The effect of management orientation on performance
measurement of secondary school teachers
Name:
Matthijs Schutte
Student number:
10587675
Date:
25-06-2018
Thesis supervisor:
mw. dr. E.G. van de Mortel
Word count:
18241
MSc Accountancy & Control, specialization Control
2 Statement of Originality
This document is written by student Matthijs Schutte who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
3 Abstract
This study researches whether the orientation of a secondary school’s management influences the performance evaluation process of teachers. To answer the question, 12 interviews are conducted with managers in secondary schools in the Netherlands that are responsible for evaluating teachers. From the analysis, it is concluded that evaluators of teachers put more weight on subjective performance measures when the management is relatively more long-term oriented. Also, evaluators in schools with a relatively more short-term focus put more weight on objective performance measures. Furthermore, the effect of the management’s orientation on the use of relative and absolute performance measures was also analysed. However, this research does not find an effect between these factors.
4 Table of contents
1. Introduction ...5
2. Context of education in the Netherlands ...8
2.1 Secondary education ...11 2.2 Education Inspection ...12 3. Literature review ...11 3.1 Quality teaching...11 3.2 Performance measurement ...12 3.2.1 Objective measures ...14 3.2.2 Subjective measures ...15
3.2.3 Absolute vs. relative measures ...16
3.3 Orientation of the school ...17
3.3.1 Short-term orientation ...17 3.2.2 Long-term orientation...19 3.4 Conceptual framework ...21 4. Research Design ...22 4.1 Method ...22 4.2 Respondent selection ...22 4.3 Interview questions ...23 5. Analysis ...25
5.1 Short-term and long-term orientation cluster ...25
5.1.1 Respondent’s school characteristics ...25
5.1.2 Analysis of the respondents/group assignment ...26
5.2 Objective and subjective performance measures ...29
5.2.1 Long-term orientation cluster ...30
5.2.2 Short-term orientation cluster ...32
5.2.3 Differences in use of subjective and objective performance measures ...34
5.3 Relative and absolute performance measures ...36
5.3.1 Long-term orientation cluster ...36
5.3.2 Short-term orientation cluster ...37
5.3.3 Differences in use of relative and absolute performance measures ...38
6. Conclusion and discussion ...40
5 1. Introduction
Through time, education is believed to be one of the fundamental factors in improving the life and success of people. For example, the United Nations mention quality education as one of the goals in the sustainable development goals (UN Sustainable Goals Report, 2015). They state that obtaining a quality education is the foundation of improving people’s life and sustainable development. They have agreed that every student deserves to have an education of high quality and these students are entitled to have excellent teachers in their classrooms.
A pillar of high quality education is the employment of high quality teachers. However, the criteria for a quality teacher are ambiguous. Over the past decade, there has been increasing interest in performance measurement of educational personnel, and especially teachers. It has been the focus of some studies and the measurement of performance of teachers has been a continuous concern of managers. Martinez, Schweig & Goldschmidt state that this is because of the complex and dynamic nature of teaching and the different temporal, social and cultural contexts (2016). Therefore, they claim that performance measurement poses greater difficulties than measuring teacher qualifications.
The support for multiple measures to reflect the complexity of the teaching profession is widespread. Martinez, Schweig & Goldschmidt note that standardized tests don’t capture the different features of successful, high-quality teaching and therefore calls for multiple measures (2012). Performance can be measured by different kind of measures. In education, the distinction between objective and subjective performance measures is often made, but also the distinction between absolute and relative performance measures. Regarding these distinctions, there is widespread disagreement on which set of measures reflect the teachers’ performance in the best way. Historically, there has been more emphasis on objective performance measures, such as student grades. However, recently, the emphasis has been shifting away from objective measures. For example, Amzat finds that classroom management style is most important (2016). Hamzah, Mohamed and Ghorbani recognize in their framework the attitude and thinking pattern of the teacher as most important (2008) and Corcoran & Tormay emphasize the importance of emotional intelligence (EQ) of the teacher (2013).
However, in the process of analysing the different performance measures that are used by evaluators, it is also important to analyse the variables that influence the use and the weights assigned to different performance measures. This is important, because the underlying motivations of the performance measures that are used could provide insight in why they differ between schools. This is because when there is more insight in the motivation behind the performance measures that are used, the differences in use can divided into two categories. The first are differences that originate from the different beliefs of evaluators on what are characteristics of a good teacher. Secondly, the differences that originate from the context-specific characteristics of the school. The context-specific differences aren’t directly linked to quality teacher characteristics. This analysis can therefore contribute to the discussion on which performance measures are the most fitting for teachers,
6
One of these context-specific characteristics is management orientation. This factor is frequently mentioned in literature (Gibbs et al., 2004). The orientation of management indicates to what extent management primarily maintain a short-term focus in decision making or primarily a long-term focus.
The discussion on what makes a teacher a good teacher and what performance measures are reflecting that is particularly interesting in the Netherlands, since there is a development where dissatisfaction of teachers is increasing originating from increased pressure to perform when simultaneously there are more students per class. These developments result in the education sector being an interesting sector for this research, because the way in which performance is measured also influences the satisfaction levels of teachers (Koedel et al., 2017).
The importance of the analysis of variables that influence the use of performance measures is significant. This is because these variables influence the criteria that are deemed important and characterizing for good teaching. Furthermore, knowledge about the influence of different variables and the usability and effectiveness of these different measures can have important implications for designing effective teacher evaluation methods, merit pay schemes and other enhancements in teacher quality and performance and achievements of students. This study could also assist in developing existing or new frameworks to standardize the performance evaluation to some extent.
To summarize, an in-depth analysis of the effect of the orientation of the school on the actual criteria that evaluators of teachers use can provide more insight in the process of application of different criteria. Also, a qualitative study in the Netherlands expands the literature on this effect and could be useful in recognizing an effective set of performance measures.
This leads to the research question of this paper:
“What is the effect of the orientation of a secondary school’s management on the evaluation of teachers?”
This study can provide new insights and fill a gap in the literature in performance measurement of teachers and the underlying motivation behind the selection of performance measures. Furthermore, this study also fills a gap in the literature focused on the Netherlands, since the set of performance measures is likely to vary between countries due to political and historical contexts (Taut & Sun, 2016). Furthermore, there is considerable heterogeneity of teaching programs, methods and instruments internationally.
The study will be conducted in the Netherlands, where in-depth studies of evaluation criteria of teachers in secondary schools are scarce. Where there is some general literature regarding performance measures in education outside Europe (Koedel et al. 2017, Martinez, Schweig & Goldschmidt 2014, Ballou & Springer, 2015), research conducted in Europe is limited.
7
Regarding the methods of previous teacher performance measure studies, the measures for teachers have primarily been researched through questionnaires and surveys. Amzat researched the features of so-called excellent teachers in Malaysia but did not analyse the judgement criteria of teachers’ evaluators (2016). Also, Martinez, Schweig & Goldschmidt conducted research on the evaluation, but they focused on teacher performance data based on classroom videotapes and student surveys for the evaluation of teacher performance (2014). The more in-depth analysis of performance evaluation sessions and the usage of performance measures by the evaluators is not discussed.
Furthermore, this study is future research on the Martinez, Schweig & Goldschmidt study. They mention that much research is needed on how to make use of multiple measures in teacher evaluation contexts in the best manner (2016). To achieve this, they also emphasize the importance of understanding the processes of teacher performance measurement is necessary. The analysis of the orientation of management and to what extent it influences the performance measures that are used, adds to this understanding and therefore the literature. This is because by interviewing teacher evaluators, a better insight in these processes can be obtained.
Hereafter, the context of education in the Netherlands is explained in chapter 2. In chapter 3, the literature about quality teaching, performance measurement of teachers and the different performance measures is reviewed. Chapter 3 ends with the literature review of the orientation of school’s management and the hypothesis development. In chapter 4, the semi-structured interviews are analysed, and this study ends with the conclusion in chapter 5.
8 2. Context of education in the Netherlands
As mentioned earlier, this study will be conducted in the Netherlands. To gain more insight in the context of secondary school performance in the Netherlands, the most important regulations and actors are explained. In 2.1, the structure of secondary education is briefly explained. The role of the Inspection Agency is discussed in 2.2.
2.1. Secondary education
Secondary school education is stated in the Law of Secondary Education (Wet op Voortgezet Onderwijs, or WVO). The different types of education are pre-vocational education (VMBO), higher general secondary education (HAVO) and pre-university secondary education (VWO) (art. 5 WVO). It is possible that the different types can be taught at one school, but the types are divided internally in different teacher and management teams.
Furthermore, there is a difference between public schools and special schools. Special schools are schools that have a certain nomination. These nominations can be religious beliefs, as with catholic, protestant or Muslim schools. Nominations can also be a specific educational approach, such as Montessori schools or Dalton schools that take a more child-centred educational approach instead of a curriculum-based approach. Public schools are schools that don’t have a specific nomination.
2.2. Education inspection
All secondary schools are under supervision of the government. The agency that has this supervision authority is the Dutch Education Inspection Agency (EI) (WVO art.23). This agency is responsible for evaluating the performance of the different aspects of the education system and is part of the governmental Department of Education, Culture and Science. It is relevant and important to analyse the framework that the Education Inspection (EI) uses to evaluate performance of schools. This is because the EI is a governmental agency with the responsibility to ensure that schools are of high quality. The forceful implications if a school doesn’t adhere are discussed at the end of this section.
The EI evaluates the secondary school environment using the Examination Framework of Secondary School Education (Onderzoekskader Voortgezet Onderwijs 2017). The performance of secondary schools is evaluated through five ‘quality areas’ that originate from the analysis of three primary questions that reflect the core purpose of secondary education. These are the five areas of inspection that operationalize the quality of education, according to the EI. The three questions are whether the students are acquiring sufficient knowledge, whether the students are receiving their knowledge in a good manner and whether the students receive their education in a safe environment.
These questions are answered by the analysis of the following five quality areas.
- Education Results. This area answers the question whether the students are acquiring sufficient knowledge. This is for example measured by the results of the students and if these meet the set standard. Also, the future competencies of the students are included in the analysis.
9
- Education process. This area answers the question whether the students receive their education in a good manner by analysing the entire education process. This includes the analysis of the variety of possibilities that the school offers for developing their talents and that there is sufficient support and time for students to learn the course materials.
- School Climate. This area answers the question whether students are receiving their education in a safe environment. This includes that the school has a safe social, physical and psychological environment by implementing a code of conduct for teachers and good examples set by the teachers.
- Quality Assurance analyses the overall current quality of the education in the school. This is measured by the rules and frameworks that schools have implemented to secure quality, such as continuous training opportunities for teachers and accountability of the management about policy.
- Financial Management. This area analyses the preservation of quality in the future, through going-concern analysis and whether the government funds are used efficiently and effectively.
For the short-term existence of the school, the framework emphasizes the importance of adherence to the standards that are described within these areas (2017). The EI evaluates the performance of the school in its entirety on how it uses the capital that they have received through government funding. In this assessment, the five areas are used. If the school does not score sufficiently on one or more of these areas, the EI will conduct a four-year investigation of the school. They issue a rating that an educational level is ‘weak’ or ‘very weak’ when there are shortcomings on either one of the areas. When there are no shortcomings, the school receives the rating ‘basic’.
A continuously poor performance on either one of these areas can have far-reaching consequences. Until 2010, the only reason that could lead to shutting down a secondary school was financial mismanagement in three subsequent years. In practise, this only occurred when a school couldn’t attract enough new students, resulting in the school not reaching the required minimum number of students stated the Dutch law (WVO, art. 107). The school would then lose its government funding, which would always lead to financial insolvency of the school’s finances.
In 2010, legislation was implemented regarding factors that could lead to the stop of government funding and the closing of the school. In addition to financial mismanagement or not reaching the number of students required, also the recurring heavy shortcomings in quality performance could lead to a stop of government funding and the closing of a school (WVO, art 109a). The number of students that are required are shown in table 1. This table is extracted from article 65 and 107 of the Law on Secondary Education (WVO).
Table 1: Required number of students for the founding of a new secondary school and the dissolvement of an existing secondary school.
Founding (art. 65 WVO) Dissolvement (art. 107 WVO)
VWO 390 292
HAVO 325 243
10
The table contains the student number requirements to receive government funding. The founding requirements are the number of students that are expected to attend the school. The dissolvement requirements apply to existing schools. If the number of students drops beneath the requirements, government funding stops, and the school is forced to close. The three rows represent the three levels of secondary education as mentioned (art. 5 WVO).
Regarding the measures and quality areas, the EI states that they are stringent where it is needed and supportive where they can. They state that when a school scores high on the quality areas, they are free to add measures that increase quality and propagate the characteristics of the school’s nomination. So, the management does have freedom to implement policies of their choice that adhere to the objectives and measures of the EI’s measures. This gives management freedom to implement policies that are conform their (religious) beliefs. However, the education objectives provided are more important and have absolute benchmarks, so there isn’t room to negotiate within these minimum requirements. However, this freedom is reduced when the school has a weak financial performance (OVO, 2017). The school’s management is restricted in their freedom to improve performance in the way they deem fit to their nomination. The EI investigates on how performance can be improved and leaves littler freedom to management to implement these measures.
The implications of the threat of being closed when significant shortcomings, financial or quality-driven, occur, are discussed in the proposition development.
11 3. Literature review
To answer the research question of this study, the relevant literature regarding characteristics of good quality teaching are reviewed in this chapter. Various studies have discussed the criteria for good quality teaching and these will be discussed in 3.1 after a short review of the nature of teaching. Thereafter, the different kinds of performance measures are discussed in the context of teacher evaluation in 3.2.
Thereafter, the distinction between the short and long-term orientation of schools is analysed in 3.3. This distinction is made by discussing the different factors that indicate a short-term focus or long-term focus of a school’s management. From there, the propositions regarding the orientation and the emphasis on the different sets of performance measures are hypothesized. Finally, an overview of the propositions is shown in the conceptual framework in 3.4.
3.1 Quality teaching
The ‘nature of teaching’ is a term that is often referred to in educational research (Murnane and Cohen, 1986, Goldhaber et al. 2008). The nature of teaching is defined as an interaction among teacher, students, content and context (Taut & Sun, 2016). Darling-Hammond & Snyder also mention the context-dependent definition of teaching and learning. In their study, they state that all learning and teaching is dependent on and is shaped by the contexts in which they occur. Factors that shape these contexts are for example the nature of the subject matter and the settings of the educational activities that take place (Darling-Hammond & Snyder 2000).
The importance to define what quality teaching is and the importance of performance measures that reflect quality teaching are frequently noted. Knowledge about quality teaching and performance measures could change and enhance effective teacher evaluation methods. For example, literature is inconclusive about the extent that performance evaluation is accurate enough for performance-based compensation. According to Murnane and Cohen, teacher performance measures are too vague to provide a solid basis for that (1986). They state that without clear measures and criteria for judging success, decisions about rewarding performance are, at best, subjective and, at worst, unworkable.
In regard of the actual assessment of quality teaching, the knowledge of teachers is often mentioned. Amzat et al. emphasized in their study that teacher knowledge is needed to be effective in transferring knowledge (2016). Knowledge that is relevant can be divided in three core aspects: knowledge of the subject matter, disciplinary knowledge and pedagogical knowledge.
It is primarily important that a teacher has sufficient knowledge of the subject matter. Jadama states that teachers can only transfer the knowledge to students when they fully comprehend the subject matter (2004). This may be an extreme statement, but comprehension of the subject matter is often emphasized in frameworks. Taut & Sun reviewed the Chilean national teacher evaluation system (NTES) that was fully implemented in 2005 in their study, where ‘mastering the subjects taught and the national curriculum’ is the first evaluation criterium of good teaching (2016).
12
Besides knowledge of the subject matter, knowledge of how to keep order in the classroom is often mentioned as a characteristic of good teaching. This is because it is considered crucial to create an environment where the transferring of knowledge is encouraged. In the NTES, its importance is shown in the teacher criteria under ‘creating a learning environment’ (Taut & Sun, 2016, p.8). Criteria are for example “Create an environment dominated by values such as acceptance, equality, trust, solidarity and respect“ and “Create an environment dominated by values such as acceptance, equality, trust, solidarity and respect. “ Amzat also states that knowledge of how to manage a classroom is an important prerequisite of effective teaching (2016).
Thirdly, effective teaching methods are important. This means that the teacher knows in what way the material should be presented and transferred in furtherance of the learning process of the students. Hamzah, Mohamed and Ghorbani argue that effective teaching methods is important to encourage the conceptual understanding of students (2008). Furthermore, in the NTES framework, one core focus is ‘teaching for the learning of every student’, which underlines the importance of effective teaching methods (Taut & Sun, 2016).
Amzat also mentions the importance of effective teaching methods (2016). In this study, this is called the style of the teacher and is defined as the way in which the teacher manages the classroom. The distinction is made between a coercive approach in teaching and an enabling approach. With the coercive approach, the teacher expects students to adhere completely to the rules that are laid down. With the enabling approach, the teacher promotes a good relationship between himself and the students.
Furthermore, the framework described by Taut and Sun describes other factors of teaching style (2016). For example, the framework mentions that the teacher should show high expectations about the learning possibilities of their students. Secondly, it encourages teachers to promote the development of thought of students to create critical thinking.
Also, teachers can differentiate in style through their expectations. Amzat shows positive correlations between a teacher’s positive attitude towards the different learning potentials and styles of their students and learning achievement (2016).
3.2 Performance measurement
In this thesis the definition of performance measurement of Kollberg et al. is used. This definition is: “the process of collecting, computing and presenting quantified constructs for the managerial purpose of following up, monitoring, and improving organizational performance“ (2005, p.98). This definition is chosen for this study because it shows that performance measurement is more than the measurement techniques and outcomes. It shows that it is used by management in the whole process of organizational performance. Also, this study researches the orientation and different performance measures. This definition shows that these two factors are connected in a way. The difficulties that follow from collecting and computing quantified constructs, may arise from the beforementioned nature and complexity of teaching.
13
There is consensus about the fact that multiple measures are favourable compared to a single measure, but there is discussion about which performance measures capture quality teaching. Martinez, Schweig & Goldschmidt mention that combining multiple measures do not automatically yield better performance evaluation, but it always results in more complex evaluations (2016). So, there are extensive sets of measures to concretize teachers’ performance. However, there is still discussion about the sensitivity, noise and congruence of certain measures. Taut & Sun state that finding congruent and sensitive measures for teaching quality is complex, because of the beforementioned nature of teaching (2016). However, finding congruent and sensitive measures is important because performance measures with weak congruence or sensitivity may lead to counterproductive behaviour of teachers. For example, teachers may end up focusing on specific tasks that are rewarded by a good evaluation. This focus could be at the expense of other important tasks or goals that are not measured by the evaluation but are leading to better classes.
Even though teacher performance is difficult to measure, it is not impossible. Recent studies have been putting effort in exploring new ways and frameworks (Goldhaber, DeArmond, Player and Choi, 2008, Jenkins, Dienemann & Boland, 1988. Martinez, Schweig & Goldschmidt, 2016, Taut & Sun, 2014). This is important, because the absence of clear measures and criteria for judging successful teachers result in flawed evaluation (Goldhaber et al., 2008).
There is not one specific set of measures that is perfect. This is because every set of evaluation measures is an assembly of different imperfect measures (Ballou & Springer, 2015). To make the analysis graspable, some distinctions can be made to categorize measures and sets of measures. Distinctions that are discussed hereafter are objective versus subjective measures and absolute versus relative measures.
During the literature review of the different kinds of measures, it is important to remember that performance evaluation doesn’t exist of solely subjective or solely objective performance measures. This study focuses rather on the balance of the different kinds of measures, where one evaluator puts a greater relative weight on objective performance and the other more weight on subjective performance measures. The same dynamic is used in this study for the distinction between relative and absolute performance measures. This dynamic is chosen, because the purpose of this study is to research how the orientation of a school influences how the performance of teachers is evaluated in the relative sense. The purpose is not to research the effect of the orientation on how many measures are used.
In the literature review the objective and subjective measures are first explained. Thereafter, the relative and absolute measures are explained. This is because relative and absolute measures refer to the approach of how the subjective and objective measures are used. First, there is something that is measured, and that shows whether it is objective or subjective. Then, the score on the measure could be compared to an absolute benchmark, which indicates that the objective or subjective measure is being used in an absolute way. The score can also be compared to a score of a peer group or another individual, which indicates that the measure is used in a relative way.
14 3.2.1 Objective measures
The first important distinction is between objective and subjective performance measures. In general, this distinction is an important classification of performance measures. In the education setting, Goldhaber defines it as a measure that does not rely on human interpretation of teacher practices (2015).
A common objective measure of teacher evaluation are student test scores on standardized tests (Ballou & Springer, 2015; Goldhaber, 2015). The Dutch Cito-Test is a clear example of an objective performance measure in the educational environment because it does not require any subjective input from the measured or measuring party. This measure is influenced by three factors. Firstly, the measure will increase if the true effectiveness of the teacher increases. Secondly, the test scores are influenced by factors other than teaching quality, for example test measurement error. Thirdly, the measure is influenced by the number of students a teacher has, because in that order, test scores will be more normalized.
Notwithstanding the common use of student test scores, the objective measure of student test scores has been criticized in literature. Ballou and Springer state that teacher’s evaluation in which student performance on standardized tests is a component is unpopular with some teachers and controversial among statisticians (2015). Darling-Hammond & Snyder state that standardized tests may lack the ability to reflect teachers in a complete way, because these tests present knowledge in a list of responses. This can differ significantly from the wider range of knowledge that the teacher has transferred to the students (2000). Another explanation for this controversy is that standardized tests don’t test multiple strands of knowledge, which a teacher tries to transfer.
Furthermore, Rockoff and Speroni state that objective measures of effectiveness of the teacher can noisy and biased (2011). For example, a teacher can be persistently assigned students that are more difficult to teach and to manage. That can result in objective performance measures being noised by the characteristics of the students that they teach. Furthermore, Goldhaber states that student performance can also change due to parents that help the student actively or not (2015). These factors don’t directly relate to the quality of the teacher.
Another flaw of student test scores as an objective measure of teacher performance is the ability of teachers to cheat on the tests. They could partake in fraudulent practices to increase the scores of their students on standardized tests. The incentive to do so increases when this is the only or primary measure in the teachers’ evaluation.
Undeterred by these drawbacks, student test scores as an important objective measure aren’t disregarded entirely. There is information in student test scores about teacher performance. However, there is a challenge in extracting the data and combine it with other measures (Ballou & Springer, 2015).
Another objective measure is time spent on professional development (Liu, Xu & Stronge, 2016). This measure takes the time that teachers take to follow courses and trainings to develop their skills and knowledge. Furthermore, they mention absence and time spent on additional activities in the school are objective measures.
15
However, other objective performance measures have also been criticized in previous literature since they might not be sufficient to comprehend all the aspects of the teachers’ performance. Rockoff and Speroni argue that both objective and subjective evaluations are correlated to the teacher’s quality (2010). They conclude that solely the use of objective performance measures is insufficient.
3.2.2 Subjective measures
Goldhaber defines subjective performance measures as measures that require a judgement or view to provide the measure with an outcome (2015). In the context of teacher evaluation, an example of subjective performance measures are evaluations based on classroom observations by the evaluator (Rockoff & Speroni, 2011; Jacob & Lefgren, 2005). In these observations, subjective measures, such as work ethic, classroom management and dedication can be used in the evaluation. In observations outside the classroom, the evaluator can make general observations regarding parent satisfaction and positive attitude towards colleagues and other employees. These observations and the way these are used in the evaluation, require a subjective judgement by the evaluator.
Furthermore, Liu, Xi and Stronge mention peer reviews as subjective measures (2016). An example of this is an evaluation form on filled in by colleagues containing question about collaboration and dedication. This measures also requires a subjective judgement, namely from the peer reviewer. They also refer to student evaluations of their teachers, which is used in the total evaluation of the teacher.
Some important advantages in subjective evaluation can be found in previous research. For example, Jacob and Lefgren conclude in their study that when subjective components of teacher evaluation are included, these assessments predict future student achievement in the teacher’s class significantly better than objective measures (2005).
A second advantage of subjective performance evaluation, is that it can provide a useful addition to the set of objective performance measures that are used. Subjective performance measures can provide a more in-depth evaluation of teachers because it takes more competencies of the teacher into account, such as team effort, mentoring of students, attitude and enthusiasm for the subject matter. Martinez et al. argue that the complexity of teaching requires a range of measuring methods and some of these include subjective measures (2014).
Also, Rockoff & Speroni find in their study that the teacher evaluation frameworks that include both objective and subjective performance measures assist in mitigating the probability of not recognizing low teacher quality, given that the subjective evaluation is carried out by a trained professional (2010).
A disadvantage of subjective performance evaluations is that they can be biased (Jacob & Lefgren, 2005). For example, Bol et al. studied the effect of compression in subjective evaluation (2016). This compression, to what extent the evaluating manager was tempted to compress ratings of different employees, resulted in unsatisfied employees (2016). They found that compression was lower when
16
there were clear measures, so that managers were able to perform effective evaluations with more accurate information. But compression was only reduced when employees could see each other’s evaluation outcomes (Bol et al., 2016). If these findings are transferable to the secondary school settings, evaluators may compress the evaluations when employees don’t get insight in each other’s evaluations.
Rockoff and Speroni also stumbled upon this bias. They found that the application of different benchmarks possibly varies significantly between evaluating professionals. Prendergast and Topel use favouritism to describe this bias (1996). They state that subjectivity in performance evaluations enables favouritism, where the evaluator can act on their personal preferences to favour some employees over others.
Another disadvantage lies in the very nature of subjective performance measures. Because the measurement outcome is not verifiable by an outside person, the measures are non-enforceable. In the case that the manager and the employee do not agree on the measure, the manager ‘wins’, which may lead to dissatisfaction with the teacher.
Liu, Xi and Stronge find that teachers rate subjective performance measures as less important to objective performance measures (2016). However, this may not be transferable to the Netherlands, since the set of performance measures is likely to vary between countries due to political and historical contexts (Taut & Sun, 2016).
3.2.3 Absolute vs. relative measures
The second distinction that can be made in performance evaluation is the distinction between absolute and relative measures. Absolute performance measures are measures where the teacher is assessed on his performance, as measured by either objective or subjective measures, against a fixed benchmark. Goldhaber mentions the absolute measures as measures that evaluate teachers ‘relative to an absolute standard’ (2015). He defines relative performance measures as measures where teachers are evaluated relative to one another, rather than to an absolute benchmark. For the relative performance measures, the evaluator requires less data, since the exact performance of teachers is not considered, only the relative performance.
Multiple studies underline the advantage of relative performance measures in mitigating the effects arising from external factors in performance evaluation (Gibbons & Murphy, 1979; Gong, Li, & Shin, 2011). This is because some external factors that affect the measures also affect the performances of other workers in the same firm, industry, or market. This results in increased incentives for employees to perform well on the criteria that they have control over, because the influence of externalities is filtered out.
However, a major drawback from using relative performance measure is the risk that the employee can engage in actions that affect the performance of the employee or peer group that he is compared to (Gibbons & Murphy, 1979). One example of this risk is that the employees are incentivized to sabotage the performance of others. In the teacher’s context, this can occur through less collaboration
17
between teachers. For example, if there is a new teacher that other teachers are compared to, the others may be less inclined to share knowledge and teaching methods. This is unfavourable, because it is counterproductive and against the principles of the framework of the Dutch EI, which emphasizes the importance of collaboration in teacher teams in improving the learning environment (2017).
Another example is that an employee is incentivized to collude with the employees that he is compared to in evaluations. If employees agree to all exert less effort, the relative performance of every employee will not decrease. In the teacher context, this can occur if teachers know the colleagues that they are being compared to. For example, the mathematics teacher knows that his performance regarding the student scores is measured relative to the other mathematics teachers in his school. Then he could be incentivized to agree with other teachers that they will all exert less effort in their classes, which will result in lower student scores in tests, but the relative performance will not decrease.
Overall, Gibbons & Murphy also argue that the use of relative measures is favourable, because the benefit of eliminating of external factors that influence performance evaluation is high, while the costs of measuring the performance of comparable employees is relatively low (1990).
3.3 Orientation of the school
To understand the definition of the orientation of a secondary school’s management, the factors that can indicate a short-term orientation or long-term orientation are defined. In understanding the distinction, it is important to keep in mind that the orientation of a school’s management is not completely long-term or short-long-term. It is rather a balance between the factors that indicate the nature of the orientation, where one school’s orientation puts more emphasis on long-term factors and the other more on short-term factors.
3.3.1 Short-term orientation
If an organization has a relative short-term orientation, it places more emphasis on managing the performance of the organization in the short-term. For example, management has a short-term focus when only business matters are considered that affect the current year performance (Van der Stede, 2000). A focus on short-term improvement of the organizational performance can arise when a school faces a decrease in number of students that attend the school. If the school does not attract sufficient students in regard of the minimum requirements set by the EI, it can face financial distress. This can occur in two ways. Firstly, the governmental funding is ended when schools don’t reach the number of student attendance requirements by law (WVO, art 109a). These requirements are shown in table 1 in chapter 2 for the different levels of secondary education. Secondly, the school’s revenue increases with every student, resulting in smaller schools facing financial tightness more often. This is due to legislation that has been implemented in 1995, where every secondary school receives a lump sum of funding that consists out of a fixed budget per student (Art. 85 WVO). Thus, the amount of funding changes proportionally with the number of students attending the school.
18
A short-term focus can also arise when the school is under increased inspection of the EI because of the scores of the students. For example, an objective to increase grades in the short term could be implemented to adhere as soon as possible to the standards. This is desirable for the school since a rating ‘weak’ or ‘very weak’ could increase concerns of parents regarding their children.
When managers have a more short term focus, they are inclined to put more emphasis on objective performance measures, because objective measures are more backward-looking and short-term oriented (Gibbs et al, 2003). Ittner argues that complex jobs require more than objective performance measures on objective easy-measurable tasks. They claim that it should be complemented by subjective measures that evaluate important, but unmeasured tasks. However, when the school is focusing on improving short-term performance, it can focus on short-term objective measures, because managers believe that the improvement in the factors that are evaluated by these measures lead to better performance in the short term than subjective performance measures (Ittner, 2003).
These studies aren’t conducted in the educational sector, but it can be expected that if schools are in financial turmoil and management imposes a more short-term focus, it will result in more weight on objective performance measures, because schools are also subjected to the pressure to maintain a healthy financial position. That implies that if the school is primarily focused on the short-term performance, namely to get financially stable in the short term, the use of objective measures increases.
For example, financial distress in schools could result in management prioritizing that costs are cut. Management can place more weight in the evaluation on the amount of costs that a teacher has cut, for example on resources used for the curriculum and if despite these cuts the objective performance didn’t decrease. The amount of costs, on which management puts more emphasis when the school is in financial difficulty, categorizes as an objective measure of teacher performance.
Another example is when the school is under increased inspection due to low scores of students, the focus to increase student scores that is more emphasized. This emphasis on test scores of students is characterized as an objective measure (Goldhaber, 2015).
Therefore, the following proposition is expected to hold:
P1: More emphasis on short-term performance improvement is negatively correlated to the weight assigned to subjective performance measures in teacher’s performance evaluations
Concluding from the previous part, schools that have a short-term orientation in management are expected to assign a greater weight to objective performance measures in the performance evaluation of teachers. These objective performance measures tend to be more transparent and easier to interpret (Liu, Xu & Stronge, 2016; Ittner, 2003). This has the implication that in performance evaluation the relative or absolute benchmark of objective performance measures are both more easily interpreted. Also, subjective performance measures are more difficult to use with an absolute standard (Yonghong
19
& Chongde, 2006). Therefore, it is expected that absolute standards are used relatively more often in teacher evaluations of schools where management is more short-term oriented.
Furthermore, relative performance measures use the comparison between the performance of the evaluated teacher with the peer groups. The earlier discussed disadvantages are for example collusion of teachers to all exert less effort and sabotage of the performance of peer teachers (Gibbons & Murphy, 1979). These risks can especially impact short-term performance since sabotage and collusion are problems that can partially be mitigated in the long-term. Continuing that, schools that have a more short-term orientation in management practices place more emphasis on the improvement of short-term performance. So, it is expected that these schools put more emphasis on these short-term risks of relative performance evaluation and are expected to use more absolute benchmarks.
Another example is that when a school has a more short-term orientation because the student scores were below the requirements of the EI, management will focus on reaching this requirement. Management will be less interested in the relative performance because it focuses on reaching this absolute score.
Therefore, it is expected that the following proposition holds:
P2: More emphasis on short term performance improvement is negatively correlated to the use of relative performance measurement in performance evaluations.
3.3.2 Long-term orientation
If an organization has a relatively long-term orientation, it places more emphasis on managing the performance of the organization in the long-term. Management thus has a long-term focus when it prioritizes business matters that influence the performance of the organization beyond the short-term (Van der Stede, 2000).
An indicator for a more long-term focus can arise when schools don’t have going concern difficulties following from increased inspection from the EI. In this case they don’t have to solely focus on the aspects of a teacher’s performance that would result in the withdrawal of the label ‘weak’, such as increasing the average score of students. The school could for example focus on evaluating the teachers more extensively by adding more diverse measures to the evaluation process. This could be done by also putting emphasis on improving the quality with additional steps that are not necessary to adhere to the standards of the EI.
In addition, when schools don’t face immediate financial difficulties, it is more likely that they have a relatively more long-term focus. When a school fails to attract sufficient students that are required by the EI, the school has the risk that funding stops and could find itself in financial distress. However, when the organization is financially stable, it doesn’t have to prioritize to focus on attracting more students to meet requirements in the short-term and can therefore maintain a focus that is relatively more long-term.
20
So, in the absence of financial distress, managers in schools can focus more on long-term improvement of performance and can focus more on evaluating the teachers extensively as it is described by different studies (Gibbs, 2004; Yonghong & Chongde, 2006). This is because these subjective factors that are measured are expected to be used more widely when schools can think of this in a more long-term perspective. Then, managers can put more effort on important factors that are performance-enhancing in the long-term but are difficult to measure with objective measures.
Ittner argues that in the process of overcoming the short-run orientation of objective performance evaluation and reward systems, firms with a long-term focus that evaluate complex jobs are using additional measures to evaluate performance that are captured with subjective measures (2003). In addition, Gibbs et al. argue that evaluations with subjective measures regarding employees with complex jobs can be used to incentivize employees to do value-enhancing efforts that are not quantified in objective measures (2004). Yonghong and Chongde also mention the many objective evaluation measures that are too simple (2006). They make a distinction between teacher’s effectiveness and overall teacher quality. The teacher’s effectiveness can be measured by the teacher’s impact on student’s test scores. However, regarding the overall teacher’s quality, many other factors come in play, such as job dedication, assistance and cooperation. This is also mentioned in other literature.
Ittner also states that organizations that don’t focus on improving short-term performance will put more emphasis on subjective performance measures in the performance evaluation of employees (2003). For example, if the school has a better financial performance, it has less concern about an instant improvement of the financial situation and can therefore maintain a more long-term focus. Therefore, it can use an addition of subjective, nonfinancial measures to the existing objective measures.
Therefore, it is expected that the following proposition holds:
P3: More emphasis on long-term performance improvement is positively correlated to the weight assigned to subjective performance measures in teacher’s performance evaluations.
Thus, when schools have a long-term orientation, the performance evaluation is expected to assign a higher weight to subjective performance measures. However, quality performance measures are difficult to quantify with a fixed, absolute benchmark (Ittner, 2003; Yonghong & Chongde, 2006). It is for example difficult to quantify the overall dedication of the teacher in the classroom to an absolute criterium.
However, these difficulties could be mitigated by evaluating the subjective performance relative to peer groups, such as other teachers in the school or region. An evaluator could more easily judge whether the teacher is sufficiently dedicated or collaborative if in this evaluation the performance on these factors of other teachers is considered. It is therefore useful for managers to use relative performance evaluations when using subjective measures.
21
Furthermore, when management has a more long-term orientation, it does not necessarily have to increase their performance regarding the requirements of the EI. Therefore, management can focus less on reaching absolute benchmarks and more on quality improvements through relative performance measurement.
Thus, it is expected that the following proposition holds:
P4: More emphasis on long-term performance improvement is positively correlated to the weight assigned to relative performance measurement in teacher’s performance evaluations.
3.4 Conceptual Framework
In, the conceptual framework is shown. The orientation of management of the school is indicated by the box on the left side. The two-sided arrow indicates the continuous nature of the orientation. It is not completely short-term or long-term, but rather a balance, where some schools face more factors that signal a more long-term focus where others face more on short-term factors.
As discussed earlier, factors that signal a more short-term focus of the school are a decreasing number of students, difficulties in attracting teachers for vacant positions and increased investigation from the EI due to low scores of students or a low education quality. Factors that may signal a more long-term focus are increasing number of students, no difficulties in attracting teachers for vacant positions and the school taking additional steps to increase quality that are not necessary to adhere to the standards of the EI.
It is expected that the orientation has influence on the use of subjective and objective performance measures and the absolute and relative performance measures, indicated by the four arrows in the middle. The boxes on the right also have a two-sided arrow, indicating the relative use of the performance measures and not the absolute use. The four arrows all portray an effect that are stated in the four propositions
22 4. Research design
4.1 Method
To answer the research question, a qualitative research with interviews is conducted, because the complex nature of the teaching profession requires a broad analysis per respondent. Flyvberg argues that qualitative research fits to analyse the complexity of human behaviour and social processes (2005). He mentions that universal theories cannot be found in the study of human behaviour, so an in-depth analysis could provide an understanding of the behaviour in the process of application of different criteria. Also, a qualitative study in the Netherlands expands the literature on this effect and could be useful in recognizing an effective set of performance measures. Besides, a qualitative study of teacher performance evaluation is scarce in economic academic literature.
The interviews that were conducted are semi-structured and were conducted with only the interviewee in the room. It was ensured that all main elements in the questions were covered before the interviews ended. The interviews were recorded and were transcribed before the analysis was performed.
4.2 Respondent selection
To collect the qualitative data, this study conducts interviews with key managers in secondary schools who are responsible for the evaluation process of teachers. The respondents for the interviews will be ‘middle managers’ in schools (sectorcoördinators) that are entrusted with the evaluation of
23
teachers because the managers that perform the evaluation can provide the answers with the most insight regarding the research question of this study.
To acquire interviewees, I searched for secondary schools using a list from the Department of Education, Culture and Science. I contacted 46 managers through e-mail to participate in the research. The e-mail addresses were found on the websites of the subsequent schools. In the selection of managers that were contacted, there was a differentiation on number of students attending, the region, the religious orientation and the label from the EI.
Of these 46 managers, 20 replied from which twelve were available for an interview. Eight managers declined the invitation. The primary reasons that were given by the mangers that declined were that they didn’t have time for an interview or that they have been approached to participate in research very often.
Some general data about the respondents and the schools are shown in table 2
. First, the respondents number is indicated that will be used throughout the analysis. In the second column, the region where the school is located is shown. The managers worked in five different regions of the Netherlands: North-Holland (4), South-Holland (3), Utrecht (2), Flevoland (1) and Drenthe (1). The respondents work in four different education levels, namely VMBO (2), HAVO (4), VWO (2) and a practice school (1). Three respondents are team leader over multiple educational levels. The fourth column indicates how long the respondent has the current position. Some respondents had less than one year experience (5), 2-3 years experience (6) and one respondent has 9 years of experience.
The last column indicates whether the school has a nomination or is a public school. The respondents work at a public school (6), Christian school (5) and Montessori school (1).
Table 2 – Region of the school, position and experience of the respondent
# Region Position interviewee Experience Special/Public school
1 Utrecht Team leader VWO 2-6 3 years Special-Christian
2 Utrecht Team leader HAVO 3 8 months Special-Protestant
3 North-Holland Team leader HAVO 3-5 8 months Public
4 North-Holland Team leader VMBO-T 3-5 2 years Special-Christian
5 North-Holland Team leader VMBO 2 years Public
6 South-Holland Team leader VWO 2 months Public
7 South-Holland Team leader practical education 9 years Special-Christian 8 Drenthe Sector manager VMBO-T/HAVO/VWO 8 months Public
9 North-Holland Team leader HAVO/VWO 4-6 2 years Public
10 Flevoland Team leader VMBO-T/HAVO/VWO 1-3 2 years Special-Montessori
11 South-Holland Team leader HAVO 2 months Public
24 4.3 Interview questions
The questions that are answered are derived from the conceptual framework. The list of questions that were asked in the semi-structured interviews are shown in appendix 1. First, the respondents answered questions about the experience they have in school. Examples are the time that the respondent has his current position and his total activity in the educational sector. Following that, there are general questions about the entire evaluation process of the teacher performance. Topics are how often teachers are evaluated, how often meetings take place, a short summary of the entire procedure and what is done with the outcomes. Thereafter, the objective and subjective criteria that are used in the evaluations are discussed. These criteria result from the literature review. The objective and subjective criteria were mixed in some interviews, due to how the interviews were developing. The subjective measures that are put forth in the interviews are classroom visits, performance of the teacher in a team, student surveys about the teacher and parent surveys about the teacher. Objective measures are student scores, completing the curriculum and time spent on traineeships and courses to enhance skills.
After that, there were questions about the use of relative and absolute criteria. The questions are about which measures are used with a fixed benchmark to which performance is measured and which measures are used with a relative benchmark, such as the performance of other teachers.
To estimate to what extent the school’s management orientation is long-term or short-term, the respondents answered questions about the characteristics of the school. These questions are about the growth in student numbers, vacant positions for teachers and the label provided by the EI.
The respondents also answered question about the process of performance evaluation of teachers and how they choose the set of performance measures that they use in their evaluation. Questions that fit these subjects are about the performance measures that they deem most fitting and applicable. The questions also focus on the weight assigned to the used performance measures. In that way, the interviews will result in an in-depth discussion about measures and the extent that management’s orientation influences the performance evaluation. The purpose of the interviews will be to gain an understanding of the evaluation process of teachers’ performance by the evaluating employee to create a better understanding of performance measures used in teachers’ evaluations and the rationale behind the application.
Also, at the end of the interview, the documents that are used in the evaluation process is discussed with the respondent. It could be valuable and supporting to the answers to get insight in documents containing evaluation instructions if the school board has issued them.
25 5. Analysis
The results of the interviews are analysed using the literature review of this research. First in 5.1, respondents are clustered in two groups based on some factors of the schools where the respondents work. In 5.2, the objective and subjective performance measures that originated from the literature are discussed between these clusters. In 5.3, the relative and absolute performance measure use is analysed between the clusters.
5.1.1 Respondent’s school characteristics
In table 3, the characteristics that indicate whether the school’s management has a more long-term or short-term orientation are shown. The first column shows the number of the respondent that corresponds with the number in table 2.
The second column indicates how the EI has rated the school currently. This could provide insight in management’s orientation. As mentioned in chapter 4, a school with a basic label, meaning that they adhere to every standard and requirement set by the EI, is likelier to have a more long-term orientation. For example, respondent 8 mentioned that a label “weak“ has an influence on management: ”We’ve formulated goals that reflect what must be done to lose the label ‘weak’. Those goals must be communicated clearly with the teachers. (…) And it also means that there are more obligations for teachers.” As shown in the literature, a school with a label ”weak” or ”very weak” is likelier to have a more short-term orientation and the increase in obligation corresponds with that.
The third, fourth and fifth column are data about student numbers. The third column refers to the school’s size expressed in number of enrolled students. These vary between 580 and 1500, with the most between 750-950. The fourth column indicates what the respondents indicated what their expectations were regarding the development of the student number of the school in the coming five years. The fifth column is the prognosis of the development of the number of students in the region where the school is located. This prognosis is carried out by the Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB). This is a governmental agency that constructs projections about future development about, among other things demographic data. From these three columns, we can analyse what the school’s position is regarding number of students and what management’s orientation is likelier to be. If a school faces a probable decline in students or is in a region with declining population, it is likelier to be short-term oriented to attract additional students. For example, respondent 3 states: ”We don’t face a decline in student numbers currently, but there has opened a new school here and that school could attract some of our students. Then you might expect that one level, for example our small VWO-section, stops. The school could change significantly in that case.” Furthermore, if a school is expecting an increase in number of students that are going to enrol or that the school is situated in a region with increasing population, the school’s management is likelier to be more long-term oriented.
The sixth column indicates what the respondents stated about the process of filling vacant teacher positions within their team. From the interviews, it is concluded that schools face different levels
26
of difficulty. These levels are expressed as high, some, low or very low difficulty. These differences influence the management orientation of the school. Respondent 5 said for example: ”If somebody doesn’t function sufficiently, it could be that you don’t let them go, because it is very hard to find a replacement. You have the hard choice between making concessions to the quality of the education or that the teacher is fired and that there are no classes for a while.” This answer indicates that the level of difficulty could influence the approach to the evaluation process. Furthermore, if the school faces relatively little difficulty, it is likelier that management has a relatively more long-term focus. Oppositely, if it is relatively more difficult for a school to fulfil vacant positions, then it is likelier that a school’s management has a relatively more short-term orientation.
5.1.2 Analysis of the respondents/group assignment
To determine whether a school’s management is likelier to have a more short-term or long-term focus, the five factors from chapter 4 are considered. These factors are (expectations of) student numbers of the schools, student numbers in the region, difficulties in filling vacant positions, additional criteria implemented by the school and the label of the EI.
Long-term orientation
The schools of the respondents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 12 are all labelled by the EI as basic, which means that they have adhered to the requirements of the EI. As indicated in the literature review, schools with a basic label are likelier to have a management with a more long-term orientation.
Furthermore, they are all, except one, located in regions where an increase in population is expected and most respondents have expectations that student numbers will increase or will be stable in the coming years. Only respondent 5 has an expected decline in students attending the school and respondent 7 faces a decline in student numbers in the region. However, the respondent explains: ”The decline is due to the location of the school: It is not a very prominent location. The school is planning to move shortly to a new building. With this new building we expect to attract more students.” And given that the school of respondent 7 is the largest in student numbers in the sample, the school is assigned in the long-term cluster. It is unlikely that the school faces far-reaching consequences in the coming years due to student numbers. So, the argument for long-term orientation for these two respondents is not weakened by the student number factor.
Regarding vacant positions of teachers, respondents 1, 2, 4, 7 and 12 indicated that they have limited difficulties filling them. Only respondents 3 and 5 faced high difficulties, but these were only with subjects that face a national scarcity in competent teachers. Thus, overall, the respondents experienced the process of filling in vacant positions as relatively easy.
Furthermore, the respondents 1, 2, and 12 indicated that they have criteria that are not included in one of the areas required by the EI. As mentioned in the literature, additional criteria can be an indicator for long-term orientation. This is additional criteria are likelier to be implemented by schools
Table 3 – Characteristics of the schools Management Orientation Education Inspection label
School size Expected school size development
Expected population development of the region
Relative difficulty regarding filling vacant positions
Long term orientation
1 Basic 900 Growth Growth Low difficulty
2 Basic 750 Growth Growth Very low difficulty
3 Basic 950 Stable Growth High difficulty
4 Basic 1100 Growth Growth Some difficulty
5 Basic 600 Decline Growth High difficulty
7 Basic 1500 Decline Decline Low difficulty
12 Basic 900 Growth Growth Some difficulty
Short-term orientation
6 Weak 925 Decline Growth -
8 Weak 800 Stable Decline Low difficulty
9 Weak 875 Stable Growth Some difficulty
10 Weak 580 Growth Stable Some difficulty
that don’t have difficulties adhering to the EI criteria. Strikingly, when these additional factors were mentioned, they were about the specific belief of the school. One respondent mentioned: “The role of identity also plays a role in evaluation. (…) Whether opportunities are seized or not to include the Christian identity in the classes, this is something that is included in the evaluation and meetings.” (respondent 12)
However, not all respondents from special schools include this in their evaluation. One respondent says: The values that we have as a school are what we believe makes a school good. And this is not influenced by the belief of the school.” (respondent 4)
To conclude, the respondents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 12 are placed in the cluster where it is likelier that management has a relatively more long-term orientation. This is due to the basic label, the positive projections regarding student numbers, relatively little difficulties regarding filling teacher vacancies and the additional criteria used for the evaluations.
Short-term orientation
The schools of the respondents of 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 have either the label ‘weak’ or ‘very weak’. This indicates that it is likelier that the orientation of management is relatively more short-term, as mentioned in the literature review.
Also, the number of students attending the school of respondents 6 and 11 is in decline. Respondent 11 says: “Next year we are facing a decline in student numbers. But that is not surprising, due to the arrangement ‘very weak’. And with this arrangement, you are required to inform the parents of the current students. Thus, the word does get around quickly.”
The school of respondent 8 does not face such a decline. However, the respondent expects that this decline will become reality, due to the location of the school in an area that is in decline of population. The respondent also expects that the location of the school will result in increased difficulties regarding filling vacant positions, even though this difficulty hasn’t been demonstrable in the short past.
Furthermore, the difficulties regarding filling teacher vacancies are not one-sided for these respondents. Respondent 9 mentions: “It depends on the subject how difficult filling vacancies is. It’s difficult for English, German, physics and math. But regarding other courses is it easy.” However, respondent 11 says: “I think that there is one of the biggest challenges of my position. The science subjects are extremely difficult. This scarcity also results that applicants have a strong negotiation position.”
To conclude, the respondents 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are placed in the cluster where it is likelier that management has a relatively more short-term orientation. Reasons for this are the labels from the EI, the projections regarding student numbers (6, 8 and 9) and the difficulties regarding filling vacant positions (8,10 and 11). Not every respondent answered all the questions in the way that leads to the conclusion that management is more short-term focused. However, the analysis of all the factors that could lead to this short-focus shows that this distinction from the other respondents is justifiable.
