1. Introduction

                 One of the important aspects in the organizational improvement system is evaluation. The mission of this system, as a essential management task, is to evaluate the capabilities of human resources (Ghalkhani, 2022). Continuous improvement of employee performance creates a huge synergistic force that can support development & excellence of organization. Evaluation also provides the opportunity to examine and gain awareness of progress level and achievement of goals, identify challenges facing the organization, obtain feedback & information on the level of implementation of formulated policies, and identify cases that contribute to continuous improvement of performance (Rahimi, 2006). Performance evaluation is the systematic evaluation of an individual according to his/her performance in the work and potential for advancement (Irshad & Priyanka, 2013). It is also defined as the process of evaluating employee performance by comparing their current performance with already determined standards (Abouzeid, 2018).

             This process can be used for both developmental and managerial purposes (Van Dijk & Schodl, 2015). In another definition, performance appraisal is the determination of the degree of adequacy & competence of employees in terms of performing assigned tasks and accepting responsibilities in the organization (Nejad Irani et al., 2020). Performance appraisal in organizations is carried out based on a series of objectives; but in general, its goals can be categorized into four types related to work, career development, communication, and administration (IGNOU, 2017). Among organizations, the educational system has a special place and performance appraisal role in it is of greater importance. Among the various components of the educational system, the most important factor in determining the success or failure of students is the teacher. Teachers are therefore the focus or center of gravity of evaluation-based efforts to reform educational systems (Navidinia, 2017). Teacher evaluation refers to judging their competencies and performance and/or providing feedback to support improvement in their performance (OECD, 2013b).Teacher evaluation answers the question of how well a teacher has fulfilled his / her role and contributed to the progress of student learning (Bichi, 2017). According to Bolton the specific functions of teacher evaluation are: Improving training by identifying ways to change educational systems, educational environments, or educational behaviors; Providing information that leads to changes in teacher tasks; Protecting students from teacher professional incompetence; Protecting teachers from criticism by unprofessional administrators; Rewarding superior teacher performance; Validating teacher selection process in school system, and Providing a basis for career planning (McGreal, 1983, p. 8). Performance evaluation can also help increase the focus on teachers' professional teaching and learning. Teachers need feedback on their performance to help them improve teaching practices (OECD, 2021).

            One of the most important concerns of policymakers and administrators of the Iran educational system is improvement and increase of teachers’ performance (Mosadegh & Khoshghamat, 2020). One of the manifestations of this concern is the inclusion of the issue of teacher performance evaluation in the most important document compiled upstream, namely the “Fundamental Transformation Document of the Education System” (Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution, 2011). In the solution 4-11 of this document, it is stated as follows: “Establish a system for evaluating teachers’ qualifications, including moral, ideological, revolutionary, professional and specialized competencies and evaluation in accordance with the principles and goals of the “Strategic Transformation Document” (Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution, 2011, p. 47). Given that the Iranian general education system is centrally managed, the main responsibility for making decisions on evaluating teachers’ performance lies with the Ministry of Education. Considering the importance of teachers' job, the Ministry of Education has prepared a guideline for evaluating teachers' performance, which contains points regarding technical, educational, and value skills, desirable personal & social customs and habits, career & administrative interests, etc. This guideline is implemented annually according to existing directives, and decisions are made based on their results (Karami, 2005).

               In this regard, studies have been conducted by Iranian researchers. For example, Kahrizi and Abdi (2016) in their study "Investigating the principles and procedures of teachers' performance evaluation" found that the process of implementing the performance evaluation system in schools is very weak due to reasons such as 1) purpose and process of implementing the evaluation system, 2) lack of attention to the needs in implementing evaluations, 3) lack of information and training on teacher performance evaluation, and 4) lack of time and conditions for accurate evaluation of teacher performance. Ghalkhani (2022) indicate two main finding in his research entitled “Investigation of the Views of Primary School Teachers & Experts on the Method of Teacher Performance Evaluation”. First, from the teachers’ perspective, most of the performance evaluation indicators are at the desired level and above average. Second and but from the experts' point of view, teachers are in a weak position in most indicators. In order to achieve a desirable situation, the indicators of using educational aids, measuring teaching methods, teachers' success in achieving educational standards & criteria, improving student acceptance rates, using the opinions of colleagues , managers, officials & parents,  students' satisfaction with the method of teaching, and improving the teacher's academic capacity should be considered. Mahmoudi Meymand (2014) through “Evaluation of new system of performance evaluation of education staff from the perspective of managers & teachers of primary schools in District 1 of Yazd City” concluded that teachers and managers agree with the evaluation and even consider it effective, but in their opinion, the evaluation methods should be revised. Haddadian, et al (2012) through “Investigation of teachers’ attitudes towards the performance evaluation system of educational staff in Garmsar City” found that the system of performance evaluation of employees is not efficient in terms of improving performance levels, optimizing the determination of the payment system, identifying employees who are likely to be promoted, identifying employees who are deserving of demotion, identifying employees’ educational needs, improving the communication system between employees, and determining individuals subject to dismissal. According to the research conducted in Iran, it can be concluded that what we encounter in the system of evaluation of teachers’ performance in practice is contrary to the ultimate goal of its and has a performance gap (Padid, 2017).

               The following are some important findings related to teacher performance evaluation in other countries, based on research conducted between 2005 and 2024: Mukhtar & Noor (2024) investigated “Teacher Performance Appraisal: The Reality of Integrated Assessment for Education Service Staff in Malaysian Primary Schools” and found that the discrepancy between the implementation of documents and actual practice in schools is due to the biases of school principals. Sartain et al. (2020) in their report “Teacher Evaluation in CPS: Perceptions of REACH Implementation, Five Years In.” stated that teachers believe that the REACH process accurately reflects teachers’ teaching performance. However, they believe that evaluator feedback should be practical, task-focused, relevant, and participatory. The findings of Derrington & Martinez (2019) in “Exploring teachers’ evaluation perceptions: A snapshot.” revealed that the revised evaluation system in the US state of Tennessee does not effectively provide learning opportunities for secondary school teachers. In addition, they found that the effectiveness of principal evaluation is reduced due to the time spent and other responsibilities. The current evaluation system also negatively affects teacher-principal relationships. Fang (2019) in "An Analysis of Teacher Evaluation in China" found that teacher evaluation in China is usually based on subjective assessment. Principal evaluation -a method involves principals who randomly choose a teacher’s class to observe- and peer teacher ratings are other common assessment methods based on multiple classroom visits & observations per semester. Kagema & Irungu (2018) in their study “An analysis of teacher performance appraisals and their influence on teacher performance in secondary schools in Kenya” found that teacher appraisal affects their performance. Teachers also find the current government policies on their career development to be unsatisfactory. Clinton & Dawson (2018) in their study " Enfranchising the profession through evaluation: A story from Australia” acknowledge that the current performance of the teacher evaluation system in Australia is not aligned with the policy goals of education reform. Although the new professional standards for teaching have contributed to a national common language for teacher development & performance, the teacher performance evaluation system in this country lacks evaluation tools and methods. The OECD (2013a)  in report, “Teachers for the 21st century: Using evaluation to improve teaching” found that tools and information sources such as classroom observations, self-assessment, portfolios, and teacher interviews are commonly used to evaluate teachers. Among these, classroom observation is a key tool for evaluation in most countries with a formal evaluation policy framework. Odden (2011) in his book “Strategic Management of Human Capital in Education; Improving Educational Performance and Student Learning in Schools”, reported that teacher evaluation in the United States is generally of low quality and wastes a lot of time of teachers and evaluators, and evaluators pay less attention to improving teacher performance and complying with government regulations. Flores (2010) in his study “Teacher performance appraisal in Portugal: The (im) possibilities of a contested model” found that the teacher evaluation system in this country is relatively hierarchical, which can be seen in the laws, networks, documents, and methods of obtaining and using the results of evaluation system. Among the most important challenges of this system are the existence of quotas, lack of recognition of evaluators and existing bureaucracy. Larsen (2009) in study “Stressful, hectic, daunting: A critical policy study of the Ontario teacher performance appraisal system” found that most teachers believed that their performance appraisal process was disorganized, inconsistent, and mostly importantly, unfair, leading to feelings of stress, anxiety, and self-doubt. O’Hara, et al (2007) in their study “Contexts and constraints: An analysis of the evolution of evaluation in Ireland with particular reference to the education system” found that the Irish education system’s emphasis on professional and organizational development precedes accountability. The very limited role for key stakeholders—such as parents and students—, very cautious approach to content, and use of final evaluation reports are serious shortcomings of this appraisal system. Pimpa (2005) in study “Teacher performance appraisal in Thailand: Poison or panacea?” indicated that the main problems in teacher performance evaluation in Thailand are due to mismanagement of the system, evaluators, and applicants (teachers).

            The above research indicated that different countries need to implement reforms to minimize the shortcomings in the field of teacher performance evaluation. The purpose of this research is to conduct a comparative study of teacher performance evaluation in the USA, England, Japan, and Iran and to find answers to the following questions:

• What are similarities and differences in the goals of teacher performance evaluation in USA, England, Japan, and Iran?
• What are similarities and differences in teacher performance evaluation standards in USA, England, Japan, and Iran?
• What are the similarities and differences in teacher performance evaluation methods in USA, England, Japan, and Iran?

2. Research Method

          The present research is applied in terms of purpose and qualitatively comparative in terms of method. The strategy of selecting countries is "different social systems, different educational outputs" at the macro analysis level. The data collection method is documentary through examination of primary sources - such as upstream documents (11 sources) - and secondary sources - such as books, articles, reports (19 sources). The George Bereday method and John Stuart Mill's agreements approach were used to analyze the data.

3. Findings

1. A) Description and Interpretation

          In the description and interpretation stages, the administration of educational systems (Centralized, semi-centralized, and decentralized) and teacher performance evaluation system (Goals, standards, and methods) in the USA, England, Japan, and Iran will be discussed.

USA

                The United States education system is decentralized. According to the Tenth Amendment (1791) to the United States Constitution (1787), the general authority to establish and administer general schools is vested in the states (Spellings, 2005). Local authorities play a decisive role in the administration of schools and educational organizations. Each state has its own authority and is required to supervise educational organizations & programs according to its needs. The main purpose of this supervision is to ensure the rights and demands of people. Therefore, education in the states of US does not necessarily operate similarly. Of course, the formal educational levels of education in all states are almost the same, and the basic education rules & regulations approved by the federal government are implemented in all states (Hamidi Farahani & Sabouri Khosrowshahi, 2011). Teacher performance evaluation is a critical issue for American general schools (Taylor & Tyler, 2012) and its goal is to support continuous professional growth & development of each teacher by monitoring, analyzing, and applying data collected from a meaningful feedback system (Stronge, 2012).

          The goals of Teacher Performance Appraisal (TPE) in some states are outlined in the following. For example, the goals of TPE in Virginia are: To help achieve the goals & objectives defined in district’s schools curriculum; To improve the quality of instruction by ensuring accountability for classroom performance and teacher effectiveness; To create a positive work environment and ongoing collaboration & communication between teacher and evaluator that fosters ongoing professional growth and improved student outcomes; To promote the growth and improvement of the overall TPE and; To optimize the learning and growth of all students (Stronge & Associates, 2021). Washington Public Schools also incorporates the two goals of accountability and improvement into a TPE model and encourages local district officials to use it to support high-quality instruction. Findings from studies indicate that for most teachers in Washington State, the primary focus of TPE is to improve and enhance teacher effectiveness and to use it as a model for professional growth (Elfers et al, 2017).

             TPE in the US is conducted using the Charlotte Danielson's FRAMEWORK FOR TEACHING. Charlotte Danielson is an American educator and educational consultant. Educators use her teaching model to define a set of standards that determine effective, coherent, and clear teaching. Danielson’s teaching framework covers four areas: Planning and preparation, classroom environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities (Eskris & Iriani, 2023).

Table (1). Standards for teacher performance evaluation in the state of Virginia, USA

Source: Stronge & Associates, 2021, p. 10

Other standards for evaluating teacher performance in the USA include the ability to use multiple instructional strategies, motivate students, communication skills, and professional commitment and teamwork (Shah Mohammadi, 2015). In addition, teachers feel responsible for their professional growth because they know that the quality and skill of their work leads to acceptable and measurable academic progress for all students.Student and parent surveys are often used as a source of information in evaluating teacher performance in Public Charter Schools (Standing & Lewis, 2020). Teacher performance in Cincinnati Public Schools is also evaluated inside and outside the classroom through classroom observations and student academic progress. During the year-long evaluation process, each teacher is evaluated by a school principal and a peer teacher (Taylor & Tyler, 2012). TPE methods in Virginia include the following:

• Formal Observations: Observations are an important source for performance data. Formal observations focus directly on teacher performance standards, which include classroom observations, teacher products or artifacts - such as lists of instructional activities, in-service courses, certificates of appreciation, professional development certificates, and student data reviews.
• Informal Observations/Reviews: Informal observations and reviews such as classroom visits, teaching observations, and work observations in non-classroom settings.
• Student Surveys: Student surveys provide information about their perceptions of how the teacher is performing professionally.
• Documented Reports: Information that is not likely to be seen by the evaluator during a classroom visit. Teachers can present their artifacts in the form of documents. While presenting artifacts, the teacher has opportunity to self-reflect on work and continue to grow & improve professional teaching practices.
• Self-assessment: Reveals teachers' perceptions of their job performance and helps them reflect on their abilities and improve performance (Stronge & Associates, 2021).

England

             At the national level, the education system in England is governed by the Department for Education, which is responsible for policy-making on educational matters of children and youth up to the age of 19 (Fry et al., 2008). The governance of the England general education system is based on three important principles: a) delegating broad powers to local education authorities, b) encouraging voluntary organizations and institutions to invest and participate in education, and c) avoiding top-down directives on how local authorities and their schools should be run (Aghazadeh, 2017: 298-299). Types of schools in England include religious schools, Free State schools, academies, City technology colleges, State boarding schools and private schools (England Department for Education, no date). 

             Reform of teacher appraisal policies in the England is being driven by factors such as demands of global competition, knowledge economy, and quality of teachers. The England has responded to these demands by implementing a performance management system based on teachers’ accountability for student progress and facilitating continuous professional development (Weinstein & Struthers, 2012). The main aim of teacher appraisal in the England is for school-based appraisal to be a supportive and developmental process to ensure that teachers have the skills they need to play their role effectively and whether they need a supportive approach from the system (England Department for Education, 2019). The teacher performance appraisal policy in England is divided into two parts: Part one applies to school leaders and all teachers employed in schools – except teachers with contracts of less than one term, i.e. those on Newly Qualified Teacher (NQTs) and teachers who are subject to part two of the policy. Part two of the policy, which sets out the formal capability procedure for determining an individual’s level of competence, applies only to teachers (including school leaders) whose performance has been seriously considered and whose appraisal process has failed to address them (Warwickshire Education Services, 2020).Since the Second World War, there have been many attempts to reform the English education system, the most notable of which are: Giving parental choice and making the school system more accountable, prescribing a unit national curriculum, serious efforts to encourage students to continue their education in higher education level and approving the payment of fees for higher education (Machin  & Vignoles, 2006). In the evaluation process, the assessor and the assessee (teacher) should be aware of legal regulations, teaching standards and school’s agreed assessment policy (St Bede’s Inter-Church School, 2023). The Standards for Performance Appraisal for the Professional Development of Teachers were published in 2016. From the perspective of these standards, professional development should focus on the following criteria: 1. Improving & assessing student outcomes, 2. Professional development should be underpinned by robust evidence and expertise, 3. Understood as a collaborative process, 4. Challenging the teacher’s current professional practice, and 5. Sustained over time. All of these require that professional development be a priority for school management (Bennett, 2023). In 2021, the England Department for Education developed standards for evaluating teacher performance in two areas: Teaching and personal & professional conduct (Table 2).

    Table (2). Standards for TPE in England

     Source: England Department for Education, 2021

          The key players in the TPE process in England include: 1) the appraiser: Teacher who takes part in the appraisal process and improves her/his performance based on the appraiser’s feedback, 2) the manager/appraiser: their role is to guide and support, provide feedback and help set targets for the teacher’s development & improvement, 3) the school: a system for staff development, a structure for providing opportunities & supporting individuals on their path to success (St Bede’s Inter-Church School, 2023).In this process, the appraiser is appointed by the head teacher or Chief Executive Officer (CEO), who is trusted by the board and supported by a skilled and/or experienced external advisor. It is worth noting that this panel (a sub-group of two or three person) appraises the head teachers (England Department for Education, 2019). In general, the methods for evaluating teacher performance in this country include: Asking for opinions from teacher leaders and qualified teachers (with teaching experience & certification from evaluator training courses) and field observation of the teacher's classroom (GOV.UK, 2024).

Japan

             The Japanese Constitution (Article 26) states the basic national educational policy as follows: "All people have the right to equal education commensurate with their ability, in accordance with the law. The people also have duty to provide all boys and girls under their care with regular education in accordance with the law. This education is compulsory and free" (MEXT, no. date). The Basic Education Act, promulgated and put into effect in March 1947, further elaborates the aims & principles of education in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution, which it has formulated as the national specific principles of "Education". These principles include: Equal opportunities, compulsory education, coeducation, social education, prohibition of party political education, prohibition of religious education for a particular religion in national & local government schools, and prohibition of improper supervision of education (MEXT, no. date). The Japanese government centralized its institutions, including education, in the late 19th century in order to keep pace with Western industrialized countries. However, in the late 20th century, the national leadership initiated a series of reforms in the educational system to deregulate and decentralize, in order to maintain its competitive advantage and lead the process of economic globalization (Muta, 2000). In Japan, interest in the quality and capacity of teachers began to increase around 2000s, leading to the introduction of the “New Teacher Evaluation” document by local education boards . This development was driven by factors such as declining academic performance, bullying, school absenteeism, an increased focus on the issue of ineffective teachers, changes in teacher pay scheme, job responsibilities, and teacher service history (Katsuno, 2016). The key goals of TPE in Japan include teacher professional development and assessment of progress & improvement in teacher behavior (University of Tsukuba, 2010).

   Table (3). Standards for TPE in Japan

Source: Kochi Prefectural, 2020

             Methods of evaluating teacher performance in Japan include: observation of teaching, observation of daily teaching activity, observation of work attitude, self-evaluation, and feedback from the principal & vice principal (University of Tsukuba, 2010). Figure (1) shows an overview of the teacher evaluation process in Japan.

Figure (1). Teacher Evaluation Process in Japan

(Source : University of Tsukuba, 2010)

Iran

The Iran educational system is centrally managed and government is responsible for education costs (Ebrahim Moghadam & Khoshchehreh, 2016). The Ministry of Education is responsible for formulating basic and general policies and preparing curricula (as well as books), and preparing curriculum content, multi-author policies, and decentralized production have no place in this system(Saeidi, 2021). It is worth noting that in the formal structure of the Iran’s Ministry of Education, there is also an institution namely "Parents & Teachers Association" that tries to strengthen and develop relationship between schools and students' families and their participation in educational matters (Askari, et al, 2019). Among the important policies in the Iran education system, one can mention the evaluation of teacher performance. The performance evaluation system is a sub-system of the " Public Administration & Recruitment Organization " . The goals and process of evaluating teachers are based on the performance evaluation forms of managers and official and contractual employees of the headquarters of executive agencies. The most important goals of evaluating teacher performance in Iran are: Evaluating and ensuring the achievement of goals &  operational plans of the Ministry of Education, evaluating &  judging the specific &  general performance level of managers &  teachers based on the determined factors &  criteria, informing about efficiency &  outputs of the performance of managers & teachers in the Ministry of Education, recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of managers & teachers and using its results in administrative decision-making and recognizing the needs and providing various grounds for improving their performance level (Public Administration & Recruitment Organization, 2017).

        Table (4). Standards for TPE in Iran

Source , Public Administration & Recruitment Organization, 2017, p. 4-5

According to Table (4), it can be concluded that the standards for evaluating teacher performance in Iran pay more attention to issues such as classroom management, understanding and attention to individual differences of students, continuous evaluation, existence of a lesson plan, cooperation with school officials, documentation of experiences, control of students' physical & mental health, self-care education, and prevention of social harms. Among these standards, having a plan & schedule & observing budgeting according to the policies and general goals of the Iran education system, observing administrative regulations, and adhering to the organizational culture & values ​​of Islamic Republic of Iran are confirmations of the centralization of this system. The standards for evaluating teacher performance in Iran pay special attention to spiritual issues (religion subjects) simultaneously with educational & training matters. Also, entrepreneurship & innovation are considered as an approach to supporting performance. Among the methods of TPE of Iranian teachers, we can mention the opinion of the educational deputy of school, colleagues, parents & students, Parents & teachers association, and self-evaluation . In general, the process of TPE in Iran is carried out during an evaluation period (one academic year) and in compliance with the following conditions and criteria:

• At the beginning of the evaluation period, the evaluator announces her/his expectations within the framework of job and organizational duties - especially the annual plan derived from performance management of the executive body - in an appropriate manner to the evaluator in an evaluation form.

• During the evaluation period, the evaluator, while monitoring the activities related to the performance (specific, general, managerial, and process) of the assessed, provides the necessary feedback in an appropriate manner to improve her/his performance.

• At the end of the evaluation period, the evaluator, according to the criteria stated in stages of completing the evaluation form, evaluates the “ Assessed”.

• The evaluator informs the assessed of the evaluation results in an appropriate manner and provides him with the necessary feedback (Attarian, 2020, p. 87).

1. B) Juxtaposition and Comparison

Question 1. What are the similarities and differences in the goals of TPE in USA, England, Japan, and Iran?

The results of juxtaposition of data on goals of TPE in in USA, England, Japan, and Iran and their similarities and differences are given in Table (5).

Table (5). Comparison of the objectives of TPE in selected countries

           Table (5) indicate existence of seven goals for evaluating teacher performance in the selected countries. All countries are similar in two goals of ensuring achievement of educational system goals and promoting & improving level of professional performance of teachers. There is differences between USA and Iran with other countries in three goals of continuous communication between teacher & evaluator , optimizing learning & growth of students  and informing teacher’s performance results ( Iran). The remaining goals are similar between two or three countries. It is worth noting that in Iran, the supervisory dimension of evaluation is mainly emphasized to achieve the main goals of educational system, while in the United States, England, and Japan, the goal of the evaluation system - from the beginning of the teaching/learning process to achievement of goals - is development & professional growth of teachers and improvement of their performance through support and collaboration.

Question 2. What are the similarities and differences between standards of teacher performance evaluation in USA, England, Japan, and Iran?

            The results of the comparison of data on standards of teacher performance evaluation are given in Table (6).

Table (6). Comparison of standards of teacher performance evaluation in selected countries

             Table (6) illustrate the seventeen standards for evaluating teacher performance in the selected countries. All selected countries are similar to each other in two standards of considering students' needs &  their individual differences and observing professional ethics &  responsibility. In six standards, differences between countries are also quite evident, such that the US is completely different from other countries in standard of education based on responding to cultural differences &  methods of equality, the England in the standards of high expectations from students, and not undermining the fundamental values ​​of Britain, and Iran in the three standards of using appropriate &  effective methods to create &  strengthen attachment to religion in students, innovation in activities &  an entrepreneurial spirit, and providing constructive suggestions or documenting experiences. In the remaining standards, there are similarities between two or three countries. As can be seen, in Iran, in addition to the physical dimension of students' needs, attention is paid to their growth & excellence in understanding religious issues. One of the prominent and considered standards of all educational systems is observance of professional ethics & responsibility, which indicates the degree of its importance in teacher performance evaluation process. The priority of dimensions of the standards in the selected countries is different, so that, for example, in England, more importance is given to skills, behavior & lawfulness dimensions, in Japan, to character & attitude, and in Iran to the performance of tasks by teachers.

Question 3. What are the similarities and differences between the methods of evaluating teacher performance in the US, England, Japan and Iran?

             The results of the data comparison about the sources of teacher performance evaluation are given in Table (7).

Table (7). Comparison of evaluating teacher performance methods in the selected countries

Table (7) indicate the use of nine methods for evaluate performance of teachers in the selected countries. All selected countries are similar in one method  that issurvey of teaching staff  and differ in four methods  of informal observations, documentary reports (USA), observation of work attitudes (Japan), and survey of qualified teachers (England). There are also similarities between two or three countries in the remaining methods. Among the countries, the United States considers the most detailed methods to evaluate teacher performance. For example, the American student survey form for evaluating teacher performance is designed in the form of a question (for Grades 1 & 2), two-choice yes-no (Grades 3-5), and a score of 1 to 4 (for Grades 6-12) according to the educational grades and level of understanding of student (Stronge & Associates, 2021). It is worth noting that educational staff in the United States, England, Japan, and Iran refers to principals & peer teachers, teacher group leaders, assistant principals and principals, educational assistants & colleagues, respectively.

4. Conclusion

         One of the methods of quality assurance in education is teacher performance evaluation. In this regard, the aim of this comparative study was to evaluate teacher performance from the perspective of goals, standards and methods in the USA, England, Japan and Iran. The first finding regarding the goals of TPE revealed that in USA, England and Japan, the view of the evaluation process is supportive and facilitative, but in Iran it is mainly with an emphasis on the supervisory dimension to achieve the overall goals of educational system. This finding is consistent with the results of Ghasemi Pirbalouti, et al (2023) that the main goal of teacher evaluation in Iran is to achieve organizational goals and decisions. In this regard, Kahrizi and Abdi (2016) also found that the reasons for weakness of implementation process of TPE in Iranian schools are related to its goal and implementation process.

The findings on the standards for PTE indicated that despite the cultural, political, and social differences among selected countries, the standard of "professional ethics, responsibility, & human value" is one of their common standards. According to Oladi, et al (2019), one of the factors that increases organizational performance is individuals personality. The compromise and harmony between the personality and type of environment leads to greater adaptation to the profession, which in turn leads to improved organizational performance. Attention to the students’ needs and their individual differences is among the important standards in the selected countries, with different definitions, intensity, and sharpness. For example, in Iran, student needs do not end only with physical aspects, and the student's growth and excellence in understanding religious issues are also taken into account. In England, high expectations of students overshadows attention to individual differences. In the USA, the issue of equity & provision of facilities to meet the needs of all students has been raised as a prominent standard. The overall framework of standards and assessment priorities is one of the differences between the selected countries. Professional knowledge & teacher accountability in USA, charisma and attitude in Japan, importance of executive dimension in Iran, and skill, behavioral & rule-based dimensions of teachers in the England have been emphasized more than other standards.

The Training and Development Agency for Schools (2007) has also introduced the England Teacher Standards Framework in three sections: Professional characteristics, professional knowledge & understanding, and professional skills. Other findings highlighted that the most detailed methods of TPE are in the US, which include formal & informal observations, student surveys, documentary reports, and self-evaluation. In England, qualified teachers with teaching experience & educational evaluation course certificates are used as evaluators. However, in Iran, the Ministry of Education has not yet defined and held specialized performance evaluation courses for teacher evaluators. Among the negative consequences of this issue, we can mention the application of personal tastes and opinions of evaluators in the evaluation process. This finding is consistent with the results of Kahrizi and Abdi (2016) on the lack of information and training on TPE in Iran. According to the research findings, it is suggested that educational planners and evaluators of the Iran education system should first change their purely supervisory perspective to TPE and consider it as a tool to support & improve teachers' performance. Also, to prevent evaluators from applying their personal preferences, they should use the experiences of the USA, England, and Japan in applying various methods of teacher performance evaluation.