consider teachers’ feel-
ings and attitudes. This is confirmed by Day (1989), who contended that, no matter how carefully
articulated and realistic appraisal programmes might be, they must still take the human factor into
account. Development of any kind inevitably involves people in a reappraisal of values, attitudes
and feelings, as well as practice, none of which, arguably, are governed by rationality or amenable
to prescription. Therefore, attempts to promote appraisal as a part of school development are
unlikely to succeed unless there is active consideration of the psychological and social dynamics
of teacher appraisal.

Conclusion
This study has taken a qualitative research approach to analyse teacher appraisal in three schools in
Shanghai. It reveals that teacher appraisal in Shanghai is not a one-off event. The evaluation of
individual teachers follows a three-stage procedure, beginning with teacher self-appraisal, fol-
lowed by department-level appraisal, and, finally, school-level appraisal. While this appraisal pro-
cedure occurs at the end of each year, and mainly seeks to generate a summative evaluation of
individual teachers’ morality, competence, achievements, and diligence, key appraisal activities
(such as lesson observation, student evaluation, analysing student examination results, and check-
ing teachers’ tasks) are conducted throughout the whole year to collect data regarding teachers.
The data from each of these different channels can validate one another, and jointly generate a
comprehensive knowledge of the teachers in question. The data collected are used, not only as the
basis for teacher evaluation, but also to identify problems among teachers and to help them to
improve accordingly.
The current teacher appraisal system fulfils a valuable function in school development, and this
study has identified certain factors contributing to that success. The first is the revelation that the
objectives of administrative and developmental appraisal complement each other, and coexist
within a single appraisal system; by contrast, any appraisal system assuming the incompatibility
of these objectives will be unable to serve either purpose as effectively as it might. Second, inte-
grating teacher appraisal with other aspects of school business, and implementing it in line with the
whole school’s development facilitates both. Third, the perception that teacher appraisal is credible
and fair allows it to be accepted by teachers. Fourth, psychological and social dynamics must be
considered during the appraisal process, as teacher appraisal is not merely a technical issue.
Zhang and Ng: An effective model of teacher appraisal 215

Despite its effectiveness, the current appraisal system is not without its flaws, and some prob-
lems need to be resolved. For example, teachers in the three schools under study frequently have
only limited involvement in the formulation and implementation of the appraisal system, as men-
tioned previously. Teacher appraisal is seen as the exclusive province of school administrators,
who alone have the right and qualifications to design and conduct an appraisal system. However,
a lack of teacher involvement constrains teachers’ willingness to accept and commit to the apprai-
sal process, as well as leading to easily violated teacher autonomy, as evidenced in the study. Some
of these effects are not addressed in this article and need further investigation.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or pub-
lication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article: The authors acknowledge the funding support by the Youth Project of Humanities
and Social Sciences Foundation of the Ministry of Education, China (Grant No.: 10YJC880159) and the Key
Project of Shanghai Education Science Foundation, China (Grant No.: A1123).

References
Andrews HA (2004) Accountable Teacher Evaluation: Toward Highly Qualified and Competent Teachers.
Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
Attinello JR, Lare D and Waters F (2006) The value of teacher portfolios for evaluation and professional
growth. National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin 90(2): 132–152.
Baker EL, Barton PE, Darling-Hammond L, et al. (2010) Problems with the Use of Student Test Scores to
Evaluate Teachers. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Beerens D (2000) Evaluating Teachers for Professional Growth: Creating a Culture of Motivation and
Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Blase J and Kirby PC (2009) Bringing Out the Best in Teachers: What Effective Principals Do, 3rd edn.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bridges EM and Groves BR (1999) The macro- and micropolitics of personnel evaluation: a framework.
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 13(4): 321–337.
Cardy RL and Dobbins G (1994) Performance Appraisal: Alternative Perspectives. Cincinnati, OH:
South-Western.
Chen ZH (2012) An analysis of several reforms on teacher evaluation. Teacher Education Research 24(4):
62–66.
Creswell JW (2003) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 2nd edn.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Danielson C (2001) New trends in teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership 58(5): 12–15.
Danielson C (2007) Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching, 2nd edn. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Danielson C (2013) The Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instruction. Princeton, NJ: Danielson Group.
Danielson C and McGreal TL (2000) Teacher Evaluation to Enhance Professional Practice. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
216 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 45(2)

Darling-Hammond L, Amrein-Beardsley A, Haertel E and Rothstein J (2012) Evaluating teacher evaluation.

Phi Delta Kappan 93(6): 8–15.
Day C (1989) Issues in the management of appraisal for professional development. Westminster Studies in
Education 12: 3–15.
Dominguez MR (1995) Attitudes of superintendents regarding the use of student evaluation of instruction in
the secondary school teacher evaluation process. EdD thesis, University of Houston, TX.
Donaldson ML (2013) Principals’ approaches to cultivating teacher effectiveness constraints and opportuni-
ties in hiring, assigning, evaluating, and developing teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly 49(5):
838–882.
Duke DL (1995) Teacher Evaluation Policy: From Accountability to Professional Development. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Evans A and Tomlinson J (1989) Teacher Appraisal: A Nationwide Approach. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Gall MD, Borg WR and Gall JP (1996) Educational Research: An Introduction, 6th edn. White Plains, NY:
Longman.
Guo LH (2006) Development-oriented assessment of teachers: a case study of no. 21 middle school in
Liaoyang. Master’s thesis, Hebei Normal University, Shijiazhuang.
Hallinger P, Heck RH and Murphy J (2014) Teacher evaluation and school improvement: an analysis of the
evidence. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 26(1): 5–28.
Hou DK and Wan JL (2005) A case study of the current teacher evaluation system in schools: from a perspec-
tive of teacher professional development. Teacher Education Research 17(5): 49–53.
Joyce BR and Showers B (2002) Student Achievement Through Staff Development, 3rd edn. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kane TJ and Staiger DO (2012) Gathering Feedback for Teaching: Combining High-Quality Observations
with Student Surveys and Achievement Gains. Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Kelly A and Downey C (2010) Value-added measures for schools in England: looking inside the ‘black box’of
complex metrics. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 22(3): 181–198.
Kyriakides L and Demetriou D (2007) Introducing a teacher evaluation system based on teacher effectiveness
research: an investigation of stakeholders’ perceptions. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education
20(1–2): 43–64.
Liu S and Teddlie C (2005) A follow-up study on teacher evaluation in China: historical analysis and latest
trends. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 18(4): 253–272.
Liu S and Zhao D (2013) Teacher evaluation in China: latest trends and future directions. Educational Assess-
ment, Evaluation and Accountability 25(3): 231–250.
Mathers C, Oliva M and Laine SWM (2008) Improving Instruction Through Effective Teacher Evaluation:
Options for States and Districts. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
McGreal TL (1988) Evaluation for enhancing instruction: linking teacher evaluation and staff development.
In SJ Stanley and WJ Popham (eds), Teacher Evaluation: Six Prescriptions for Success. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1–29.
McLaughlin MW and Pfeifer RS (1988) Teacher Evaluation: Improvement, Accountability, and Effective
Learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
Mercer . (2005) Challenging appraisal orthodoxies: teacher evaluation and professional development in the
United Arab Emirates. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 18(4): 273–287.
Milanowski AT and Heneman HG (2001) Assessment of teacher reactions to a standards-based teacher eva-
luation system: a pilot study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 15(3): 193–212.
Ministry of Education (2001) Guideline on the Curriculum Reform in Basic Education (Vol. 2007) Beijing:
Ministry of Education.
Zhang and Ng: An effective model of teacher appraisal 217

Ministry of Education (2002) Circular on Advancing Reform of the Evaluation and Examination System in
Schools. Beijing: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education (2008) Guidelines to Teacher Performance Evaluation in Compulsory Schools. Beij-
ing: Ministry of Education.
Monyatsi P, Steyn T and Kamper G (2006) Teacher appraisal in Botswana secondary schools: a critical anal-
ysis. South African Journal of Education 26(2): 215–228.
Murphy J, Hallinger P and Heck RH (2013) Leading via teacher evaluation the case of the missing clothes?
Educational Researcher 42(6): 349–354.
Orphanos S (2014) What matters to principals when they evaluate teachers? Evidence from Cyprus. Educa-
tional Management Administration & Leadership 42(2): 243–258.
Ovando MN and Ramirez A (2007) Principals’ instructional leadership within a teacher performance apprai-
sal system: enhancing students’ academic success. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 20(1):
85–110.
Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Peterson KD (2000) Teacher Evaluation: A Comprehensive Guide to New Directions and Practices, 2nd edn.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Putuo District Education Bureau (2012) Notification of the Implementation of 2012 Staff Performance
Appraisal in Schools in Compulsory Education in the Putuo District. Shanghai: Putuo District Education
Bureau.
Robles F (2007) Veteran teachers’ perspectives on teacher evaluation and how they want to be evaluated. EdD
thesis, University of the Pacific.
Scriven M (1994) Duties of the teacher. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 8(2): 151–184.
Shinkfield AJ and Stufflebeam DL (1995) Teacher Evaluation: Guide to Effective Practice. Boston, MA:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
State Council (2008) Guidelines to the Implementation of Performance Pay in Compulsory Schools. Beijing:
State Council.
Stiggins RJ and Duke DL (1988) The Case for Commitment to Teacher Growth: Research on Teacher Eva-
luation. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Stronge JH (2006) Evaluating Teaching: A Guide to Current Thinking and Best Practice, 2nd edn. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Stronge JH and Tucker PD (1999) The politics of teacher evaluation: a case study of new system design and
implementation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 13(4): 339–359.
Stronge JH and Tucker PD (2003) Handbook on Teacher Evaluation: Assessing and Improving Performance.
Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.
Tao XQ (2005) Change appraisal: improvement of teacher appraisal systems in Shanghai schools. Shanghai
Education Nil(6B): 12–15.
Tucker PD, Stronge JH, Gareis CR and Beers CS (2003) The efficacy of portfolios for teacher evaluation and
professional development: do they make a difference? Educational Administration Quarterly 39(5):
572–602.
Walker A and Dimmock C (2000) One size fits all? Teacher appraisal in a chinese culture. Journal of Per-
sonnel Evaluation in Education 14(2): 155–178.
Wang J (2005) Initial research on developmental teacher appraisal. Journal of Xiamen Educational College
8(2): 49–51.
Wang L, Lai M and Lo LN-K (2014) Teacher professionalism under the recent reform of performance pay in
Mainland China. PROSPECTS 44(3): 429–443.
218 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 45(2)

Wheeler PH and Scriven M (1997) Building the foundation: teacher roles and responsibilities. In JH Stronge
(ed.) Evaluating Teaching: A Guide to Current Thinking and Best Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press, 27–58.
Wise AE, Darling-Hammond L, McLaughlin MW and Bernstein HT (1985) Teacher evaluation: a study of
effective practices. The Elementary School Journal 86(1): 60–121.
Zhang XF (2008) The role of teacher appraisal in teacher professional development: A case study in schools in
Shanghai. PhD thesis, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Zhang XF and Ng HM (2011) A case study of teacher appraisal in Shanghai, China: in relation to teacher
professional development. Asia Pacific Education Review 12(4): 569–580.

Author biographies
Xiao-feng Zhang received his PhD from the University of Hong Kong in Educational Leadership
and Policy Analysis. He is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at Shanghai Normal
University. He has published over thirty articles on Educational Leadership and Teacher
Education.

Ho-ming Ng received his PhD from the University of Birmingham. He is the Director of the Centre
for Educational Leadership, the University of Hong Kong. His interest is in Educational Leader-
ship and Management.