The teacher performance management for the public primary schools in İstanbul

The aim of this study is to accept the public primary school teachers, principals and primary school supervisors teachers performance management criteria?s being applied to primary schools in Istanbul, Anatolian side province and to determine whether the degree of practice at performance management criteria differentiate or not according to personal factors of the teachers, principals and supervisors of the public primary schools.The universe of the research, which is realized in the survey model, consists of 1743 teachers, 502 school principals, 110 supervisors working in İstanbul, Anatolian side. 222 school principals and 392 teachers have been included in the research sample. All the supervisors have been included in the research.The data for the study obtained via teacher performance management scale, developed by Aynur Bozkurt Bostancı. The collected data has been analyzed by means of a package program called SPSS 10.0 Frequency, mean, t-test, one-way variance test (ANOVA- F- test) and Tukey test were used to interpret the obtained data.According to the research results, implementation of performance management criteria?s has been accepted ?completely? by teachers, principals and supervisors.The acceptance level of using performance management criteria?s at primary schools, by the teachers and principals showed meaningful difference at all the dimensions. The supervisors? and principals? acceptance level for defining, performance development, performance evaluation and performance management structure and registry dimensions and also the sum of these dimensions showed meaningful difference. The supervisors and the teachers, though, stated similar ideas, so there was no meaningful difference between them.Teachers, principals and supervisors? response to the implementation degree of performance management criteria?s at schools was generally ?moderate? and ?little?.All the groups showed meaningful difference at the dimension of defining performance goals and criteria, whereas for performance monitoring dimension , it showed meaningful difference between teachers and principals groups and between supervisors and principals groups. Performance development dimension differed among all the three groups, whereas the dimension of performance evaluation showed meaningful difference between teachers and principals groups and between supervisors and principals groups. The dimension of using performance evaluation results showed meaningful difference between teachers and principals groups and between supervisors and principals groups, too. Lastly, performance management structure and registry dimension showed meaningful difference between teachers and principals groups and between supervisors and principals groups.