Teacher Evaluation Policy in Arab-Israeli Schools through the Lens of Micropolitics: Implications for Teacher Education

As part of a larger mixed-method study on teacher evaluation, this paper explores how cultural and socio-political contexts of the Israeli Arab public schools inform principals' high-stakes evaluation processes for attaining tenure. Concepts from micropolitical theory were used to analyse data from in-depth semi-structured interviews with twenty novice teachers and twenty principals. Findings from the qualitative data suggest that power relations and contextual features of Israeli-Arab society such as collectivism and face-keeping direct how decisions are made and limit the work of the actors involved. The study provides insights into how principals exercise their power to attain what they interpret as teacher quality while evaluating teachers, and how the latter interpret such power relations in their local contexts. It also suggests the need for substantive groundwork in preparing prospective teachers for the high-stakes teacher evaluation processes that characterise the Israeli-Arab education system and the efforts to maintain teacher quality.

Keywords: Micropolitics; teacher education; teacher evaluation; teacher quality

As teachers and teaching quality lie at the core of educational endeavours to raise students' achievements, teacher evaluation processes have recently become a common practice in many schools. However, how teacher evaluation is conducted and the perception of its purposes by those involved in the process show a rather bleak picture. Adopting concepts of micropolitical theory to teacher evaluations in public Arab schools in Israel, this study examines how features of the cultural and socio-political context inform principals' evaluations and tenure decisions in Arab Israeli schools. Specifically, it focuses on how wider national and local socio-political power structures are echoed in the interactions and micropolitics of the particular schools and operate to influence the outcomes of such a process.

Teacher evaluation, whether aiming at holding teachers accountable or helping them develop professionally, invites us to look at power relations and interests, at the meanings attributed to them and at how they influence decision-making especially in the context of public Arab schools in Israel where the evaluation takes a more high-stakes summative orientation.

Research confirms that evaluations do not occur in a vacuum, but rather within a certain school and a social and political context which is believed to have an effect on the way such processes are defined, conducted and perceived by the parties involved (Bridges and Groves [14]; Kelchtermans [29]; Peterson [38]). Studies on teacher evaluation referred to how it can guarantee teacher quality (Danielson and McGreal [17]; Stronge [44]; Marzano, Frontier, and Livingston [33]), to how evaluation connects to policy implementation (Peterson [38]; Peterson and Peterson [40]; Delvaux et al. [18]; Isore [26]; Flores [22]; Kelchtermans [29]) and to teachers' and principals' perceptions of the process (Tornero and Taut [46]). In their comprehensive literature review, Naylor and Sayed ([36]) suggest that "any evaluation of teaching quality should be cognisant of the other context-specific factors that can influence this' (p.24). They also highlight the importance of student background and prior learning along with school infrastructure and resources. What seems to have been overlooked in much of this research, however, is the broader sense of how micro- and macro-cultural and contextual factors interplay when conducting an evaluation of teacher quality – the focus of this study.

Drawing on the above and concurring with the contention that actors use micropolitical strategies to safeguard and reach their goals within their educational organisations (Kelchtermans [29]; Struyve, Meredeth, and Gielen [45]), we argue that cultural context is central to the way in which micro-political strategies are manifested and to how teacher quality and its evaluation is perceived and implemented.

Though operating under one official office, Israel runs two educational systems: one for Hebrew speakers and one for Arabic speakers. Both systems are bound to the same regulations and administrative requirements, yet they differ in the language of instruction, the curriculum of certain subjects, students' achievements, organisational structure and pedagogy, as well as in budget allocations and in their demand for teachers (Abu Asba [1]; Arar and Abu Asba [7]). Though an improvement in the qualifications of Arab teachers indicated by their level of education has been recently documented (Taub Centre 2017), it should not be confused with teacher quality as higher levels of education do not necessarily bring about more qualified teachers.

The uniqueness of the Arab educational system lies, among other things, in the fact that it is completely controlled by the state education system dictated and directed by the Jewish majority policy makers, where Arab educational leaders are hardly found (Jabareen and Aghbaria [27]). Domination of the Arab educational sector by the majority group is evident not only in curriculum and budget allocation, but even in direct intervention at the level of teacher appointment. For decades, an ISA (Israeli Security Agency) representative had to approve any decision on appointing and dismissing teachers, principals and inspectors. While the ISA's role in human resource management was abolished at the beginning of the millennium,[1] it has left a legacy of intervention and unprofessional considerations in teacher appointment and management.

It is believed that such external and internal contextual aspects play a significant role in determining schools' developmental paths (Arar and Masri-Hirzallah [5]). This comes in addition to the low socio-economic status that characterises Arab schools and villages where the rickety condition of the city council makes it hard for the education system to function adequately (Arar and Abu Asba [7]).

Context is a complex issue when it comes to educational arenas, with even greater complexity within Israeli-Arab society. A thorough reading in the field shows that the term 'context' may be addressed and used at different levels, but at the school level it mainly refers to where relationships between teachers, students, the administration, parents and the policy-makers come into play (Bridges and Groves [14]; Derrington and Campbell [19]; Kelchtermans [29]; Kelchtermans and Ballet [30]; Marsh [32]; Peterson [39]). This study addresses the broader level of context where the socio-political and cultural features of the community involved in teacher evaluation are considered.

The Arab society in Israel as a national minority is both unique and complex in terms of identity. Though it is based on various distinct linguistic, religious, familial, geographical and social features, it shares many characteristics (Abu-Saad [2]). In fact, most Arabs living in Israel have internalised traditional cultural norms and values that are influenced by cultural dimensions such as collectivism, patriarchalism and authority and other psycho-cultural features (Dwairy [20]; Jaraisy [28]). Such contextual features are of extreme relevance to the current study since they reflect particular ways of thinking, which, in turn, influence how teacher evaluations are perceived and implemented. Nevertheless, we need to keep in mind that within any given culture, individuals differ in their beliefs and behaviour and, thus, it would be fallacious to assume that any one culture behaves totally in one way or another.

Arab society is viewed as traditional and collectivist-oriented, where the individual abides by the will of the larger group rather than to oneself (Iktilat, Ben-Rabi, and Lal-Sabo [25]; Jaraisy [28]). Hence members of Arab communities tend to uphold conservatism, conformity to community norms, status hierarchy and vertical relationships based on gender and age. Thus, self-discipline is favoured while competition and confrontation may be perceived negatively. Hence, using confrontation to handle or resolve conflicts frequently encounters rejection and exclusion (Jaraisy [28]). That said, and despite the changes Arab society is undergoing, certain socio-political characteristics of Arab culture are still perceived as bearing a strong influence on their sense as a collective, such as loyalty to local imperatives, the value of maintaining face and relating to authority (Dwairy [20]; Iktilat, Ben-Rabi, and Lal-Sabo [25]; Sidani and Thornberry [42]).

As for patriarchalism, Arab society is viewed as patriarchal, where women are at the bottom of the social pyramid (Sidani and Thornberry [42]). Despite the change in education levels and work conditions, women are still identified as inferior to men (Iktilat, Ben-Rabi, and Lal-Sabo [25]). According to Azaiza et al. ([8]), there is a need for a moral-structural change which has not yet occurred, to obtain equal rights between men and women, mainly because such a move hurts the wellbeing of the male figure and erodes his gender superiority. In this regard, the Arab education system in Israel is a reflection of the above, where most administrative roles are occupied by men. In 2011, 67% of principals in Arab public schools were men (Blass et al. [11]).

Another aspect pertaining to Arab culture is the way values and social norms intertwine with authority. In such a society, which adopts an authoritarian approach, one's abilities may be weakened and one usually becomes passive and attributes changes to external factors rather than internal ones. More specifically, individuals are less inner-directed and are more concerned with the need to maintain face (Bochner and Hesketh [12]). Indeed, maintaining face and succumbing to authority are prevalent in collectivist settings where individuals seem to prefer being indirect in their communication as they feel more comfortable avoiding conflict and losing face (Merkin [34]). In such settings, individuals learn to suppress their thoughts and feelings in favour of external expectations and requirements. Research shows that Arab individuals tend to express what is expected of them and avoid sharing or debating personal feelings and opinions (Dwairy [20]; Jaraisy [28]). Dwairy ([20]) maintains that in order to avoid punishment and losing face, individuals use different types of coping strategies, one of which is called 'musayara' where they match themselves to the expectations of others, while hiding their real feelings and thoughts. This is extremely relevant to teacher evaluation processes, where teachers are expected to engage in debate and discussion of their performance with a figure of authority, but may not be able to do so in the particular setting of Arab society.

Arabs holding academic degrees are often forced to choose teaching as a profession. This is mainly because the job market is not as open for them as it is for their Jewish counterparts (Abu Asba [1]; Aghbaria [3]). This has resulted in a surplus of unemployed Arab teachers flooding the job market. According to the Knesset Information and Research Centre (2014), the percentage of unemployed Arab teachers (58%) is higher than that of the Jewish ones (Vinenger, [47]). This has led to a situation in which teachers work in part-time jobs which in turn adds to their employment insecurity and makes them more vulnerable to pressures imposed by superiors (Aghbaria [3]). This explains the dependence of employed Arab teachers on the job. In other words, Arab teachers, mainly women, may be willing to do whatever it takes to keep their job. This may come, among other things, in the form of succumbing to authority, which grows more dominant and intense in a society that advocates authority, patriarchalism and maintaining face.

Another aspect that characterises Arab teachers in Israel is their relatively young age when they begin their work career. According to the Central Bureau of Statistics (2016), 15.6% of the teachers in the Arab society are of up to 29 years of age as opposed to 9.7% in Jewish society. This is interesting, as 50% of male principals in public Arab schools are over 50 years of age (Arar [4]). Taking into consideration the young age of teachers and the relatively older age of principals, one may wonder about how those teachers act with their superiors and deal with daily challenges in the school context of Arab society.

When it comes to evaluation, reflection and self-criticism, the characteristics and societal features discussed earlier become more salient and noticeable. Being raised in such a society makes it only reasonable to suppose that appraisal processes, with all their subsequent consequences are different from those apparent in societies with a more individualistic orientation.

Finally, with such characteristics in mind, one can infer that Arab teachers and principals may exhibit a tension between progressive educational ideologies with liberal individualistic stances and conservatism alongside collective patterns of thought. To this end, one might expect such features to impact how principals and teachers deal with and perceive Western-style initiatives of evaluation and reflection, which demand a certain degree of self-criticism, openness, daring, loss of face, doubting and disagreement with those in authority. This ought to impact teacher quality, too, in terms of how it is defined, addressed and measured. However, principals, as both holders of authority and members of a collectivist society, have boundaries of their own, such as when it comes to demoting or negatively assessing a family-related teacher or one who is a member of a strong family. Teachers are held at the bottom of the school hierarchy and are expected to adopt a certain level of conformity and bow to authority. In this regard, Arar and Oplatka ([6]) examined Arab principals' perceptions of the teacher evaluation policy in Israel. They asserted that principals faced difficulties in conducting teacher evaluations due to personal relations and cultural factors and that this, if anything, demonstrates the complications involved in implementing Western-style initiatives and programmes within traditional societies.

Micropolitical theory refers to the use of formal and informal power in interactions between members of organisations and the meanings attributed to those interactions for reaching or safeguarding the parties' interests (Blase [9]; Malen [31]; Kelchtermans [29]; Piot and Kelchtermans [41]). Referring to teacher evaluation processes as policies, such interactions and meanings, along with perceived differences between members of an organisation, are assumed to affect the way these policies are understood and conducted (Malen [31]; Marsh [32]). Furthermore, the implementation of policy measures is known to be tightly related to the interpretations attributed to them (as guided by the goals and interests of those involved), and to the context within which they operate (Kelchtermans [29]). Through concepts from micropolitical theory, we can also examine how individuals in organisations impact others through the use of both formal and informal power relations in order to achieve goals or protect interests (Blase [9]; Malen [31]). Taken to our context, it allows for interpretation of how the socio-political and cultural factors in the local context inform principals' implementation of evaluations of teacher quality for attaining tenure.

Grounded in organisational theory, micropolitics relates to two main styles of power relations between superiors and subordinates, positioned at two opposite poles of the continuum: cooperative and conflictive. Taken to the educational arena, the cooperative style uses political strategies such as negotiation, compromise and mutual accommodation, emphasising how leaders seek to empower others by sharing responsibility and authority (Blase and Blase [10]; Ganon-Shilon and Shechter [23]). In contrast, the conflictive style focuses on how leaders seek to control others by driving them to comply with the institution's goals. Such a style includes political strategies based on the use of 'power over' (Fennell [21], 23–24; Smeed et al. [43], 29) manipulation, dissension and domination (Blase and Blase [10]; Coburn, Hill, and Spillane [15]). Taken to our study, this implies examining how principals manifest these styles in the process and outcomes of teacher evaluation for tenure purposes.

Recent literature on micropolitics in educational arenas has provided us with valuable insights into the nature of interactions and pedagogical practices, mainly when actors' interests do not accord. For example, it has been found that leaders' perceptions, roles and agendas influence how they attain professional interests (Struyve, Meredeth, and Gielen [45]) and promote or inhibit collaborations (Piot and Kelchtermans [41]). In his study of Flemish policy on educational quality, Kelchtermans ([29]) contends that using micropolitics to understand processes of interpretation in schools has been proven valuable, and that the attainment of policy goals is involved in these processes.

Drawing on concepts from micropolitical theory as related to formal and informal power relations in interactions, the meanings attributed to those interactions and how these direct interests in formal teacher evaluation processes, our overarching question is: In what ways do the cultural and socio-political contexts of the Arab public schools influence teacher evaluation?

Drawing on concepts from micropolitical theory we also specifically ask: What micropolitical strategies do Arab principals and teachers report in connection with teacher evaluation?

The current study is grounded in the context of elementary and junior-high Arab public schools where teacher evaluation for tenure (in teachers' second or third year of practice) is mandatory. The selection of schools was based on a convenience sampling. The study did not focus on a particular religious sect within Israeli-Arab society (Christian/Muslim/Druze). Participants were 20 principals and 20 teachers of both genders, enrolled in schools in different villages and towns in northern Israel. Selection was based on participation in a process of teacher evaluation for tenure in the past two years and consent to participate in the study. In two cases, it was possible to collect data from different participants in the same school which helped 'develop an in-depth and contextualized understanding' of the interactions between the actors involved in the teacher evaluation process (Kelchtermans [29], 477).

In order to obtain a concrete picture of the evaluation process, we interviewed both the principals and the teachers they evaluated. In some cases, principals were interviewed prior to the interview with the teacher and in others, teachers were interviewed first. Participants were interviewed one-on one using in-depth semi structured interviews which were designed on the basis of aspects pertaining to teacher evaluation in general and on culturally unique emerging aspects in particular (see appendix for sample questions). Several measures were taken to guarantee ethical concerns were met. First, principals did not know which of their teachers participated in the study. Second, while both teacher and principal knew that the other would be interviewed, contents of the interview were kept strictly confidential. In addition, as we are aware of the potential for application of authority in such a research procedure in which a principal has an interest in the participation of employees, every effort was made to assure teachers participated of their own accord, not as a way to appease principals. In this regard, both principals and teachers signed informed consent forms. Finally, the research received the approval of the internal review board of the University of Haifa (Ethics Committee, No. 257/17).

The language of the interviews was mostly Arabic. Only one principal asked to conduct the interview in Hebrew. Interviews were 45 minutes long on average and were executed in school or over the phone by one of the authors.

The first author, who conducted the interviews, had no authority over the principals, nor any direct acquaintance with them prior to the beginning of the interview. However, the fact the study was approved (and initiated) by the Ministry of Education may have positioned the author in the eyes of the principals as related to the Ministry and to the academic establishment, which could lead to possible self-censorship.

The interviews with both teachers and principals were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim in the language they were conducted in, Arabic with one exception. Then, they were translated into English for the purpose of this article. Transcription and translation were conducted by the first author, a native speaker of Arabic and a fluent speaker of English. One of the challenges related to the use of proverbs and terms specific to Arabic language and culture, which were difficult to translate into English. In such cases a literal translation was provided along with the figurative meaning the term conveyed.

Thematic data analysis followed Braun and Clarke ([13]) six-phase framework. First, transcripts were read and reread to become familiarised with the entire body of data. Second, initial codes were generated inductively (based on emergent themes). Consequently data was coded deductively (looking for instances of cultural and socio-political structures of Israeli Arab society, instances of micropolitical strategies and goals and processes of evaluation). Third, codes were collated to generate preliminary themes. Fourth, themes and subthemes were created. Fifth, a thematic map was created, generating names for each theme. Sixth, appropriate extracts were selected and discussed in relation to the research questions and the literature. Texts were coded by the three authors separately and then discussed together to arrive at agreed upon thematic categories.

Regarding the influence of cultural and socio-political contexts on teacher evaluation and the micropolitical strategies utilised by principals to evaluate teacher quality for tenure, two main thematic categories pertaining to teacher-principal interactions during evaluation were identified: culturally driven interactions and socio-politically driven interactions.

The Table 1 below illustrates the main themes of data analysis. Elaboration of findings follow.

Table 1. Thematic analysis of principals and teachers' interactions during teacher quality evaluation for tenure purposes

Culturally driven interactions were reflected in principals' authoritarian administrative style, face-keeping and age considerations as elaborated below.

Consistent with notions of a conflictive leadership style, data analysis showed that principals adopted an authoritarian style to achieve teacher quality as communicated through the policy purposes and as perceived by the principals themselves. The resulting asymmetrical power relations between principals and teachers were also found to have their share in the process of evaluation. This is manifested in the data through principals and teachers' interaction as illustrated below.

When asked about the teachers' role in the process, both principals and teachers emphasised the importance of abiding by the principal. Most teachers related to this notion as doing the right thing to reach their goal whether it was getting tenure or progressing professionally. They all agreed that it was not in their best interest to disagree with the principal. Wisam, a sports teacher, claimed,

The role of the teacher is to listen. He mustn't talk at the beginning. He must listen and accept. It could be that he might feel hurt during the evaluation, but he must listen and accept. He may talk only at the end.

Lina, a maths teacher, decisively said, 'Of course I need to listen to the principal and do what she says. She is more experienced and knows better'.

In both Wisam and Lina's responses, virtues of obedience, submission and conformity are accepted as an integral part of the teacher's role in the evaluation process.

Fatima took it to a higher level when she asserted, 'I don't argue with the principal. I think highly of her. She knows better, so what she says is the right thing, not what I think. I take it with pleasure. Her words for me are like God's words.' Fatima, a religious teacher, equates the principal's words with 'God's words'. Such a simile, for an observant Muslim, does not come naturally, but rather out of a deep belief in what the principal says. Such a belief prevents the teacher from initiating arguments, disagreeing or questioning what the principal says. Similarly, most principals expected teachers to show compliance with their opinions as the end-product of their encounter. We found that all principals believed in the importance of having a dialogue with teachers to discuss their points of strength and points to improve. However, most of them also communicated the need for teachers to do what they are told, at least at this stage of their career. In this sense, Mr. H. above asserted, 'I tell him let's talk ... It's the teacher's right to say what he thinks, but it's also my right as a principal to come and tell him x, y, z'. Likewise, Mrs. Z. expressed her expectations from teachers, 'I expect teachers to accept everything I say. It's very important for me that teachers accept all my comments.'

Data analysis showed that teachers, as those who hold an unequal status in the evaluation equation, to say the least, are anxious about the way their behaviour is perceived in the local surrounding.

Asymmetrical relations may seem warm and even familial as Mr. T., a junior-high principal, referred to teachers in his school 'They're all my daughters here. At the end of the year they come to my place. The ladies help out in the kitchen, and we all eat together. We're a family.' However, such a relationship reinforces teachers' perceptions of respect and hierarchy, with traditional roles for young women (in the kitchen). They see the principal as a father figure to be respected and not as someone they can object to or argue with.

Novices' concern of losing face and the way they should address those who are older seemed to determine their interactions. Dana reported 'The principal is so nice and he's like a father to me. I don't think I can argue with him. He might be old fashioned, but I can't argue'. Muna added, 'When principals are old, it's different. For example, with our principal, Abu Salim, you feel you must be extra respectful. I call him "Ammi" [uncle].'

The above excerpts from teachers' talk illustrate the importance and need to maintain face when it comes to communicating with a senior authority figure. Both teachers above see the principal as a father figure who is to be respectfully addressed. In such cases, age and position steer the interactions between the two and may end up leading to a relationship where teachers cannot express their thoughts openly.

Socio-politically driven interactions revolved around principal's sensitivity to the employment crisis in the local context of Israeli Arab teachers, principals' and teachers' perceptions of unprofessional considerations when it comes to employment and evaluation in the Ministry of Education and finally, principals' use of power in evaluation as a means or an end. More specifically, our findings revealed that socio-politically driven considerations revolved around attending to the edicts of the centralised control of the Ministry of Education, and to the local power of municipal leaders and traditional power-holders. The political and economic marginalisation of Arabs is also echoed in principals' sensitivity to the employment crisis in the local context of Israeli Arab schools, which is manifested in principals' juggling between state policy imperatives and their local ones. Moreover, such considerations were exhibited in principals' and teachers' perceptions of what constitutes unprofessional considerations when it comes to employment in the Ministry of Education.

Data analysis showed that principals were familiar with the hardships teachers encounter as they apply to be hired in the system. In addition, principals are conscious that being a teacher is usually the only employment option for women. The anticipation of getting a job as a teacher may take years after graduation and both principals and teachers understand that once one gets it, he/she must do whatever it takes to keep it. Such a critical situation induces a delicate enactment on the part of principals, as makers of high-stakes decisions.

In addition, all principals were familiar with the regulations set by the Ministry. It was obvious that all principals, regardless of age and seniority, were aware of the requirements and ways of conducting the evaluation process. This was manifested in their emphasis to abide to the Ministry's regulations. On the other hand, they could not disconnect themselves from their allegiance and loyalty to their collective sense and more specifically to women in the system, as being the disempowered group of their society. Five principals used the same wordings to describe the agenda according to which they work in terms of decision-making regarding granting tenure to teachers. They used a well-known proverb in Arabic which literally means that it is better to behead someone rather than cutting off his livelihood. They all seemed to agree that they need to find a way to help the teacher so that she does not lose her job.

Another principal, Mrs. Z., adds another dimension to the social and political considerations behind the seeming leniency in evaluation decisions. This is a 'principle of grace' which may be seen as an attempt to attenuate for the novice teachers inferior and dependent status derived from economic pressures. However, it also echoes to some degree the familial attitude related to the cultural norms of a collectivist society. She claimed, 'We care a lot about others' feelings. Some politics go on here, but more feelings. You feel sorry for them. You give them a pass hoping they'll improve'. This was echoed in Mr. K's words who asserted 'There's another element that goes into evaluation: compassion. After all, the teacher worked hard and studied and she's a woman. We are also human beings, not stones. The human element plays a role'.

Both principals above hint at the use of a set of social considerations when it comes to decide over a teachers' career. In their interpretation, it is the emotional aspect that plays a role in the evaluation process and they believe it is a legitimate thing to do in their particular context because 'this is us', as one of them said.

However hard it might fall on the ears of some people, 'bias' and 'connections' are part of Arab society's jargon. Data analysis showed that all principals with no exception denied acting with bias when evaluating teachers. However, they admitted that unprofessional considerations impact decisions made in general.

Mr. S. referred to staff appointment in the Ministry as 'not right, everything is 'ammak-khalak' [meaning family connections help out]. Mr. K. contended 'In Arab society bias could happen. When it comes to the mayor's daughter, we are asked to be lenient and compromise ... There remains these 10% for connections.'

In the eyes of principals, unfortunately, unprofessionalism is present. However, they try not to succumb to it. They claim that it is part of society yet exclude themselves from acting this way. This may indicate their wishful thinking.

Teachers, on the other hand, were completely convinced that having connections is the key to get 'settled' in the system. Though some denied being positively evaluated because of their connections with the principal, they did not dismiss the possibility with other teachers. Dana reported 'Connections have an effect; good relationships and connections impact decision making for sure'. Dana supported her claims by mentioning a teacher who was reported to have skipped her turn in being hired. 'They dismissed her for a month and then got her back to teach something else. They divided classes so that she has a full-time job. This is an example of how connections work, it's all politics in our society'.

Such remarks were repeated by almost all teachers. Teachers as employees seem to understand that they need other than professional traits to get ahead in the system.

Interestingly, and considering the above finding that principals sympathise with teachers and decide in their favour despite their authoritative and demanding approach, we also noted additional seeming contradictions. Thus, we identified political strategies that were utilised by principals during the evaluation process which juggle between compliance to the formal teacher evaluation requirements dictated by the majority through enforcing control and discipline on the one hand, and preserving and attending to cultural norms of their society in ways that subvert central policy edicts on the other.

Mr. K., a junior-high principal, expressed his firm request and interest in teacher quality by saying. 'I want him to teach good lessons [firmly taps on the desk] ... Teachers must know there's no place to play around. [He uses a figure of speech in Arabic 'yema irhamini' which literally means 'mom, have mercy on me]'. When asked about what she would do if she observed another bad lesson, the elementary school principal, Mrs. Z., replied, 'God forbid, she [the teacher] wouldn't dare to repeat what she'd done'. At a different point, Mrs. Z. said, 'The teacher anxiously waited for me to give her feedback.

In both Mr. K. and Mrs. Z'.s understanding and interpretation of their role in the evaluation process, domination, dissention, firmness as well as the use of 'power over' are essential and legitimate means to reaching their aims (enhancing teacher quality). In their view, the use of power does not necessarily hold a negative connotation, but rather is an acceptable and legitimate way to guarantee the desired outcome.

When talking about the strategies employed to reach the desired aims, overseeing was a common strategy used by most principals. For example, Mr. K. asserted, 'I led him into small tests, I want him to feel that there's always a spotlight above his head. My job is to closely check the teacher's abilities, to see if he implements school and Ministry policy'. Mrs. A., a junior-high principal, confirmed she must run random check-ups on the teacher to decide on tenure, 'I go into classes for a couple of minutes so that I have some kind of a background about the teacher. I also take information from the students'.

The above quotes reflect the grave importance principals assign to controlling and supervising teachers' work to be able to evaluate them. However, it is quite unclear whether this facilitates meaningful evaluation. In fact, 'surprise probes' go against Ministry guidelines for evaluation. Rather, such principal-teacher relationships serve to reinforce the power distance between the two and may serve an internal micropolitical goal of maintaining principals' power.

Our micropolitical analysis of the implementation of teacher quality evaluation for tenure purposes in selected Israeli Arab schools accentuates the role of the wider cultural and socio-political context. Specifically, our results shed light on how the multifaceted micro and macro aspects of context transcend the immediate physical boundaries of the school context. In this regard, contextually-oriented considerations serve as the 'steering wheel of interactions' between the actors of the school organisation, teacher evaluation purposes, decision making processes and their expected outcomes.

In this sense, the micropolitical significance of the selected teachers and principals' actions can be fully understood if both micro and macro contextual features are considered. Both teachers and principals seem to have developed a certain level of 'micropolitical literacy – the competence to understand issues of power and interest in schools' (Kelchtermans and Ballet [30], 765).

Our findings show that principals' authoritarian supervisory styles echo cultural norms and guide their attitudes towards teachers. At the same time, principals were found to mitigate their overt authoritarian power demand with familial metaphors and practices which derive from the cultural view of the head of the family in a traditional collectivist society. Similarly, teachers in our study, as subordinates to principals, have learned how to cope with the realities of the teacher evaluation process imposed by the cultural norms of their society. In Kelchterman's terms, they have learned to effectively apply micropolitical strategies (such as agreeing and being submissive) in order to safeguard their interests and obtain tenure. In other words, micropolitical strategies are used to deal with the cultural and macropolitical realities.

Holding the premise that the micropolitical meaning of actions is always connected to the particularities of the local context (Kelchtermans and Ballet [30]), one is led to believe that the meanings both principals and teachers have assigned, each to the actions of the other, are drawn from those features related to their specific local Arab society. This seems to correlate with the notion of power distance which refers to the degree to which inequalities are accepted as unavoidable or functional (Daniels and Greguras [16]; Hofstede [24]). Both principals and teachers, as members of Arab society in Israel, which is commonly conceived as having a significant power imbalance, have endorsed its level of power distribution and interacted accordingly. This may explain principals' adoption and use of power and authority on the one hand, and teachers' acceptance of subordination as well as their reluctance to express disagreement with superiors, on the other. Such modes of interaction are reflected by a lack of openness, concern for face keeping and acceptance of one's place in the hierarchy (Kirkman et al. 2009 in Daniels and Greguras [16]), which may be interpreted as an effort to comply with the collective character of the particular case of Arab schools in Israel.

The collectivist dimension seems to be also evident in principals' juggling between the policy imperatives and their local imperatives. Furthermore, principals' modes of action throughout the evaluation process illustrate the discrepancy between how they believe policy purposes can be met and how decisions are actually made in the end. It was found that principals show loyalty to the Ministry's regulations and are firm in their demands for abiding by them. On the other hand, they are faithful to their collective sense and find it irresponsible on their part to make strict professional decisions which are disconnected from an ethics of care towards a disempowered group of society. This dual role that principals take upon themselves and the discrepancy in their actions can be explained by the fact that principals perceive themselves as subordinates to the Ministry-led policy and as such interpret their interaction with its purposes and uses as is culturally expected from them (i.e. showing adherence). In addition, their emphasis on abiding by regulations can be seen as their way to detach themselves from the historical reality of decision making in the Ministry of Education, the largest employer in Arab society, according to which the ISA (Israeli Security Agency) and the heads of large families interfere and dictate who is to be appointed or tenured within its jurisdiction.

More specifically, Arab principals, who run a system within a familial surrounding of an Arab village or town, try, through the use of deliberate declarations of abiding by the Ministry's regulations, to supposedly further themselves from the socially and politically pressured environment of the collectivist society in which they operate.

Principals' loyalty to their local imperatives and adhering to the collective interest of Arab society lies at the heart of their actions. Indeed, principals are well aware of the hardships novice teachers go through to get appointed and of the lack of work opportunities for Arab women. To that end, once a teacher is appointed, principals do their best to help her keep the job. Prioritising the interest of the group over the concerns of the individual is a characteristic of Arab society (Dwairy [20]; Jaraisy [28]). This may impact how teacher quality is defined and addressed in this particular context and consequently the strategies used to attain it.

The complex nature of teacher evaluation processes brought to the surface in this study invites teacher educators to think about preparing prospective and novice teachers for high-stakes teacher evaluation processes in their contexts. For example, it seems important to develop teachers' literacy of the micropolitical aspects of teacher evaluations, to introduce them to the stages of the process and to their rights and roles within it (in our case, being pro-active in interactions with figures of authority). It is also important to prepare principals as to how to conduct evaluations, while raising their awareness of novices' responses and mis/interpretations of the evaluation process and outcomes.

Educational practices, including evaluation processes, are embedded in multiple ideologies, values, belief systems and behaviours (Orland-Barak [37]). Thus, the results of our study can inform other contexts of the ways in which the cultural politics of a local minority may actually override the seemingly overwhelming power of the dominant majority. More specifically, and as our results highlight the contrasting modes of action by those at the head of the hierarchy, other contexts, especially those with a centralised education system, can show caution regarding the use of micropolitical strategies used to deal with macropolitical realities. Finally, our findings can inform other contexts of teacher education as to how socio-cultural and political tensions and mis/alignments might direct interpretations of teacher quality and their implications for teacher evaluation processes and outcomes.

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1947238.