In this section, previous studies on the teacher evaluation system in Kuwait are analysed. There are few studies about the Kuwaiti teacher evaluation system, according to the researcher’s knowledge and search. The previous studies will be reviewed in two sub- sections starting with the previous system (no.461/1993) then moving on to the current teacher evaluation system which replaced it in 2006 (no.36/2006). While in the previous system, the teacher was evaluated by the head teacher and inspectors, in the current system, as explained before, the teacher is also evaluated by the head of department. In the current system, teachers are not informed about their evaluation reports (MOE, 2011; KTS, 2010), while previously, teachers were informed about their evaluation report in the middle of the school year but the final report at the end of school was kept confidential (Alkhayat & Dhiab 1996; Alhamdan, 1998). The criteria of both systems, however, are somewhat similar (further details about these systems, see Appendix 1).
2.10.1 Teacher evaluation 461/1993
Two studies have evaluated this system. Alkhayat and Dhiab (1996) conducted research by using questionnaires and a sample of teachers, head teachers, and inspectors in primary, middle, and high school in different educational districts. The researchers found that the system promoted professional development. For example, it contributed to preparing
training courses for teachers’ needs, and showed the strengths and weaknesses of teachers’ performance. The system determined teacher performance according to the extent to which educational targets were achieved and the extent to which teachers were able to teach (Alkhayat and Dhiab, 1996). Also, the system achieved the purpose of teacher evaluation related to sanctions and rewards, such as teachers’ promotions or salary increase. The criteria used to evaluate the teachers were found to be appropriate, as participants had positive attitudes towards them.
From a sample of 406 teachers, 50 head teachers, and 104 inspectors at the high school level in five educational districts (Asimah, Ahmadi, Jahra, Farwaniya, Hawalli) Alhamdan (1998) concluded that some of the criteria used to evaluate teacher performance in the previous system required clarification as evaluators and teachers interpreted them differently, and thus were difficult to measure. The researcher also found a mid-year report helped teachers to improve their performance in the second half of the term. However, giving teachers a score rating in the mid-year report caused problems between teachers and head teachers when a teacher obtained an unexpected score. Therefore, the researcher suggested that the mid-year report should only include strengths and weaknesses without a score.
With regard to the final report of summative evaluation of individual performance, Alhamdan found that teachers’ opinions varied. Some supported keeping the reports confidential because they could cause problems among teachers and between teachers and evaluators (head teachers and inspectors). Others supported informing teachers about their strengths and weaknesses without including a score of their performance, except for teachers who were underperforming.
The researcher provided four main recommendations. Firstly, he suggested the scoring be changed to include “very good” with “outstanding, good, weak”. Second, he recommended that the head of a department participate in teacher evaluation, as he or she views teacher practice and activities more than any other kind of evaluator. Third, teacher evaluation should focus on teaching activities more than non-teaching duties.
2.10.2 Teacher evaluation 36/2006
Two studies were also found about the current system. A study by Sabti (2010) indicated some drawbacks of the system. First, there seems to be a lack of appropriate training and workshops to improve teachers’ performance. Such training, he claimed, should be based on the reports of the teacher evaluation, but this is rare. Second, teachers have no role in suggesting training courses and workshops. Third, evaluation depends solely on observation by head teachers, inspectors, and head of department. In this study, the researcher recommended that teachers should attend a training course or workshop every year or every two years and that evaluators should use a range of tools for teacher evaluation.
The second study (Alsanafi, 2012) involved a sample of 110 social science teachers in the middle level school in two educational districts (Asimah and Mubarak Al-Kabeer). The research concluded that the system was largely successful in promoting professional development and determining teacher performance. However, teachers did not obtain monthly feedback from evaluators and the system is not appropriate for making decisions about sanctions and rewards.
Other drawbacks in the current system are highlighted in this study: firstly, teacher evaluation was found to be too subjective; second, individual teacher evaluation reports were kept confidential, in other words, neither the mid-year report nor the end-of-year evaluation report were made available to the teachers. The researcher also found that while criteria overall are appropriate for social science teachers, but that some criteria needed more clarification in order to generate a consistent interpretation.
Alsanafi (2012) concluded that teachers should be given a detailed mid-year report, and the final report of the evaluation should also be provided to teachers but without a grade (only comments about teacher’s performance) to avoid causing problems between teachers and head teachers. She also recommended that teachers should be more involved in teacher evaluation and work together with inspectors, head teachers, and heads of departments.