University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A comparative analysis of teacher evaluation systems utilized by public and charter schools in Southern California

(USC Thesis Other)

A comparative analysis of teacher evaluation systems utilized by public and charter schools in Southern California

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEMS UTILIZED BY

PUBLIC AND CHARTER SCHOOLS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

by

Amit Mishal

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2016

ii

DEDICATION
To my wonderful wife, Rucha, who patiently supported and encouraged me throughout
this entire process. Thank you for believing in me.
To my son, Aniket, who inspires me to be a better educator, and a better person. I hope
we will learn and grow together over the years.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to sincerely and wholeheartedly thank Dr. Pedro Garcia, who has supported,
motivated, and challenged me through this entire process. Without his wisdom, advice, and
feedback, this dissertation would not be completed.
I want to also thank Dr. Rudy Castruita and Dr. Stuard Gothold for being on my
dissertation committee, in spite their extremely busy schedule, and for offering their valuable
feedback.
I am truly inspired by the contributions to education that Dr. Garcia, Dr. Castruita, and
Dr. Gothold have made, and continue to make.
Finally, I want to thank the principals who allowed me to interview them, and offered
their candid perspectives.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ii

Acknowledgments iii

List of Tables vi

Abstract vii

Chapter One: Overview of the Study 1
Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 3
Purpose of the Study 5
Research Questions 6
Assumptions 6
Limitations 6
Delimitations 7
Definitions of Terms 7

Chapter Two: Literature Review 9
Introduction 9
History of Teacher Evaluation 9
Purpose of Teacher Evaluation 12
Formative versus Summative Evaluation Methods 13
The Role of the Principal in Teacher Evaluations 17
Evaluation Instruments 20
Criticisms of the Teacher Evaluation Process 26
Characteristics of Effective Evaluations 31

Chapter Three: Methodology 34
Introduction 34
Research Design 35
Sample 38
Instrumentation 39
Data Collection 40
Data Analysis 41
Validity and Reliability 42
Ethical Considerations 42

v

Chapter Four: Findings 44
Introduction 44
The Participants 45
Research Question One 48
Summary 70
Research Question Two 73
Summary 82
Research Question Three
Summary 83
Research Question Four 89
Summary 93
A Comparison of Public and Charter Schools 94
A Comparison of Successful and Struggling Schools 98

Chapter Five: Conclusions 102
Introduction 102
Statement of the Problem 103
Purpose of the Study 104
Research Questions 105
Methodology 105
Findings 107
Implications 111
Recommendations for Future Study 112
Conclusion 113

References 114

Appendices
Appendix A: Evaluation Standards – Public School A 124
Appendix B: Evaluation Standards – Public School B 125
Appendix C: Evaluation Standards – Public School C 126
Appendix D: Evaluation Standards – Public School D 129
Appendix E: Evaluation Standards – Charter School A 130
Appendix F: Evaluation Standards – Charter School B 133
Appendix G: Evaluation Standards – Charter School C 135
Appendix H: Evaluation Standards – Charter School D 138
Appendix I: Information Letter 140

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Aspects of Teacher Evaluations - Public Schools 94
Table 2: Aspects of Teacher Evaluations - Charter Schools 95
Table 3: Aspects of Teacher Evaluations - Struggling Schools 98

Table 4: Aspects of Teacher Evaluations - Successful Schools 99

vii

ABSTRACT

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 led to drastic changes in the educational system,
and placed emphasis on improving student achievement scores. State and federal governments
mandated that schools only employ highly effective teachers, which led to the transformation of
teacher evaluation systems across many states. This study conducted a comparative analysis of
teacher evaluation systems utilized in four traditional public schools and four charter public
schools using a qualitative case study methods design. It examined the similarities and
differences between public and charter schools, as well as the differences between schools that
saw increasing versus decreasing student achievement over a span of three years. Data was
collected through the interviewing of eight principals.
The study was designed to answer the following four research questions: 1) What is the
structure of the teacher evaluation system in place at each school in the study? 2) Is the teacher
evaluation system formative, focusing on improvement of teaching practices, or summative,
focusing on whether certain standards are being met? 3) What supports do principals provide
for teachers who are deemed unsatisfactory in their evaluation? 4) How do principals
incentivize, encourage, and support teachers, who are meeting or exceeding expectations, to
continue growing as educators?
The study’s findings indicate that the successful schools, with increasing student
achievement, used teacher evaluation systems that were formative in nature, compared to
struggling schools, with decreasing student achievement, which used teacher evaluation systems
that were summative in nature. In addition, successful schools provided ongoing support for
improving teacher, through regular observations and post-observation meetings with
viii

administrators. In comparison, struggling schools referred improving teachers to a district led
teacher improvement program, or simply provided written suggestions, without a follow-up
observation to verify whether the suggestions had been implemented. Finally, teachers at
successful schools were required to identify annual growth goals through a self-reflection
process, and implement new instructional strategies to achieve these goals.

1

CHAPTER ONE

OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

Introduction

Since the implementation of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, teacher
evaluation systems have changed dramatically. Prior to NCLB, the process of teacher evaluation
was mostly at the discretion of local school boards, and often included a single classroom
observation using checklists and subjective records (Loup, Garland, Ellett, & Rugutt, 1996).
After the implementation of NCLB in 2001, states have played a much bigger role in
teacher evaluation policies and procedures (Anderson, 2012). State and federal governments are
mandating the use of highly effective teachers in order to increase student achievement. To
comply with increasing state and federal expectations, districts are creating new teacher
evaluation tools to ensure that the best possible teachers are educating students.
Research has shown that the single most important factor in increasing student
achievement is teacher performance (Tucker & Stronge, 2005). In fact, Toch and Rothman
(2008) assert that teacher evaluations can be the most effective instruments of school
improvement. As a result, many states, including California, have revised their teacher
evaluation policies since 2009 in order to foster teacher growth, according to The National
Council on Teacher Quality (2012).
Traditionally, teacher evaluations have been summative in nature, and used primarily to
verify that quality instruction is taking place (Danielson & McGreal, 2000). However, many
educators are calling for a shift in teacher evaluation systems from a summative process to a
2

more formative one, which fosters growth in teachers (Danielson, 2007). Rather than being
judgmental, formative evaluation methods help teachers improve instruction by identifying their
strengths and weaknesses, and using research-driven strategies to address the weaknesses
(Attinello, Lare, & Waters, 2006).
Effective teacher evaluation methods first seek to understand and observe by using
multiple tools of data collection (Doherty, 2009), such as student achievement data collected on a
regular basis, which provide important information to teachers and evaluators (DiPaola & Hoy,
2008). The observation and data collection leads to a dialogue between the evaluator and
teacher, which allows both the evaluator and teacher a chance to reflect on teaching practices
(Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). The reflection process includes analyzing the observed
lesson, discussing the rationale behind pedagogical decisions, examining strengths, areas of
improvement, and evaluating student data. The evaluator provides constructive criticism,
highlights specific practices to provide encouragement, asks probing questions for further
thought, and offers pedagogical feedback in order to promote growth (Zimmerman & Deckert-
Pelton, 2003). The process of analyzing data, reflecting, and discussing next steps leads to
changes in instructional practices, which in turn fosters growth and increased student
achievement (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005).
In spite of an abundance of research focusing on best practices for teacher evaluation,
each district has different methods of teacher evaluation, of various degrees of thoroughness and
complexity. This study examined teacher evaluation methods used by principals at several
schools within Southern California, both public and charter. It explored ways in which
principals used evaluation to promote teacher growth, and increase student achievement.
3

Statement of the Problem
The inception of the NCLB act of 2001 created a spotlight on the correlation between
student achievement and teacher accountability (United States Department of Education, 2002).
According to Toch and Rothman (2008), the accountability portion of NCLB, which measures
teacher performance, should be centered on teacher evaluation. However, researchers have
found that teacher evaluation systems often fail in providing meaningful information to improve
teacher performance (Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern, & Kelling, 2009).
A study conducted by The New Teacher Project of 12 districts in four states found that
close to 99% of teachers in districts using binary ratings were rated satisfactory, while 94% of
teachers received top ratings in districts using a rating system with a broader range (Weisberg,
Sexton, Mulhern, & Keeling, 2009). Furthermore, 73% percent of teachers surveyed stated that
their most recent evaluation did not identify any areas of development. Additional research has
found that a significant number of teachers receive satisfactory (or higher) ratings on evaluations,
regardless of whether teacher performance and instruction reflects those ratings (Jacob &
Lefgren, 2008; Thomas & Wingert, 2010).
In an attempt to improve teacher evaluation systems, 36 states and the District of
Columbia have revised their teacher evaluation policies since 2009 (The National Council on
Teacher Quality, 2012) to incorporate multiple data sources and categories to measure quality of
teaching, facilitate a dialogue between teacher and evaluator, allow for reflection of teaching
practices from both teacher and evaluator, and ultimately promote growth through meaningful
feedback.
4

Although this process is designed to guide teachers in improving instruction, and helps to
increase student achievement, it is much more time consuming and tedious than the traditional
teacher evaluation process. Historically, principals have served as managers, rather than as
instructional leaders. In the past decade, the role of the principal has been expanded to that of an
instructional leader and expert (Danielson, 2007). However, studies have found that principals
receive little guidance and professional development around growing as an instructional leader
(Grissom et al., 2013; Portin et al., 2009; Spillane & Diamond, 2007).
In addition to the principal, assistant principals often evaluate teachers in order to ease
the responsibility of the principal being the sole evaluator. While this creates a fair balance in
the amount of time each administrator dedicates to teacher evaluations, it also poses a problem of
inconsistent ratings within the school and district. Danielson (2012) found that a teacher might
be rated highly by one administrator, while being rated much lower by another. This
inconsistency in rating between administrators leads to teachers feeling disgruntled towards the
evaluation system, and some feel discriminated against, if being evaluated by a tough rater (Hill,
Charalambous, & Kraft, 2012).
Administrators report feeling overwhelmed, unable to dedicate time to both operational
responsibilities, as well as to improving the instructional program (Danielson, 2007). According
to Hopkins (2001), many administrators felt that evaluating teachers was the most undesirable
part of their job due to the time consuming nature of evaluations, reluctance to discuss areas of
improvement with teachers, and the perceived flaws in evaluation systems. The same study
found that teachers also found evaluations to be a stressful time, due to being under the scrutiny
of administrators. As a result, studies show that evaluations are often a formality, and rarely
5

result in meaningful feedback (Brandt, Mathers, Oliva, Brown-Sims, & Hess, 2007; Toch &
Rothman, 2008).

Purpose of the Study
While there are numerous studies that focus on teacher evaluations, little research has
been conducted that compares the evaluation methods used by traditional public schools versus
charter schools. The purpose of this study was to conduct a comparative analysis of teacher
evaluation systems utilized by public and charter school districts in Southern California. It
analyzed the similarities and differences between teacher evaluation systems used by public
schools versus charter schools. The comparative analysis focused on evaluation methods used
by principals of schools that have seen consistently increasing student achievement, and the
similarities/differences to methods used by principals of schools that have seen consistently
decreasing student achievement. More specifically, the study looked at how principals used
evaluations to promote teacher growth, and ultimately increase student achievement.
If the evaluation process is not being used to advance the development of teachers and,
therefore, to further student achievement, then this process must be redesigned to help students
meet the needs of 21
st
century skills. Teacher evaluations can be valuable instruments to further
develop teacher effectiveness while increasing student achievement (Toch, 2008). This study
may provide principals with evaluation tools that help teachers improve their teaching practices
and contribute to increased student achievement.

6

Research Questions
To achieve purpose, the following questions guide this study:
1) What is the structure of the teacher evaluation system in place at each school in the
study?
2) Is the teacher evaluation system formative, focusing on improvement of teaching
practices, or summative, focusing on whether certain standards are being met?
3) What supports do principals provide for teachers who are deemed unsatisfactory in
their evaluation?
4) How do principals incentivize, encourage, and support teachers, who are meeting or
exceeding expectations, to continue growing as educators?

Assumptions
This study assumed that the responses of the principals interviewed were truthful and
candid when describing various aspects of the teacher evaluation systems utilized at their
respective schools. More specifically, this study assumed that principals honestly described how
teacher evaluations were used to facilitate growth of teaching practices for all teachers, the
strategies used to help improving teachers, and how teachers who met or exceed expectations
were incentivized to continue professional growth.

Limitations
The data for this case study was gathered through the interviewing of eight high school
principals within Southern California over a two month period, beginning in September 2015.
7

The time allotted for the interviews was one hour. As this is a case study, the results may not
generalize due to the limited selection of participants, as well as the geographical location of the
schools participating in the study. Although the inquiry methods were designed with great care
and consideration, the validity of this research is limited to the design of the methodology. The
integrity of the responses given by the participants further limits the study.

Delimitations
The following delimitations apply to this study:
1. The participants were limited to principals who led public or charter schools within
Southern California.
2. The selected principals led schools with 70% of students receiving a free or reduced
lunch.
3. The selected principals led schools that either had consistent growth or consistent
decline in Academic Performance Index scores during the 2012 – 2014 academic school years.

Definitions of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined as stated below:
Academic Performance Index: The Academic Performance Index (API) is California's
system for measuring school performance and improvement. Scores range from a low of 200 to
a high of 1000, with a score of at least 800 as the goal.
Charter School: A charter school is a tax-supported school established by teachers,
parents, or community groups under the terms of a charter with a local or state authority.
8

Formative Evaluation: Formative evaluation is a type of evaluation that focuses
on improving instructional practices of teachers through collaboration and instruction.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) is
an act by Congress concerning the education of children in public schools. The premise of NCLB
is that by increasing accountability, student achievement will be increased.
School Board: A school board is a local board, elected by constituents who reside within
the boundaries of the school district.
Student Achievement: Student achievement is a measure of the cumulative effects of
what students have learned over a prescribed period of time, as determined by
school/district/state benchmarks.
Summative Evaluation: Summative evaluation is a type of outcome evaluation that
assesses the results or outcomes of a program. This type of evaluation provides an overall
assessment of the teacher’s performance for a specific school year.
Teacher Evaluation: Teacher evaluation is the process of collecting data and making
professional judgments about performance for the purpose of decision-making to
include formal and informal observations.

9

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to conduct a comparative analysis of the different teacher
evaluation systems used by principals in traditional, as well as charter public schools in Southern
California. More specifically, this study examined how effective principals use teacher
evaluations to promote teacher growth, and increase student achievement. The purpose of this
literature review was to describe the history and purpose of teacher evaluations, identify key
evaluation instruments, examine current research on the problems with teacher evaluation
systems, as well as on characteristics of effective evaluations that promote growth in student
achievement.

History of Teacher Evaluation
The history of teacher evaluations dates back to colonial times, when evaluations were
used as a means to dismiss teachers who were considered ineffective. According to Burke and
Krey (2005), these evaluations were not conducted by fellow educators, but rather by esteemed
and accomplished members of the community. The first major transformation in teacher
evaluations came about as a result of the Industrial Revolution, when large, centralized areas
developed as a result of the shift from farming to industry. Population growth in these
centralized areas led to an increased demand for teachers, as well as supervisors to evaluate
them.
10

Initially, superintendents were hired to evaluate teachers (Olivia & Pawlas, 2004).
However, with the steady growth in the number of teachers hired, the task of evaluating teachers
became unmanageable for superintendents, and was delegated to principals (Olivia & Pawlas,
2004). In the early 20
th
century, the focus of teacher evaluations was on the personal traits of the
teacher, and the perceived ethical character of a teacher was strongly valued (Weems & Rogers,
2010).
In 1918, John Franklin Bobbitt published The Curriculum, which influenced the
transformation of schools into “factories”, with the principal as the manager, teachers as
supervisors, and the children as workers (Glanz & Sullivan, 2005). The principal taking on the
role of a manger shifted the focus of teacher evaluations to improving the quality of teaching,
rather than simply removing poor teachers (Glanz & Sullivan, 2005). Principals began to realize
that classroom observations and meaningful feedback could lead to the improvement of
instruction.
In the late 40s and early 50s, competition with Russia and the start of the Cold War led
Americans to prioritize the educational system. It was widely believed that American students
needed to excel academically, especially in the areas of math and science, in order to surpass the
Soviets (Darling-Hammond, Wise, & Pease, 1983). The focus on education led to a demand for
excellent teachers, and many college students joined the teaching profession to meet this
demand. With the influx of young teachers joining the profession, the need to guide and train
these teachers became clear. According to Ellet and Teddlie (2003), researchers, in the 1960s,
began to identify teaching methods and practices that led to positive student outcomes, by
recognizing and studying successful teachers. These traits, believed to be the tools of effective
11

teachers, became the cornerstone in teacher evaluation criteria (Danielson & McGreal, 2000).
The emphasis of evaluations shifted to observable practices, with a stronger reliance on objective
measures of research based methods.
As the demand for teachers led to a significant growth in their numbers, unions were
formed to protect the interests of teachers. In an effort to protect teachers, unions developed
contracts that specified strict guidelines for teacher evaluation, including the frequency of
evaluation, methods of data collection, and evaluation criteria, such as checklists of desired
behaviors (Danielson & McGreal, 2000).
Teacher evaluations were brought to the forefront of the educational reform and the
national political scene, when the National Commission on Excellence in Education published A
Nation at Risk in 1983. This report tied student academic achievement to the nation’s economic
productivity, and made a recommendation for an expansion and deepening of the evaluation
process. As a response to A Nation at Risk, teacher evaluations focused on direct classroom
observations, standards-based performance indicators, and revised checklists and rating scales
(Danielson & McGreal, 2000). The focus on standards-based performance indicators, as well as
checklists and rating scales led to a summative approach to teacher evaluation, which continued
into the 1990s, and proved to be mostly ineffective (Darling-Hammond, 2013).
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 initiated significant changes to the
education system by focusing on accountability and growth, based on standardized test scores.
The NCLB act required schools to hire high qualified teachers, as defined by academic
achievement, and to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) goals, based on student achievement
on standardized tests (Weems & Rogers, 2010). The increased focus on accountability called for
12

evaluations to focus on how well teachers knew their content, rather than on instructional
practices to deliver content.
With many states adopting Common Core State Standards, the focus of teacher
evaluations has once again shifted from a summative nature to a formative one, and from an
emphasis on content knowledge to instructional practices. An increasing number of school
districts utilize a dialogue and feedback from teachers in evaluations, and provide support for
teachers to promote growth (Stumbo & McWalters, 2011). Many principals use teacher
evaluation systems to help teachers reflect on their current teaching methods, and to learn new
methods, rather than simply evaluating their teaching as successful or unsuccessful at the end of
the school year.

Purpose of Teacher Evaluation
According to Danielson and McGreal (2000), there are two primary objectives for teacher
evaluations – accountability in providing students with a quality education, and facilitating
teacher growth. Danielson and McGreal (2000) further specify accountability as using data
collected through the evaluation process to screen out unsuitable candidates, and terminate
ineffective teachers. Danielson and McGreal (2000) also specify facilitating growth as providing
constructive feedback, providing direction for staff development, and unifying teachers and
administrators around a collaborative discussion around improving student learning. The two
objectives of teacher evaluation, accountability and growth, are achieved by two very different
forms of evaluation – formative and summative.

13

Formative versus Summative Evaluation Methods
A major requirement of the No Child Left Behind Act is to put a highly qualified teacher
in each classroom. A summative assessment, which focuses on measuring the performance of
teachers, is used for quality assurance and to determine whether to re-hire a teacher. This type of
assessment fits into the accountability portion of the evaluation system by holding teachers
responsible for meeting or exceeding standards of performance (Danielson, 2001).
In contrast to a summative teacher evaluation system, a formative evaluation system
focuses on the process that fosters growth in teaching practices and methods. Rather than being
critical, formative evaluations are used to help teachers recognize their strengths, as well as areas
of improvement. This process helps teachers improve their craft by facilitating a discussion that
establishes a plan to best support teachers grow through additional support and professional
development (Attinello et al., 2006).
While a summative evaluation focuses on outcome, specifically whether teachers meet
certain performance standards, the formative assessment focuses on improvement. Instead of
being final and judgmental, formative evaluation takes place early enough in the school year, in
order to allow time for reflection, development, and growth. According to Danielson (2001), if
the objective of schools is to achieve established performance goals, the improvement and
monitoring of progress towards these goals is essential and should be emphasized.
Collinson (2001) clarified the differences between summative and formative evaluations by
writing, “One operates as a deficit model, the other as a growth model; one acts as the stick, the
other as a carrot; one represents teacher passivity, the other, active teacher involvement; one is
externally motivated, the other, internally motivated” (p. 151).
14

Some researchers argue that formative and summative assessments should be used
independently of each other. For example, Popham (1988) stated that if formative and
summative assessments are not used separately, teachers will be reluctant to identify areas of
improvement, or be open to a negative assessment by the evaluator, since the same evaluator will
be making summative judgments. Strobel and Cooper (1988) claimed that an evaluator, who
conducts both formative and summative evaluations, may face a conflict in his/her role. The
evaluator must simultaneously be a mentor and judge, and the authors believe that one cannot
provide both assistance and judgment. Ovando and Ramirez (2007) found that an evaluation
system, in which evaluators take on dual functions as both mentors and judges, is not an effective
method for teacher growth, as it causes tension for evaluators in developing a collaborative
environment between teachers and evaluators. Donaldson and Donaldson (2012) claim that a
more sustainable method could be maintaining a clear distinction in the roles of the evaluator, or
having multiple evaluators, each taking on a different role.
On the other hand, Stronge (1997) believes that formative and summative assessments
are not be used exclusively, but rather in conjunction with each other. Just as teachers help
students learn and grow by providing formative assessments, such as daily homework, exit slips,
and quizzes, they also act as evaluators by administering summative assessments, such as unit
tests and final exams. Stronge (1997) also writes that accountability and growth are
complimentary, not competing interests. The utilization of both methods is necessary, since the
formative evaluation process identifies areas of improvement and provides support, while the
summative evaluation method determines whether performance has progressed sufficiently. If
only formative assessments are used, teachers may not be motivated to act on the feedback, since
15

a summative assessment to evaluate progress will not take place. Similarly, if only summative
assessments are used, teachers will not have the opportunity to identify areas of improvement,
and get feedback and support to grow in these areas. Either approach, if used independently, will
provide incomplete and inaccurate results. According to Danielson and McGreal (2000), a
summative assessment should be the culminating event of the formative assessments process.
Goldstein (2005) conducted an extensive mixed methods study of 28 schools that were
using both formative and summative evaluations, in order to examine the compatibility of the
two systems of evaluation. Evaluators at each school that was studied combined both formative
and summative functions. Despite the same evaluator acting as a mentor and judge, most
teachers reported a high level of trust in their evaluators/coaches. The few teachers, who
claimed to not have a high level of trust with their coaches, were all low performing teachers.
Goldstein argued that the reason for these struggling teachers to not have a trusting relationship
with their coaches could be due to the fact that they saw themselves as incompetent, and thus
were embarrassed or ashamed to discuss their teaching.
Another study by Milanowski (2005) examined two groups of teachers within a large,
urban district. The first group had a different evaluator in the formative evaluation role than in
the summative evaluation role. The second group had the same evaluator carry out both roles.
Milanowski (2005) found that there was not a significant discrepancy between the groups in
trusting their evaluator, having open discussions regarding areas of improvement and difficulties
faced in the classroom, and accepting constructive feedback. Surprisingly, the first group, with a
different evaluator in the formative and summative role, had fewer teachers apply the feedback
from their formative evaluation to help them improve and grow for the summative evaluation. In
16

addition, the teachers in this group reported having negative feelings towards their summative
evaluators due to fewer opportunities for communication, and a lack of a relationship built
through the feedback process. Milanowski (2005) argued that formative and summative
assessments should be coordinated, and conducted by the same evaluator.
Whether formative and summative evaluations are coordinated, or conducted
independently, the primary purpose of evaluations is to improve the quality of education within a
classroom, and ultimately improving student performance (Weems & Rogers, 2010). For this
purpose, feedback is essential for teachers to improve their teaching practice and methods in the
classroom. According to Donaldson (2009), the effectiveness of formative evaluations depends
on the feedback given to teachers by evaluators. In addition, the opportunity to learn new skills
and implement changes must occur through guidance and mentoring from administrators
(Weems & Rogers, 2010).
Unfortunately, administrators are not always well qualified to provide the guidance and
mentoring to teachers. According to Donaldson and Donaldson (2012), principals sometimes
lack the pedagogical expertise to provide meaningful feedback that is specific and tailored to the
teacher’s needs in order to promote growth and improve performance. Administrators also work
under strict time constraints, and spend much of their time on operational tasks. Therefore, they
cannot devote the necessary time to establish and foster mentoring situations. According to
Goldstein (2005), the level of trust built through the development of a relationship between a
teacher and evaluator plays a significant role in the teacher’s ability and willingness to
implement feedback in the classroom.
17

A system focused on professional growth is essential, due to the complexity of the
profession of teaching. Thanks to new research and policies, the craft of teaching is always
transforming and evolving. Teachers need an evaluation system that provides relevant feedback,
support, and opportunities for growth, in order to keep up with the changing field of education.
Danielson (2011) wrote that professional learning is important, “not because teaching is of poor
quality and needs to be fixed, but rather because it is so hard that we can always improve it” (p.
37). Evaluations should recognize ways in which teachers are effective, but also identify areas in
which teachers need to improve, and provide support in a collaborative, non-judgmental way.

The Role of the Principal in Teacher Evaluations
The role of the principal has increased in complexity, and has become more demanding
over the years (Archer, 2004). Principals are simultaneous expected to be visionaries who
inspire and motivate staff members, managers who stay on top of operational functions of the
school, and instructional leaders who coach teachers and provide support in the growth of
teachers (Danielson, 2007). According to research, principals are expected to focus on
instructional leadership, and consistently oversee instructional programs while also offering
meaningful feedback to teachers to facilitate growth (Reitzug, West, & Angel, 2008).
A study of school leadership conducted by Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2004), of
2,802 schools and nearly 1.5 million students, concluded that there is a strong correlation
between instructional leadership and increased student achievement. Another study conducted
by Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) came to a similar conclusion, that
instructional leadership was the second most important factor (the first being classroom
18

instruction) to increasing student achievement. It is clear that principals, as instructional leaders,
must work with teachers in order to increase their capacity as educators, and help them grow
their practice by providing professional development opportunities and support.
In order to facilitate growth amongst teachers, it is essential that principals conduct
ongoing formative evaluations to determine areas in which individual teachers need support
(Toch & Rothman, 2008). According to Donaldson (2010), the principal plays a central role in
ensuring that excellent teaching takes place within each classroom. With the implementation of
NCLB, principals faced additional pressure in increasing student achievement to meet their
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals. Thus, it has become necessary for principals to have the
ability to identify quality instruction, areas of improvement, and be able to build enough trust to
have honest discussions with teachers to help improve instructional methods (Danielson, 2010).
Unfortunately, a study conducted by Danielson and McGreal (2000) revealed that many
teachers believed their principals did not have the proficiency and capability to conduct reliable
observations. Brandt et al. (2007) discovered that one reason for teachers perceiving their
principals as incompetent in conducting evaluations was that only 8% of districts in the study
offered training to principals in effective evaluation methods. Another study by Jacob and
Lefgren (2008) examined whether evaluations by principals were accurate by comparing the
evaluations to student achievement scores. The study concluded that principals could
successfully recognize highly effective and highly ineffective teachers, but were not as
successful at differentiating between teachers in the middle band. Wilkerson, Manatt, Rogers,
and Maughan (2000) found that student evaluations of teachers were more accurate predictors of
student achievement than evaluations by principals. These studies highlight the fact that
19

principals, as instructional leaders, must receive more training in evaluating teachers and
identifying areas of improvement.
Principals most frequently use a series of checklists and performance indicators, which
have been proven to have a positive effect on student achievement, to evaluate teachers
(Danielson, 2010). According to Danielson, communicating these expectations and performance
indicators, is an essential component of growing through teacher evaluations. However,
according to Kersten and Israel (2005), principals often did not hold a pre-observation meeting
or provide constructive feedback to teachers who are tenured. This practice leads to many
tenured teachers not growing as educators, and not taking evaluations seriously. Kersten and
Israel (2005) found that many principals reported being overwhelmed by the number of
evaluations they needed to complete, and thus did not spend as much time on evaluations of
tenured teachers, as on the evaluations of probationary teachers.
The most successful schools, with significant gains in student achievement, have
administrators that work closely with teachers on an ongoing basis, and provide constructive
feedback, as well as introduce new instructional strategies (Kaplan & Owings, 2001). Successful
schools also have administrators who create a collaborative environment, and allow teachers to
be instructional leaders. A study by Abbott and McKnight (2010) discovered that administrators
who frequently visited classrooms for informal evaluations, and collaborated with teachers for
ongoing feedback, positively influenced teaching practices.
In summary, the role of the principal in evaluating teachers is to conduct ongoing
formative evaluations, and provide meaningful feedback to teachers in a timely manner.
20

Principals must also design professional development activities in a collaborative manner, with
teachers taking on the role of instructional leaders.

Evaluation Instruments
Although teacher evaluations are mandatory in all public school systems across the
United States, the evaluation process varies significantly, depending on the state and district.
The most commonly used methods of evaluating teachers include the following: classroom
observations by administrators, surveys, checklists, rating scales, student evaluations, and
portfolios. Some districts utilize multidimensional evaluation systems, which use multiple
measures of evaluation, different forms of data, and multiple assessors (Darling-Hammond,
2006; Odden, 2004).
The most commonly used evaluation instrument is classroom observation, usually
conducted by administrators. The teacher being evaluated is notified of an observation date and
time in advance, and is often asked for a preference of which period to observe. During the
evaluation, administrators use pre-designated criteria (such as time management, transition
between activities, student participation, checks for understanding, etc.) to observe teachers, and
complete a formal rating scale after the observation. Webb and Norton (1999) concluded that
teachers must be aware of the criteria used for evaluation in order for the observation to yield
useful information. Most tenured teachers in California are evaluated either once per year, or
once every two years. Most un-tenured teachers in California are evaluated annually.
Another common evaluation instrument is the combination of surveys, checklists, and
rating scales were first introduced in the teacher evaluation process in the 1900s (Spooren &
21

Mortelmans, 2006). Several states, such as California, use surveys to gather data from various
sources, such as students, parents, fellow teachers, and administrators (Watanabe, 2010). A
typical survey contains a list of items that evaluate the performance of a teacher, on a pre-
determined scale. According to Hinchey (2010), a survey should measure not just the
instructional strategies used by a teacher, but also holistic attributes of instruction, such as
building a safe classroom environment, and a trusting relationship with students.
Most school districts develop surveys that measure whether a teacher is meeting the
needs of students in their specific community, and thus surveys can take on drastically different
forms. However, Noakes (2009) wrote that Patton’s Utilization-focused Evaluation (UFE)
checklist could provide the most accurate information regarding teacher effectiveness. The UFE
checklist is comprised of 12 steps, such as identification of primary users, evaluator readiness
and proficiency, teacher readiness, situational analysis, data collection, data analysis, and
evaluation design. Noakes (2009) claimed that the UFE checklist has a larger impact on teaching
methods and student learning, as it facilitates more interactions and dialogues between the
teacher and evaluator. However, Noakes did assert that any evaluation checklist should be used
only as a primary form of assessment.
Another survey approach, commonly used in the business world, is a 360-degree
evaluation survey (Danielson & McGreal, 2000). One such model, as discussed by Barton
(2010) consists of six different data sources. Students are given a 20 question survey, which
includes questions about teacher preparation, instructional methods, lesson delivery, and
connection with students. A similar 20 question survey is given to fellow teachers for peer
review. A five question parent report card, a self-evaluation, student achievement data, and
22

observations, as well as interviews by an evaluator, are the remaining components of the 360-
degree evaluation. Similar to the UFE checklist, a 360-degree evaluation can provide
meaningful data, but cannot be considered completely unbiased and reliable. Therefore, it
should be one of the tools of an evaluation system, and should be used in combination with other
evaluative methods (Danielson & McGreal, 2000).
Team evaluations, in which a team of teachers and colleagues (such as subject coaches,
curriculum specialists) conduct evaluations, has been found to be effective by Glickman,
Gordon, and Ross-Gordon (2005). The benefit of a team evaluation is gathering multiple
perspectives on a teacher’s instructional methods, and developing a growth plan for the teacher
with input from multiple instructional leaders. One disadvantage to a team evaluation is working
with time constraints faced by educators, and coordinating the schedules of different members of
the team to conduct evaluations.
An evaluation tool, more commonly used in higher education, evaluation by students, is
becoming more prevalent in K-12 education (Ripley, 2012). Ripley found that if the right
questions are posed to students, they can accurately identify teachers who are effective, and
teachers who are ineffective. An evaluator visits a teacher’s classroom infrequently, while
students are exposed to every aspect of a teacher’s instructional methods and procedures on a
daily basis. According to Webb and Norton (1999), student evaluations can provide feedback
that is more constructive, and more effective in transforming the methods used by teachers, than
evaluations conducted by a supervisor.
Research conducted by the Center of Excellence in Learning and Teaching at Iowa State
University (2011) found that effective student evaluation instruments include open-ended and
23

close-ended questions, measures of non-instructional based characteristics of a teacher (such as
enthusiasm, listening, being supportive), and gives students an opportunity to provide feedback
that can inform teaching practices.
Studies by Centra (2005), and Spooren and Mortelmans (2006) examined responses from
student evaluations, and found that students there was no relationship between the grade received
from a teacher and the student’s rating of the teacher. Spooren and Mortelmans (2006) also
found that student evaluations aligned with administrator evaluations in identifying effective and
ineffective teachers. Student evaluations, if designed and administered properly, can provide
useful data to both teachers and administrators regarding teacher effectiveness, and areas of
improvement (Webb & Norton, 1999).
Some districts replace or supplement teacher evaluations using portfolios. Portfolios are
a collection of documents, such as lesson plans, sample exams, and student projects, which
highlight the learning occurring in a teacher’s classroom. Barton (2010) contended that
portfolios are a more authentic and accurate representation of teacher quality than surveys or
observations. In California, a survey of 200 teachers concluded that some teachers favored using
portfolios in the evaluation process, as it allowed them to provide evidence of the variety of
lessons and activities used in their classrooms throughout the year (Palazuelos & Conley, 2008).
While portfolios are more comprehensive and span a longer period of time than just a
one-time observation, Hinchey (2010) pointed out that portfolios are much more time-consuming
for both teachers and evaluators, who score the portfolios, are difficult to standardize, and may
not reflect every day classroom activities.
24

The National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality (2009) stated that using
portfolios as an instrument of teacher evaluation does not contribute to teacher growth, or in
identifying areas of improvement for professional development. In addition, the same study
stated that the scoring of portfolios was not consistent, and therefore unreliable, across schools
within the same district.
Conversely, a study conducted at a school district in New York by Macroux, Brown, Irby
and Lara-Alecio (2003), examined whether the use of portfolios as an evaluation instrument led
to student achievement and teacher growth. The study found that the use of portfolios helped
teachers reflect on their own practices, and facilitated a dialogue between teachers and
administrators. Although this process was time consuming, it led to identifying areas of
improvement for planning professional development, and had a positive impact on student
achievement. Marcoux et al. (2003) concluded that the use of portfolios in evaluating teachers
should be a collaborative and ongoing (formative) process that focuses on self-reflection and
goal setting.
While there are many teacher evaluation instruments available for school administrators,
researchers argue that a well-designed teacher evaluation system should be multidimensional,
and use multiple measures of data collection, with the collaboration from multiple assessors
(Darling-Hammond, 2006; Peterson, 2004). Teaching is a complex art form, and cannot be
assessed with a single observation or survey. To have the most accurate and fair assessment of a
teacher’s practices, multiple and varying data sources are needed (Peterson, 2006). Stronge
(2006) added that the validity of teacher evaluations can be increased through the use of multiple
data sources. Peterson (2006) pointed out that additional data sources can strengthen the
25

assessment of a single evaluator, and relieve the pressure from evaluators, who no longer need to
be the single data source. A multidimensional evaluation system can also help to create a
collaborative setting, with the use of multiple assessors.
Many studies, dating back to 1987, have shown the benefits of using a multidimensional
teacher evaluation system. Peterson (1987) conducted a study of a Utah school district’s teacher
evaluation system, and found that by using multiple data sources, evaluators were able to notice
different aspects of teacher quality. Administrators used various data sources, including student
and parent surveys, peer review, a review of student work, and evaluator report. Peterson
concluded that the different data sources had low correlation, and thus provided different
constructs of a teacher’s performance.
More recently, Heneman, Milanowski, Kimball, and Odden (2006) conducted a multiyear
study of four districts investigating the effectiveness and reliability of different teacher
evaluation systems. Two of the four districts used multidimensional teacher evaluation methods,
while the other two districts used a single tool for teacher evaluation. The study found a higher
correlation between teacher ratings and improvement in student achievement within the two
districts that used multiple sources of data.
Another study by MET project (2012) examined 1,333 fourth through eighth grade Math
and English language arts teachers across six districts. In the study, trained evaluators rated
7,491 videos of lessons at least three times using different methods of scoring, based on
research-supported observation standards. Other data sources, such as standardized test scores
and student surveys, were also included from approximately 45,000 students. The quantitative
26

study concluded that the combination of observation scores with the analysis of standardized test
score gains and student surveys improved validity.
To summarize the numerous advantages of a multidimensional teacher evaluation
system, Stronge (2006) made the following conclusions from his synthesis of his various
studies: Multidimensional teacher evaluations provide a more accurate and complete
representation of a teacher’s performance, incorporate both primary and secondary data sources
in the evaluation, and ensure greater validity in documenting effectiveness. Using multiple data
sources, and multiple evaluators lead to a more thorough and reliable teacher evaluating system,
which is essential in evaluating the multifaceted task of teaching.

Criticisms of the Teacher Evaluation Process
Although the primary objectives of a teacher evaluation system are to create teacher
accountability in providing students with a quality education, and facilitating growth (Danielson
and McGreal, 2000), many current teacher evaluation systems are not meeting these goals. The
No Child Left Behind act of 2001 attempted to increase accountability by requiring that schools
hire “highly qualified” teachers. However, this mandate focused on teacher preparedness, rather
than teacher quality. The NCLB act defined a “highly qualified” teacher by the degrees earned
by the teacher, years of experience the teacher had, and the number of hours of professional
development the teacher had attended. According to Weems and Rogers (2010), a “highly
qualified” teacher does not correlate to a highly effective teacher, as seen by the lack of student
progress in our schools, poor national test scores, or the lack of preparedness by graduates to join
the workforce.
27

The summative nature of many current teacher evaluation systems does not allow
teachers to get ongoing feedback about their teaching practices, and therefore does not promote
growth. According to Brandt et al. (2007), evaluation of tenured teachers took place once every
two to five years, during as little as one class period in many districts across the United States.
In addition, Brandt et al. (2007) reported that the accountability piece in teacher evaluations
focuses on the depth of a teacher’s knowledge of the content, rather than on delivery of the
content, and level of student engagement. Weems and Rogers (2010) stated that the lack of
frequency in observing teachers makes teacher growth and improvement extremely difficult.
In addition to the lack of frequency, Kane et al. (2010) found that administrators lacked
the training to develop skills needed to conduct effective observations that are consistent in
identifying good teaching, as well as areas of growth. Ineffective observations lead to a lack of
accuracy in analyzing teaching practices and methods, as well as in providing feedback that
contributes to growth. According to The National Education Association (2010), most
administrators are not adequately trained in conducting observations to offer constructive
feedback. Donaldson (2009) stated that developing expertise in observation methods, which is
gained from ongoing training, is essential to facilitating teacher growth.
Even when administrators become expert observers, teachers need to trust them in order
to grow from the feedback that administrators provide (Donaldson & Donaldson, 2012). One
reason for this absence of trust is the lack of subject matter and pedagogical knowledge on the
part of the administrator. Many times, an administrator may not be qualified to offer meaningful
feedback in a subject area in which he/she is not an expert (NEA, 2010).
28

Research has also found that due to the difficulty of removing a tenured teacher, many
evaluators give satisfactory (or higher) ratings to tenured teachers. A study conducted by Reeder
(2005) found that 83% districts in the study have never rated a tenured teacher as unsatisfactory.
Another study by Tucker (1997) concluded that out of 134 unsuccessful public schools that were
examined, evaluators rated fewer than 2% of tenured teachers as unsatisfactory, remediated
0.68% teachers and recommended termination for 0.10% teachers. The same study also
estimated that between 5% and 15% of the nation’s teachers are either below average, or
completely ineffective in increasing student achievement. Weisberg et al. (2009) stated that
since 2006, merely 10% of failing schools rated at least one tenured teacher as being
unsatisfactory. A study by Donaldson (2010) reported that principals and teachers believe that
teachers are rated higher in evaluations than their performance actually indicates.
Donaldson and Peske (2010) found that poor evaluations contribute to two significant
consequences – the continued employment of ineffective teachers, and a lack of teacher growth.
Weisberg et al. (2009) found that tenured teachers who were rated ineffective in their evaluation
were rarely dismissed. Because low evaluation ratings have such little impact, teachers are less
motivated to reflect on the feedback given by administrators, and grow from it (Danielson &
McGreal, 2000). At the same time, effective teachers also lose motivation and incentive when
they observe their less effective colleagues getting similar ratings, which can be detrimental to
school culture as a whole (Donaldson, 2009).
Stumbo and McWalters (2011) found that teacher evaluations have gone through a recent
shift with respect to accountability. According to their research, the focus of accountability has
shifted from teacher inputs, such as level of education or years of experience, to teacher
29

effectiveness. Under the quality model of NCLB, teachers were rated by how well they knew
their content. More recently, federal programs, such as Race to the Top grant competition, have
shifted the focus of teacher evaluations to measuring effectiveness, and how well students
perform under the guidance of teachers (Stumbo & McWalters, 2011).
The shift from measuring teacher “quality” to measuring teacher “effectiveness” has led
to districts using new tools for measuring effectiveness. One such tool is the use of student
achievement scores in teacher evaluations. The federal Race to the Top grant funding
competition urged states to take into account student growth data as a significant factor in
evaluating teachers (Fuhrman, 2010). As a result, many states modified their teacher evaluation
systems to include student growth data as a factor in rating teachers. Some states weigh student
achievement data as much as 50% in rating teachers (Stumbo & McWalters, 2011).
However, some researchers have found that the “value-added model”, which incorporates
student growth data in evaluating teachers, is not accurate in determining teacher effectiveness
(Kane, Taylor, Tyler, & Wooten, 2010; Norman, 2010). One issue in using student achievement
data is selecting the right data. According to Norman (2010), many schools that use the value-
added model use standardized test scores as the primary source for determining student
achievement. However, the NEA (2010) argued that a single source of data cannot accurately
measure student achievement or student growth, as it relates to rating teachers. Many educators
suggest using multiple sources of data, such as school or district assessments, and student work,
in measuring student achievement. However, the criticism of using local data is the lack of
standardization across districts, and even within a school district.
30

Many educators are against tying student achievement and student growth scores to
teacher evaluations due to the external factors that influence test scores (Labaree, 2011).
According to Labaree (2011), many testing experts conclude that the value-added model has low
reliability and validity, and therefore should not be linked to teacher effect on student
achievement. Stumbo and McWalters (2011) similarly contend that standardized tests alone do
not provide enough data in accurately determining a teacher’s achievement.
One reason for this contention is that current testing practices make it almost impossible
to use the value-added model for teachers who teach a subject that is not tested. Donaldson
(2009), estimated that less than a quarter of teachers teach subjects or grades that are tested using
standardized tests. Another concern comes from the use of the value-added model in middle and
high school grades. These students have multiple teachers, and with an increasing focus on
cross-curricular education, even when a standardized test falls in one subject area, other teachers
may have contributed to the student’s score (Stumbo & McWalters, 2011).
Another complication in using the value-added model is that student assignment to
teachers is not randomized, and instead done carefully, with consideration of student and teacher
compatibility (Fuhrman, 2010). In order to use the value-added model for evaluating teachers,
students must be randomly assigned to teachers to ensure fairness. According to Kane et al.
(2010), if student assignment to teachers is not done randomly, the student data that measures
teacher effectiveness will most likely be distorted.
In recent years, many schools have responded to the criticisms of the teacher evaluation
system, and looked to broaden their approach to evaluating teachers (Weems & Rogers, 2010).
31

Other methods, such as peer evaluations, teacher portfolios, formative evaluations, student
feedback, and multiple evaluators, have been used.

Characteristics of Effective Evaluations
A well-designed teacher evaluation system can provide educators with meaningful
information in improving teaching practices, promote self-reflection, and facilitate conversations
between teachers and evaluators about effective teaching skills (Taylor & Tyler, 2012).
According to research, a well-designed teacher evaluation system has some common
characteristics – it is formative in nature, with a summative component, it facilitates a dialogue
between the evaluator and teacher, it is based on research based standards for effective teaching,
it uses multiple sources of data, as well as multiple assessors, and evaluations are conducted
multiple times during the school year.
The role of the principal in an effective teacher evaluation system is to serve as an
instructional leader, who provides meaningful feedback to teachers through a mutual dialogue, in
order to promote growth (Toch & Rothman, 2008). According to Donaldson (2009), the
effectiveness of formative evaluations is strengthened by the feedback given to teachers by
evaluators. Additionally, the opportunity to acquire new methods by receiving guidance from
administrators and peers in areas of growth is also essential (Weems & Rogers, 2010).
In order to create a dialogue around improvement, effective evaluations take place early
on in the year, and allow for the teacher to show growth, which is measured through another
evaluation near the end of the year (Donaldson & Donaldson, 2012). Effective evaluations also
help promote teacher growth through using evaluation data to create a culture of collaboration.
32

According to Saunders, Goldenberg, and Gallimore (2009) student achievement improved
steadily and consistently when principals used data from teacher evaluations to create
professional development opportunities using a collaborative, distributive leadership model.
Another characteristic of an effective teacher evaluation method is establishing clear
standards of teaching practices for conducting observations (Donaldson, 2009; Kane et al.,
2010). These standards for effective teaching practices must be research based, and covering
different domains, such as instruction, classroom environment, planning, and professionalism
(Kane et al., 2010). Teacher performance in the observation is measured using a standard set of
criteria, which is converted into a rubric for scoring (Donaldson, 2009).
One benefit of using a standards-based evaluation system is that teachers can be made
aware of the specific skills that they will be evaluated on. This can help teachers embed these
skills as part of their teaching practice, and in turn, increase student achievement through
utilizing strategies proven to be successful through research (Danielson, 2007). The common
understanding between evaluator and teacher could also lead to a mutual dialogue, and
collaboration around improving teaching practices. Having a clear set of standards in place
could lead to a greater acceptance of the evaluation scores, and therefore reducing defensiveness
(Milanowski & Heneman, 2001).
A study conducted by Wahlstrom and Louis (2008), of 4165 teachers across the United
States, found that utilizing multiple assessors in observing and evaluating teachers, including
teacher leaders, led to an improvement in instruction and student achievement. A shared
leadership model allows teacher leaders to provide instructional strategies in their specific
subject areas, since the principal cannot be an expert in all subjects (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008).
33

Having multiple assessors also allows for more frequent observations to take place. According
to Denner, Miller, Newsome, and Birdsong (2002), when classroom observations occur more
frequently, reliability improves. In addition, Toch and Rothman (2008) wrote that by including
multiple evaluators, the credibility of the overall evaluation increases.
The ultimate goal of teacher evaluations is to improve student achievement through
improving teacher quality (Danielson & McGreal, 2000). When an effective teacher evaluation
system is utilized, it allows for teachers to get meaningful feedback that is ongoing. This
feedback, which could come in the form of a dialogue with an administrator or peer, a
professional development opportunity, or a collaborative effort with multiple stakeholders, leads
to constant improvement of teaching practices, and in turn an improvement in student
achievement.

34

CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY

Introduction
The purpose of this study was to conduct a comparative analysis of teacher evaluation
systems utilized by public and charter school districts in Southern California. It analyzed the
similarities and differences between teacher evaluation systems used by public schools versus
charter schools. The comparative analysis focused on evaluation methods used by principals of
schools that have seen consistently increasing student achievement, and the
similarities/differences to methods used by principals of schools that have seen consistently
decreasing student achievement. More specifically, the study looked at how principals use
evaluations to promote teacher growth, and ultimately increase student achievement.
This chapter describes the research design, rationale for selecting the methodology,
rationale for selecting the participants, procedures for data collection, and issues of validity and
reliability. This study used a case study model (Creswell, 2009), and the analysis was conducted
by using Creswell’s Qualitative Data Analysis Procedures (Creswell, 2009) as well as the Fuzzy
Sets tool of the Qualitative Comparative Analysis design (Ragin, 1987; Ragin, 2000). To gain an
understanding of the teacher evaluation system in place at each school, and to examine how
principals use teacher evaluations to improve instruction and increase student achievement, the
following research questions were developed to guide the study:
1) What is the structure of the teacher evaluation system in place at each school in the
study?
35

2) Is the teacher evaluation system formative, focusing on improvement of teaching
practices, or summative, focusing on whether certain standards are being met?
3) What supports do principals provide for teachers who are deemed unsatisfactory in
their evaluation?
4) How do principals incentivize, encourage, and support teachers, who are meeting or
exceeding expectations, to continue growing as educators?

Research Design
There are two types of research design – quantitative and qualitative. A mixed methods
research design can also be used, which combines elements from quantitative and qualitative
methods (Creswell, 2009). Additionally, Maxwell (2013) wrote that research can either be
deductive or inductive.
Quantitative research, which is deductive in nature, is used to test an existing hypothesis
by examining the relationship between variables. Quantitative studies often use closed ended
question formats, such as surveys, checklists, and rating scales in order to measure variation,
predict causal relationships, and describe characteristics of a phenomena or population.
Typically, quantitative data is analyzed using statistical tools, and can often be generalized due to
statistically significant sample sizes (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009).
By contrast, qualitative research takes a holistic approach in understanding a particular
issue by taking into account the various contexts during which the experiences occur (Patton,
2002). This method seeks to access perception and meaning-making in order to understand,
describe, and explain social process from the perspective of study participants. The qualitative
36

method is inductive, thus it seeks to produce findings and develop theories that were not
determined in advance.
This study aimed to compare the different teacher evaluation methods used by traditional
and charter public schools in Southern California, and understand how principals use teacher
evaluation to promote student growth and increase student achievement. The research conducted
also sought to understand why principals utilized particular methods, and asked principals to
reflect on the effectiveness of these methods. Participants in this study were interviewed in their
natural setting, and were asked to provide detailed accounts of their practices in evaluating
teachers. Since qualitative research looks at experiences of the participants in their natural
setting (Creswell, 2003), and seeks to develop a deep understanding of the participants’
experiences (Patton, 2002), this study was conducted using qualitative research.
In-depth interviews were used as the primary instrument of data collection. Through the
interviews, the researcher was able to gain an understanding how principals use teacher
evaluations to promote growth. The answers provided by the participants provided an insight
into how principals promote the growth of teachers who are deemed unsatisfactory during their
evaluation, and of teachers who are meeting or exceeding expectations. In addition, the
interview answers provided understanding of the challenges that principals face in evaluating
teachers.
The data analysis process was conducted using the Qualitative Comparative Analysis
(QCA) framework. The QCA design, developed by Dr. Charles Ragin in 1987, provides a
systematic framework for organizing data collected from interviews, and for determining
combinations of factors that lead to a particular outcome (Ragin, 1987). The QCA design begins
37

by identifying the desired outcome (such as increased student achievement), and cases (in this
study, each school represented a case) that embody that outcome, referred to as the “positive”
cases. Based on the desired outcome, “negative” cases are also identified. These are defined as
cases which meet the criteria to qualify for the desired outcome, but fail to meet it. The
“positive” and “negative” cases together form the set of cases pertinent to the analysis (Ragin,
1987).
After the set of cases is identified, qualitative data is collected across multiple cases (a
minimum of 5 cases is recommended under the QCA guidelines), and patterns are developed to
identify factors (or combinations of factors) that help achieve the desired outcome, or,
conversely, the lack of attainment of an outcome (Jordan et al. 2011). This study used the Fuzzy
Sets tool to analyze data collected through interviews, as described by Ragin (2000). The Fuzzy
Sets tool creates a table in which each case is analyzed through the lens of each factor identified
through data collection. If the factor (for example, a pre-observation reflection by the teacher)
applies to the case, a score of “1” is assigned in the table. If not, a score of “0”is assigned. If the
factor partially applies to the case, a score of “0.5” is assigned in the table (Ragin, 2000). After
the table is completed, the comparative analysis process takes place by looking the similarities
and differences between factors that contribute to the “positive” as well as “negative” cases. In
this study, different components of teacher evaluation methods, as collected through the
interview process and document review process, were given a score of “0”, “0.5”, or “1” for each
school in the study.

38

Sample
After identifying the research topic, it is essential for the researcher to thoughtfully select
participants who have the knowledge, experience, and resources to contribute to the study
(Merriam, 2009). According to Merriam (2009), the two basic sampling types are probability
sampling and nonprobability sampling. Techniques of probability sampling, such as random
sampling, are used when attempting to generalize characteristics of a population by allowing
each individual in a population to have an equal chance of being selected. Probability sampling
is generally used in quantitative studies. Nonprobability sampling uses purposeful sample
selection, based on the information and knowledge that the researcher believes the participants
chosen for the study to provide. Since this study is a qualitative study, whose purpose is not to
generalize, the nonprobability sampling technique of purposeful selection was used to identify
the participants.
Since this study conducted a comparative analysis of teacher evaluation methods used in
both successful (as defined by increasing student achievement) and struggling (as defined by
decreasing student achievement) public and charter schools, eight schools in Southern California
were chosen, based on the following criteria:
1. Two of the eight schools are public charter schools, with evidence of increasing
student achievement (as determined by state test scores).
2. Two of the eight schools are public charter schools, with evidence of decreasing
student achievement (as determined by state test scores).
3. Two of the eight schools are traditional public schools, with evidence of increasing
student achievement (as determined by state test scores).
39

4. Two of the eight schools are traditional public schools, with evidence of decreasing
student achievement (as determined by state test scores).
5. Each school has a student population with at least 70% of students receiving free or
reduced lunch.
6. Willingness of the principal at each school to participate in the study.
The selection of the schools was purposeful, since conducting a comparative analysis
would require both “positive” and “negative” cases, with respect student achievement. Both
traditional public schools and charter schools were chosen, in order to compare the evaluation
methods utilized by each type of school. Each school was required to have a student population
with at least 70% of students receiving free or reduced lunch, in order to examine schools that
serve students with a low socioeconomic background.

Instrumentation
The researcher relied on semi-structured interviews, and review of documentation
(primarily teacher evaluation documents) prior to the interviews. According to Merriam (2009),
interviews are necessary when the researcher is not able to observe behavior, interpretation, or
feelings. Interviews were chosen as the primary tool for data collection, as it allowed the
researcher to gain an understanding of the methods used by principals to promote teacher
growth, student success, and the challenges surrounding the teacher evaluation process.
A semi-structured interview format (Merriam, 2009) was utilized to ensure that the questions
necessary to address the research topic were included in the interview, while allowing the
interviewer to have flexibility in asking follow-up or probing questions. Participants were
40

provided survey questions by the researcher through email prior to the date of the interview.
Allowing participants to review questions before the interview provided each participant the
chance to consider the various methods utilized for teacher evaluation, and reflect on the
challenges faced by the principal in evaluating teachers.

Data Collection
The data collection process for this study was as follows:
1) Review of teacher evaluation documents and procedures prior to the interview.
2) An in-depth interview with the principal of each school chosen for the study, using a
semi-structured interview format (Merriam, 2009).
After being granted permission by University of Southern California’s Institutional Review
Board to conduct the research, the researcher contacted principals of the selected schools through
email. The email described the purpose of the study, and asked whether the principal would be
willing to participate in the study by providing teacher evaluation documents used at the site, and
by allowing the researcher to interview him/her for approximately 60 minutes. After the
principal agreed to participate in the study, the research provided him/her with the four research
questions through email, and set up an appointment with the principal directly, or through the
principal’s secretary.
The interviews were conducted in person, using a semi-structured format (Merriam,
2009) and lasted approximately 10 minutes. With permission from the principal, the interviews
were recorded with an iPhone, and transcribed professionally. Hand-written notes were also
taken during the interview. Both the recorded interviews and hand-written notes were labeled
41

using a pseudonym to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the schools and principals in the
study. The recorded interviews were stored on a password protected laptop computer, and were
deleted after the transcription process was completed. The hand-written notes were stored in a
locked cabinet.

Data Analysis
The data analysis process used Creswell’s six-step framework (Creswell, 2009), as well
as the Fuzzy Set tool (Ragin, 2000). First, the raw data was transcribed professionally, and
teacher evaluation documents from each school were filed with the interview transcripts.
Second, the researcher read through the transcripts and teacher evaluation documents in detail to
gain an overview of the data, and develop general impressions. Third, the researcher organized
the data from both documents and interview transcripts into different aspects of the teacher
evaluation system. Fourth, a coding system was used to label the data to represent each research
question. Fifth, specific themes were identified for each research question. Sixth, the themes
were organized and interpreted using the Fuzzy Set tool (Ragin, 2010).
In order to conduct a comparative analysis of the different schools represented in the
study, a table was created with each component of teacher evaluation systems, as well as major
themes developed from interviews. Each school was given a “0” if the school did not utilize a
particular component in the teacher evaluation process, a “1” if the school did utilize a particular
component in the teacher evaluation process, and a “0.5” if the school partially utilized a
particular component in the teacher evaluation process. This table allowed the researcher to find
patterns between successful schools, as well as struggling schools, by assigning a numerical
42

value to each component of the teacher evaluation system. Common themes were identified in
schools with increasing student achievement, as well as in schools with decreasing student
achievement.

Validity and Reliability
In order to ensure validity, the recommendations of Taylor and Bogdam (1984) were used
by the researcher to establish interview guidelines. The researcher’s purpose, and the study’s
purpose was clearly described to the participants. The participants were referred to using
pseudonyms in order to protect their privacy and confidentiality. The researcher did not offer
any payment or incentives to participate in the interview. The time and place of each interview
was determined according the availability and convenience of the participants.
While the primary data collection method of the study was participant interviews, the
study also examined and compared teacher evaluation documents from each school in order to
triangulate the information provided by the participants.

Ethical Considerations
The researcher placed high importance in conducting this study ethically, while designing
the study and collecting data. The study was approved by University of Southern California’s
Institutional Review Board, and observed all guidelines for conducting research on human
subjects. Audio interviews of participants were secured on a password protected laptop, and not
accessed by anyone other than the researcher. All participants were referred to using a
pseudonym to protect their identity. Each school was assigned a pseudonym in order to protect
43

the school’s integrity and reputation. Each participant was aware of the purpose of the study,
and consented to being interviewed.

44

CHAPTER FOUR

FINDINGS

Introduction
The purpose of this study was threefold. First, the study was designed to examine the
similarities and differences between teacher evaluation methods used by public versus charter
schools in Southern California. Second, the study sought to understand whether principals used
teacher evaluations to promote teacher growth, and if so, which strategies were used. Third, the
study was designed to examine whether there are similarities or differences between teacher
evaluation methods used by schools with increasing versus decreasing student achievement.
Four research questions guided the study:
1) What is the structure of the teacher evaluation system in place at each school in the
study?
2) Is the teacher evaluation system formative, focusing on improvement of teaching
practices, or summative, focusing on whether certain standards are being met?
3) What supports do principals provide for teachers who are deemed unsatisfactory in
their evaluation?
4) How do principals incentivize, encourage, and support teachers, who are meeting or
exceeding expectations, to continue growing as educators?
This chapter begins by providing an overview of the demographic information of each
principal, school, and school district. It then goes on to present the findings of the study,
organized by each of the four research questions. Further qualitative analyses is provided using
45

the Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) framework, and the Fuzzy Sets tool (Ragin, 1987;
Ragin, 2000).

The Participants
Eight high school principals in Southern California participated in the study. Four of the
principals were traditional public school principals, and four the principals were charter school
principals. In each of the categories (public and charter schools), two principals led schools with
increasing student achievement, and two principals led schools with decreasing student
achievement. The participants are identified in this chapter by pseudonyms in order to protect
their identity and the identity of their districts. At times, identifiers and descriptions of the
principals and districts are vague to avoid associations through deduction.
Principal Arteaga is the principal of a large urban public high school, Public School A,
with a student population of approximately 2000 students. The school serves a largely minority
population, with over 80% of students participating in the free or reduced-price lunch program.
According to The California Department of Education, students at Public School A scored far
below the state averages for English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics. The Academic
Performance Index (API) score of Public School A declined consistently from 2011 – 2013.
Public School A is one of over 60 schools in a large urban school district, with a student
population of over 50,000 students.
Principal Bradley is the principal of a large urban public high school, Public School B,
with a student population of approximately 2000 students. The school serves a largely minority
population, with over 90% of students participating in the free or reduced-price lunch program.
46

According to The California Department of Education, students at Public School B scored higher
than the state average for ELA, but lower than the state average for Mathematics. The API score
of Public School B declined consistently from 2011 – 2013. Public School B is one of over 60
schools in a large urban school district, with a student population of over 40,000 students.
Principal Cotter is the principal of a large urban public high school, Public School C,
with a student population of approximately 2000 students. The school serves a largely minority
population, with over 70% of students participating in the free or reduced-price lunch program.
According to The California Department of Education, students at Public School C scored higher
than the state average for ELA, but lower than the state average for Mathematics. The API score
of Public School C increased consistently from 2011 – 2013. Public School C is one of fewer
than 10 schools in a medium sized urban school district, with a student population of over 10,000
students.
Principal Davis is the principal of a large urban public high school, Public School D, with
a student population of over 3000 students. The school serves a largely minority population,
with approximately 90% of students participating in the free or reduced-price lunch program.
According to The California Department of Education, students at Public School C scored lower
than the state average for ELA, and significantly lower than the state average for Mathematics.
The API score of Public School D increased consistently from 2011 – 2013. Public School D is
one of more than 30 schools in a medium sized urban school district, with a student population of
over 30,000 students.
Principal Abbott is the principal of a small charter high school, Charter School A, with a
student population of over 400 students. The school serves a largely minority population, with
47

over 90% of students participating in the free or reduced-price lunch program. According to The
California Department of Education, students at Charter School A scored below the state average
for ELA and far below the state average for Mathematics. The API score of Charter School A
declined consistently from 2011 – 2013. Charter School A is one of fewer than 10 schools in an
independent charter district, with a student population of under 4,000 students.
Principal Burns is the principal of a large charter high school, Charter School B, with a
student population of approximately 2000 students. The school serves a largely minority
population, with approximately 70% of students participating in the free or reduced-price lunch
program. According to The California Department of Education, students at Charter School B
scored below the state average for ELA and far below the state average for Mathematics. The
API score of Charter School B declined consistently from 2011 – 2013. Charter School B is one
of 187 schools chartered through the Los Angeles Unified School District.
Principal Chavez is the principal of a small charter high school, Charter School C, with a
student population of over 300 students. The school serves a largely minority population, with
over 80% of students participating in the free or reduced-price lunch program. According to The
California Department of Education, students at Charter School C scored far above the state
average for ELA and Mathematics. The API score of Charter School C increased consistently
from 2011 – 2013. Charter School C is chartered through a large public school district, with a
student population of over 50,000 students.
Principal Day is the principal of a small charter high school, Charter School D, with a
student population of over 300 students. The school serves a largely minority population, with
over 90% of students participating in the free or reduced-price lunch program. According to The
48

California Department of Education, students at Charter School D scored below the state average
for ELA and far below the state average for Mathematics. The API score of Charter School D
increased consistently from 2011 – 2013. Charter School D is one of over 20 charter schools in
an independent charter district, with a student population of over 10,000 students.

Research Question One
What is the structure of the teacher evaluation system in place at each school in the
study?
Public School A
According to Principal Arteaga, the purpose of teacher evaluations at Public School A is
to improve teacher instruction. Each evaluation is based on the following six standards:
1.0 Engages and supports all students in learning.
2.0 Creates and maintains an effective learning environment for all students.
3.0 Understands and organizes subject matter for student learning.
4.0 Plans instruction and designs learning, experiences for all students.
5.0 Assesses student learning.
6.0 Develops as a professional educator.
Probationary teachers are evaluated each year on all six standards. Permanent teachers are able
to choose from three of the first five standards to be evaluated on, and are also evaluated on
standard six. Permanent teachers who have received two consecutive “satisfactory” reviews are
eligible to be evaluated once every five years upon request.
49

Whether probationary or permanent, each teacher is able to specify a date and time to be
observed, based on the evaluator’s schedule. A pre-observation conference is held between the
teacher and administrator in order to discuss the purpose, format of the evaluation, evaluation
standards, and elements to be observed during the evaluation. At most three days before the
observation, the teacher being evaluated is required to submit a lesson plan to the evaluator. The
length of a formal observation ranges from 15 to 60 minutes. According to Principal Arteaga,
evaluations for tenured teachers tend to last for 15 – 30 minutes, whereas evaluations for
probationary teachers tend to last for 30 – 45 minutes. Both probationary and permanent
teachers typically have one formal observation per year. Another observation can be required if
a teacher is marked “unsatisfactory” for three or more standards.
The administrator is required to submit a formal written report to the teacher evaluated
within five days of the evaluation. A post-observation conference is to be held within ten days of
the formal evaluation to discuss the observation and/or report. If the observation discloses in
writing specific elements in which improvement is needed, the evaluator provides specific
written suggestions and offers positive district assistance aimed at achieving the needed
improvement.
Administrators may conduct informal “walk-throughs” during the school year with
reasonable frequency. Areas of concern may be brought to a teacher’s attention, but may not be
included in the formal evaluation or included in the teacher’s personnel file. According to Mr.
Arteaga, administrators almost never conduct informal observations due to the numerous
responsibilities of running a large school.

50

Public School B
According to Principal Bradley, the purpose of teacher evaluations at Public School B is
to assess and improve teacher quality. Each evaluation is based on the following eight standards:
1. Management of instructional time.
2. Instructional strategies.
3. Instructional presentation.
4. Appropriate Curriculum.
5. Management of student behavior.
6. Management of classroom environment.
7. Instructional monitoring.
8. Instructional feedback.
Probationary teachers have two unscheduled observations, and one scheduled observation each
year. Permanent teachers are able to choose between two unscheduled observations or one
scheduled observation. Permanent teachers who have between three to ten years of experience
are evaluated once every two years. Permanent teachers who have over ten years of experience
are evaluated once every five years.
Temporary teachers, who are required to have a scheduled evaluation, and permanent
teachers who choose to have a scheduled evaluation, are able to choose the date and time of the
evaluation, based on the administrator’s availability. A pre-observation conference for
scheduled observations is optional, and is held if requested by either the teacher or administrator.
The purpose of the pre-observation conference is to discuss the lesson which will be presented
during the observation. The teacher may submit a written lesson plan prior to the observation,
51

but is not required to. The length of unscheduled observations ranges from 15 to 30 minutes, and
of scheduled observations between 30 – 50 minutes.
The administrator is required to submit a formal observation report to the teacher
evaluated within five days of the evaluation, for both scheduled and unscheduled observations.
A post-observation conference is to be held within ten days of the scheduled or unscheduled
evaluation to discuss the observation and/or report. Each observation report must include
commendations and/or recommendations for areas needed improvement. Areas needing
improvement must be accompanied by specific recommendations for improvement, such as
opportunities to observe other teachers, mandated professional development, or district led
assistance programs.
A final end of the year evaluation is submitted as the formal evaluation document to be
placed in a teacher’s personnel file. Any area of improvement noted in a previous observation
that has since been corrected is not to be included in the final evaluation. If an area of
improvement still exists, a formal written plan for improvement must be presented to the teacher.

Public School C
According to Principal Cotter, the purpose of teacher evaluation at Public School C is to
create a collaboration between administrators and teachers to facilitate growth and ensure student
success. Each evaluation is based on the following six standards and their sub-standards:
1. Engaging and supporting all students in learning.
a) Connecting students’ prior knowledge, life experience, and interests with learning
goals.
52

b) Using a variety of instructional strategies and resources to respond to students’
diverse needs.
c) Facilitating learning experiences that promote autonomy, interaction, and choice.
d) Engaging students in problem solving, critical thinking, and other activities that
make subject matter meaningful.
e) Promoting self-directed, reflective learning for all students.
2. Creating and maintaining effective environments for student learning.
a) Creating a physical environment that engages all students.
b) Establishing a climate that promotes fairness and respect.
c) Promoting social development and group responsibility.
d) Establishing and maintaining standards for student behavior.
e) Planning and implementing classroom procedures and routines that support
student learning.
f) Using instructional time effectively.
3. Understanding and organizing subject matter for student learning.
a) Demonstrating knowledge of subject matter content and student development.
b) Organizing curriculum to support student understanding of subject matter.
c) Interrelating ideas and information within and across subject matter areas.
d) Developing student understanding through instructional strategies that are
appropriate to the subject matter.
e) Using materials, resources, and technologies to make subject matter accessible to
students.
53

4. Planning instruction and designing learning experiences for all students.
a) Drawing on and valuing students’ backgrounds, interests, and developmental
learning needs.
b) Establishing and articulating goals for student learning.
c) Developing and sequencing instructional activities and materials for student
earning.
d) Designing short-term and long-term plans to foster student learning.
e) Modifying instructional plans to adjust for student need.
5. Assessing student learning.
a) Establishing and communicating learning goals for all students.
b) Collecting and using multiple sources of information to assess student learning.
c) Involving and guiding all students in assessing their own learning.
d) Using the results of assessments to guide instruction.
e) Communicating with students, families, and other audiences about student
progress.
6. Developing as a professional educator.
a) Reflecting on teaching practice and planning professional development.
b) Establishing professional goals and pursuing opportunities to grow professionally.
c) Working with communities to improve professional practice.
d) Working with families to improve professional practice.
e) Working with colleagues to improve professional practice.
f) Balancing professional responsibility and maintaining motivation.
54

Probationary teachers are evaluated twice each year, and permanent teacher are evaluated once
every two years. Permanent teachers are observed informally at least once a year, in addition to
a formal observation. Probationary employees are evaluated by three evaluators. Permanent
employees are be evaluated by at least two evaluators. It is recommended that the evaluators
conduct observations on different days.
During the first four school weeks of a semester, the evaluating administrator(s) must
meet with the teacher to be evaluated for the purpose of explaining, interpreting and discussing
the evaluation process and procedures, as well as district and school level goals and objectives.
During this meeting, the teacher is made aware of the administrators that will be evaluating
him/her. The evaluatee will identify professional growth goals for the upcoming semester,
which will serve as a focus for the formal observation. The evaluatee is also required to submit a
written lesson plan, specific class characteristics, and other relevant facts either prior to or after
the observation.
Each administrator must submit a formal written report to the teacher evaluated within
five days of the observation. Teachers who receive a satisfactory rating are given feedback or
asked probing questions, geared towards improving in specific subcategories. Teachers who
receive unsatisfactory written evaluations are given guidance in an effort to improve areas of
weakness. The administrator may structure a specific program of improvement, which could
include direct assistance from the administrator or another permanent teacher, professional
development opportunities, released time for observation of other classes, frequent observations,
or regular conferences with an administrator. Any teacher placed on an improvement program
55

must be evaluated after a reasonable amount of time to determine whether the areas of
improvement were successfully met.

Public School D
According to Principal Davis, the purpose of teacher evaluation at Public School D is to
facilitate the continuous improvement of the evaluatee’s teaching practice. Each evaluation is
based on the following six standards:
1. Engages and supports all students in learning.
2. Creates and maintains an effective learning environment for all students.
3. Understands and organizes subject matter for student learning.
4. Plans instruction and designs learning, experiences for all students.
5. Assesses student learning.
6. Develops as a professional educator.
Probationary teachers are evaluated each year. Permanent teachers are evaluated once every two
years. Improving teachers, who have received an unsatisfactory evaluation the prior school year,
are evaluated four times each year. Each teacher has at least one informal evaluation per year, in
which administrators specifically look for implementation of new strategies and growth.
Whether probationary or permanent, each teacher is able to specify a date and time to be
observed, based on the evaluator’s schedule. A preliminary evaluation conference is held
between the teacher and administrator in order to discuss the purpose and goals of the evaluation,
as well as specific examples of expected performance in each standard. Prior to the preliminary
evaluation conference, teachers are required to reflect on the following questions:
56

1. How do I engage students in learning?
2. How do I create a learning environment that is conducive to learning?
3. How do I analyze my teaching to understand what contributes to student learning?
4. How am I sure that my students have mastered the learning objective for the lesson?
5. How do I assess student learning?
6. What intervention strategies do I use with struggling students?
7. What activities contribute to my professional growth?
The administrator and teacher discuss each of the reflective questions in order to give both the
teacher and administrator focus for the observation.
The administrator is required to submit a written observation report to the evaluatee
within five days of the evaluation. A post-observation conference is to be held within ten days of
the formal evaluation to discuss the observation and/or report. During the post-observation
conference, each of the questions listed above is used as a basis for a guided discussion, and the
teacher is asked to reflect upon whether there was evidence of each of the five instructional
standards being met. The evaluator then discusses whether he/she saw satisfactory evidence of
each of the five instructional standards during the observation. If improvement is needed, the
evaluator provides a written document with a specific plan of action, which may include
additional meetings with an administrator or experienced teacher, professional development, or a
district led peer assistance and review program.

57

Charter School A
According to Principal Abbott, the purpose of teacher evaluation at Charter School A is
to encourage self-reflection in teaching practices, and improve student achievement. Each
evaluation is based on the following six standards:
1. Engaging and supporting all students in learning.
a) Connecting students’ prior knowledge, life experience, and interests with learning
goals.
b) Using a variety of instructional strategies and resources to respond to students’
diverse needs.
c) Facilitating learning experiences that promote autonomy, interaction, and choice.
d) Engaging students in problem solving, critical thinking, and other activities that
make subject matter meaningful.
e) Promoting self-directed, reflective learning for all students.
2. Creating and maintaining effective environments for student learning.
a) Creating a physical environment that engages all students.
b) Establishing a climate that promotes fairness and respect.
c) Promoting social development and group responsibility.
d) Establishing and maintaining standards for student behavior.
e) Planning and implementing classroom procedures and routines that support
student learning.
f) Using instructional time effectively.

58

3. Understanding and organizing subject matter for student learning.
a) Demonstrating knowledge of subject matter content and student development.
b) Organizing curriculum to support student understanding of subject matter.
c) Interrelating ideas and information within and across subject matter areas.
d) Developing student understanding through instructional strategies that are
appropriate to the subject matter.
e) Using materials, resources, and technologies to make subject matter accessible to
students.
4. Planning instruction and designing learning experiences for all students.
a) Drawing on and valuing students’ backgrounds, interests, and developmental
learning needs.
b) Establishing and articulating goals for student learning.
c) Developing and sequencing instructional activities and materials for student
learning.
d) Designing short-term and long-term plans to foster student learning.
e) Modifying instructional plans to adjust for student need.
5. Assessing student learning.
a) Establishing and communicating learning goals for all students.
b) Collecting and using multiple sources of information to assess student learning.
c) Involving and guiding all students in assessing their own learning.
d) Using the results of assessments to guide instruction.
e) Communicating with students, families, and other audiences about student
59

progress.
6. Developing as a professional educator.
a) Reflecting on teaching practice and planning professional development.
b) Establishing professional goals and pursuing opportunities to grow professionally.
c) Working with communities to improve professional practice.
d) Working with families to improve professional practice.
e) Working with colleagues to improve professional practice.
f) Balancing professional responsibility and maintaining motivation.
All teachers, regardless of years of experience, are evaluated annually. A beginning of the year
conference is held between each teacher and his/her administrative coach/evaluator. During this
conference, each teacher reflects and sets goals for the remainder of the year. The goals must be
based on one of the six standards listed above, and can include subcategories. The administrator
conducts informal walk-through once a month in order to observe progress towards the stated
goal. If anything of concern is seen during the walk-through, the administrator holds an informal
conference with the teacher observed. During this informal conference, steps towards improving
the area of concern are discussed.
A formal evaluation takes place during the second semester. Each teacher is able to
specify a date and time to be observed for the formal evaluation, based on the evaluator’s
schedule. A pre-observation conference is held between the teacher and administrator in order to
discuss notes from any informal evaluations prior to the formal evaluation, and to create a lesson
plan for the formal evaluation. Each formal observations lasts for approximately 50 minutes.
60

The administrator rates the evaluatee on a tiered scale for each of the six standards. The scale is
as follows:
Level One: Does not meet standard.
Level Two: Approaching standard.
Level Three: Meets standard.
Level Four: Exceeds standard.
A post-observation conference is held within five days of the evaluation in order to discuss the
progress of the teacher in each of the six standards. Any teacher who scores a ‘Level One’ or
‘Level Two’ on any standard is required to meet weekly with the administrative coach in order to
collaboratively learn strategies to improve towards meeting the standard. Other than weekly
meetings with the administrator, teachers may be asked to observe other teachers within the
school. However, no district led programs or outside professional development is offered. After
a reasonable amount of coaching, the administrator is required to conduct another formal
observation, focusing specifically on the standard(s) in which improvement is needed.

Charter School B
According to Principal Burns, the purpose of teacher evaluation at Charter School B is to ensure
that teachers are providing a quality instruction to students. Each evaluation is based on the
following five standards and sub-standards:
1.0 Planning and preparation.
a) Awareness of students’ skills, knowledge, and language proficiency.
b) Standards based learning activities.
61

c) Planning assessment criteria.
2.0 The classroom environment.
a) Classroom climate.
b) Management of routines, procedures, and transitions.
c) Monitoring and responding to student behavior.
3.0 Delivery of instruction.
a) Communicating the purpose of the lesson.
b) Use of academic language.
c) Quality and purpose of questions.
d) Discussion techniques and student participation.
e) Standards based projects, activities, and assignments.
f) Purposeful and productive instructional groups.
g) Feedback to students.
4.0 Additional professional responsibilities.
a) Engagement of families in instructional program.
5.0 Professional growth.
a) Use of reflection to inform future instruction.
b) Promoting a culture of professional inquiry and collaboration.
New teachers are evaluated annually, and tenured teachers have the option of being evaluated
once every three to five years (at the discretion of the evaluating administrator). The evaluation
process begins with the evaluatee completing an online self-assessment, in which the teacher
rates him/herself as “ineffective”, “developing”, or “effective”. Using the results of the self-
62

assessment, along with student achievement data (if available from the previous year), the
evaluatee completes a self-reflection online. After completing the self-reflection online, the
evaluatee then completes an Initial Planning Sheet (IPS). The IPS asks the evaluatee to identify
an instructional growth objective, a professional growth objective, and a data-based objective.
The evaluatee may also opt to identify an additional teacher identified growth objective, although
it is not required. The evaluating administrator may also identify an additional administrator
identified growth objective, although it is also not required. Each of the identified growth
objectives must have a focus element, strategies that might help achieve the objective, and
specific action steps the teacher will take in order to implement the strategies. After submitting
the IPS online, the evaluating administrator either approves the IPS, or responds electronically
with feedback or to request changes.
Administrators may choose to informally observe a teacher in order to provide feedback
prior to the formal evaluation. A pre-observation conference takes place at most three days
before the formal evaluation to discuss the format and purpose of the evaluation. The evaluatee
is able to choose a date and time to be observed, based on the evaluator’s schedule. During the
evaluation, the administrator is required to script everything that is said by either the teacher or
any student. After the observation, the administrator is required to link parts of the script to one
of the evaluation standards as evidence of meeting (or not meeting) the standard. The
administrator rates the evalutee either “ineffective”, “developing” or “effective” for each
standard. If a teacher is rated “ineffective” in any standard, the administrator may refer the
teacher to classes offered by the district or the United Teachers Los Angeles union. After
completion of the course(s), the administrator is required to complete another formal evaluation.
63

If the teacher is still rated as ineffective, the teacher may be referred to a peer assistance and
review program offered through the district, or may be observed by district personnel to validate
the administrator’s rating. Most of the support for teachers needing improvement comes from
outside the school, through either district/union classes or through a peer assistance and review
program.

Charter School C
According to Principal Chavez, the purpose of teacher evaluation at Charter School C is
to begin a dialogue with the purpose of fostering teacher growth and student achievement.
Charter School C is chartered through a large public school district, and therefore uses the
district’s evaluation procedures and forms. However, according to Principal Chavez, every
teacher is evaluated informally, and on a continuous basis. Although these informal evaluations
and meetings are not included in a teacher’s personnel file, they are the most effective tool in
improving teaching practices.
Each evaluation is based on the following six standards and their sub-standards:
1. Engaging and supporting all students in learning.
a) Connecting students’ prior knowledge, life experience, and interests with learning
goals.
b) Using a variety of instructional strategies and resources to respond to students’
diverse needs
c) Facilitating learning experiences that promote autonomy, interaction, and choice.
64

d) Engaging students in problem solving, critical thinking, and other activities that
make subject matter meaningful.
e) Promoting self-directed, reflective learning for all students.
2. Creating and maintaining effective environments for student learning.
a) Creating a physical environment that engages all students.
b) Establishing a climate that promotes fairness and respect.
c) Promoting social development and group responsibility.
d) Establishing and maintaining standards for student behavior.
e) Planning and implementing classroom procedures and routines that support
student learning
f) Using instructional time effectively.
3. Understanding and organizing subject matter for student learning.
a) Demonstrating knowledge of subject matter content and student development.
b) Organizing curriculum to support student understanding of subject matter.
c) Interrelating ideas and information within and across subject matter areas.
d) Developing student understanding through instructional strategies that are
appropriate to the subject matter.
e) Using materials, resources, and technologies to make subject matter accessible to
students.
4. Planning instruction and designing learning experiences for all students.
a) Drawing on and valuing students’ backgrounds, interests, and developmental
learning needs.
65

b) Establishing and articulating goals for student learning.
c) Developing and sequencing instructional activities and materials for student
learning.
d) Designing short-term and long-term plans to foster student learning.
e) Modifying instructional plans to adjust for student need.
5. Assessing student learning.
a) Establishing and communicating learning goals for all students.
b) Collecting and using multiple sources of information to assess student learning.
c) Involving and guiding all students in assessing their own learning.
d) Using the results of assessments to guide instruction.
e) Communicating with students, families, and other audiences about student
progress.
6. Developing as a professional educator.
a) Reflecting on teaching practice and planning professional development.
b) Establishing professional goals and pursuing opportunities to grow professionally.
c) Working with communities to improve professional practice.
d) Working with families to improve professional practice.
e) Working with colleagues to improve professional practice.
f) Balancing professional responsibility and maintaining motivation.
Probationary teachers are evaluated each year on all six standards. Permanent teachers
are able to choose from three of the first five standards to be evaluated on, and are also evaluated
66

on standard six. Permanent teachers who have received two consecutive “satisfactory” reviews
are eligible to be evaluated once every five years upon request.
Whether probationary or permanent, each teacher is able to specify a date and time to be
observed, based on the evaluator’s schedule. A pre-observation conference is held between the
teacher and administrator in order to discuss the purpose, format of the evaluation, evaluation
standards, and elements to be observed during the evaluation. During the pre-observation
conference, Principal Chavez stresses the importance of seeing evidence of each subcategory
within a standard during the formal evaluation. At most three days before the observation, the
teacher being evaluated is required to submit a lesson plan to the evaluator.
The administrator is required to submit a formal written report to the teacher evaluated
within five days of the evaluation. A post-observation conference is to be held within ten days of
the formal evaluation to discuss the observation and/or report. If the observation discloses in
writing specific elements in which improvement is needed, the evaluator provides specific
written suggestions and offer positive district assistance aimed at achieving the needed
improvement.
Although formal evaluations are one tool to improve teaching practices, Principal Chavez
states that it is a mere formality, and that much of the real work is done on an ongoing basis,
through informal meetings and observations. Each teacher is assigned an administrator, who
serves as the academic coach, as well as evaluator. Bi-monthly meetings are scheduled during
each teacher’s conference period between the teacher and his/her academic coach. During these
meetings, the teacher and coach collaboratively choose a standard (and sub-standards) to focus
on for the month, and create lesson plans that focus on the chosen standard(s). The academic
67

coach then informally observes the lessons as they are presented to students. A debrief of the
informal observation takes place at the next bi-monthly meeting. These ongoing coaching
meetings result in constant reflection and growth in teaching practices.

Charter School D
According to Principal Day, the purpose of teacher evaluations at Charter School D is to
promote self-efficacy, self-reflection, and collaboratively discuss strategies to improve teaching
practices. Each evaluation is based on The College Ready Promise (TCRP) framework, which is
completed in three stages. TCRP is based on the following domains and subcategories:
Domain 1: Data-Driven Planning and Assessment
1.1 Establish standards-based learning objectives for instructional plans.
1.2 Organize instructional plans to promote standards-based, cognitively
engaging learning for students.
1.3 Use student data to guide planning.
1.4 Use knowledge of subject matter content/skills and learning processes to
plan for student learning.
1.5 Design assessments to ensure student mastery.
Domain 2: Classroom Learning Environment
2.1 Create a classroom/community culture of learning.
2.2 Manage student behavior through clear expectations and a balance of
positive reinforcement, feedback, and redirection.
2.3 Establish a culture of respect and rapport which supports students’
68

emotional safety.
2.4 Use smooth and efficient transitions, routines, and procedures to maintain
instructional momentum.
Domain 3: Instruction
3.1 Communicate learning objectives to students.
3.2 Facilitate Instructional Cycle.
3.3 Implement instructional strategies.
Domain 4: Assessment and Data Driven Instruction
4.1 Engage in critical reflection, constantly revising practice to increase
effectiveness.
4.2 Engage in collaborative relationships with peers to learn and share best
practices and ensure continuity in student learning.
4.3 Uphold and exhibit the district norms and expectations.
4.4 Develop two-way communication with families about student learning and
achievement.
Each teacher is evaluated twice a year, regardless of years of experience. The evaluation process
is completed in three stages.
In the first stage, the evaluatee prepares a lesson plan for the lesson that will be presented
during the formal observation. This lesson plan is uploaded online, and becomes a working
document that can be edited by the administrator or the teacher. The evaluator looks for
evidence of Domain 1 and Domain 3, as well as their subcategories. If the lesson plan does not
reflect aspects of Domain 1 and Domain 3, the evaluator makes recommendations, and asks the
69

teacher for an updated lesson plan. The second part of the first stage is a pre-observation
conference. During the pre-observation conference, the teacher is asked to present evidence of
the subcategories of Domain 1 and Domain 3. The administrator and teacher collaboratively
discuss the lesson plan, and make any necessary changes.
In the second stage, the administrator observes the lesson that was presented in the first
stage. During the observation, the administrator collects evidence of each of the domains and
their subcategories being met (or not met), and uses focused scripting to capture what is said by
the teacher, as well as students. Immediately after the observation, the evaluator links different
parts of the lesson to an applicable domain and its subcategories. The evaluator scores the
teacher on a scale ranging from Level One (not meeting expectations) to Level Four (exceeding
expectations).
Prior to the third stage, the evaluatee collects student work from the observed lesson,
grades the student work, and completes a self-reflection that includes perceived strengths and
areas of improvement of the lesson, analysis of student work, and any insight gained. After
completing a self-reflection, the teacher rates him/herself on each of the subcategories in each
domain.
In stage three, a post-observation meeting is held between the teacher and administrator.
During the post-observation meeting, the teacher and administrator reflect on the lesson, review
student work, and the teacher shares his/her self-rating. The self-rating in each category is
compared with the administrator’s rating of the teacher, and the administrator present evidence to
justify the rating in each category. If there is a discrepancy between the teacher’s self-rating, and
the rating given by the administrator, both the administrator and teacher is able to present
70

evidence to justify the score. The post-observation meeting is concluded by collaboratively
discussing next steps, suggestions for future lessons, and areas of concern. This discussion is
then summarized in a Professional Growth Plan, which includes specific actions to be taken by
the teacher, resources that the administrator will provide to help complete these actions, and a
target date of completion. If a rating of Level One or Level Two is given in any domain, the
administrator is required to provide a comprehensive support plan, which could include ongoing
observations and meetings with an administrator, professional reading, appropriate website for
the area of concern, outside workshop or conference, observation of a peer, demonstration lesson
by an experienced teacher in the teacher’s classroom.

Summary
A review of the teacher evaluation systems within public schools in this study established
that all four of the public schools shared three common characteristics – probationary teachers
were evaluated annually, tenured teachers had the option of being evaluated once every three to
five years, and teachers were evaluated using a binary rating scale.
According to Toch and Rothman (2008), it is essential that principals conduct ongoing
formative evaluations to determine areas in which individual teachers need support, in order to
facilitate growth amongst teachers. Research by Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom
(2004) found that that principals, as instructional leaders, must work with teachers in order to
increase their capacity as educators, and help them grow their practice by providing professional
development opportunities and support. However, since most tenured teachers were evaluated
once every three to five years, they were not given the opportunity to meet with an administrator
71

to receive feedback and suggestions in improving teaching practices. In addition, all four of the
public school principals in the study stated that tenured teachers were observed for a much
shorter length of time than probationary teachers. This is supported by Kersten and Israel
(2005), who found that many principals reported being overwhelmed by the number of
evaluations they needed to complete, and thus did not spend as much time on evaluations of
tenured teachers.
Although none of the public schools in the study practiced ongoing formative
evaluations, teacher evaluation systems at the two successful schools (as defined by increasing
student achievement scores) were formative in nature. The successful public schools in the study
required teachers to reflect on their teaching practices, and identify areas of growth, as well as
strategies to achieve growth. Both schools conducted annual informal evaluations of tenured
teachers, and asked teachers to reflect on their growth over the past year.
The two struggling public schools in the study (as defined by declining student
achievement scores) did not provide ongoing support to teachers who were rated unsatisfactory
in specific evaluation standards, or in the overall evaluation. In contrast, the two successful
public schools in the study both required ongoing meeting with an administrator, along with
frequent observations for teachers who were rated unsatisfactory in their evaluations. A study by
Abbott and McKnight (2010) found that administrators who frequently visited classrooms for
observations, and collaborated with teachers for ongoing feedback, positively influenced
teaching practices of improving teachers.
A review of the teacher evaluation systems within charter schools in this study
established that all four of the public schools in the study shared three common characteristics –
72

evaluators looked for evidence of subcategories within standards, teachers were evaluated using
a multi-tiered rating scale, and the evaluation system was formative. In addition, three of the
four charter schools evaluated both probationary and permanent teachers multiple times during
the school year, each teacher was required to identify professional growth goals and was
provided a professional growth plan from the administrator (regardless of his/her evaluation
rating), and improving teachers regularly met with an administrator to improve teaching
practices.
One characteristic of an effective teacher evaluation system is establishing clear
standards of teaching practices for conducting observations (Donaldson, 2009; Kane et al.,
2010). All four charter schools listed subcategories within each evaluation standard, which
detailed specific teaching strategies and approaches that are proven to be successful. When
teachers are made aware of the specific skills that they will be evaluated on, they can embed
these skills as part of their teaching practice, and in turn, increase student achievement through
utilizing strategies proven to be successful through research (Danielson, 2007).
Another characteristic of an effective teacher evaluation system is the use of a multi-tier
rating scale (Barton, 2010). Research has shown that a vast majority of teachers receive a
satisfactory rating when evaluated using a binary scale, thus leaving little opportunity for
professional growth (Reeder, 2005; Tucker, 1997). All four charter schools in the study use a
four tier rating scale, which allowed administrators to specify areas of growth for teachers,
without deeming a teacher ineffective or unsatisfactory in performance.
Each of the four charter schools in the study used a teacher evaluation system that was
formative in nature. A formative evaluation system focuses on the process that fosters growth in
73

teaching practices and methods. Rather than being critical, formative evaluations are used to
help teachers recognize their strengths, as well as areas of improvement. This process reflects
the helps teachers improve their craft by facilitating a discussion that establishes a plan to best
support teachers grow through additional support and professional development (Attinello et al.,
2006).
Three of the four charter schools required each teacher to identify professional growth
goals, which led to self-reflection of teaching practices and strategies for improving them. To
facilitate teacher growth, administrators provided a professional growth plan from, regardless of
their evaluation rating. Marcoux et al. (2003) concluded that an evaluation process that focuses
on self-reflection and goal setting allows for improvement and growth in teaching practices.
Three of the four charter schools conducted multiple evaluations of both probationary and
permanent teachers during a school year. In addition, improving teachers at these schools were
required to be observed by, and meet regularly with an administrator in order to improve their
teaching practices. According to Toch and Rothman (2008), it is essential that principals
conduct ongoing formative evaluations to determine areas in which individual teachers need
support, in order to facilitate growth amongst teachers. The most successful schools, with
significant gains in student achievement, have administrators that work closely with teachers on
an ongoing basis, and provide constructive feedback, as well as introduce new instructional
strategies (Kaplan & Owings, 2001).

74

Research Question Two
Is the teacher evaluation system formative, focusing on improvement of teaching
practices, or summative, focusing on whether certain standards are being met?

Public School A
Principal Arteaga stated that a vast majority of tenured teachers at Public School A are
rated satisfactory in their evaluations, and most are evaluated once every three to five years.
Therefore, the focus of improvement is on probationary teachers. Probationary teachers are
evaluated on all six teacher evaluation standards (Appendix A). In order to improve teaching
practices, any teacher (whether probationary or tenured) who is rated “unsatisfactory” in a
standard is provided with specific written suggestions to modify their teaching practices in order
to meet standards. Any teacher rated “unsatisfactory” in three or more standards is required to
have an additional formal observation. If an administrator determines that the teacher is still
performing at an “unsatisfactory” level on three or more standards after the second formal
observation, the teacher is referred to the district’s Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) program.
Teachers who are rated “satisfactory” are provided with professional development
opportunities and trainings during staff meetings. However, the teacher evaluation process is not
used to improve instruction for those teachers deemed satisfactory. Therefore, a majority of the
evaluations are summative in nature, and verify that teachers are meeting standards. Evaluations
are formative for teachers who are deemed unsatisfactory in certain standards, as they are
provided with additional support, and evaluated again in order to verify progress

75

Public School B
Probationary teachers at Public School B are required to have two unscheduled (informal)
observations and one scheduled (formal) observation. Tenured teachers are evaluated once every
two to five years, and can choose between two unscheduled observations or one scheduled
observation. According to Principal Bradley, almost all tenured teachers opt to have one
scheduled observation. A vast majority of tenured teachers are rated satisfactory in each
standard (Appendix B).
Probationary teachers are given written feedback after each of their unscheduled
observations, and provided with suggestions on improving teaching practices, if necessary.
However, due to each unscheduled observation lasting approximately fifteen minutes, the
evaluator has a brief snapshot of the teaching practices. A teacher who is rated unsatisfactory in
any of the eight evaluation standards is provided specific written recommendations. If a teacher
is rated unsatisfactory in the scheduled (formal) observation, he/she is not reevaluated until the
following school year.
The evaluation system at Public School B is partially formative for probationary teachers,
since probationary teachers are given feedback through informal observations, in preparation for
the formal observation. However, since probationary teachers do not receive a second formal
observation after being rated unsatisfactory in one or more evaluation standards until the
following year, and since a majority of permanent teachers are rated satisfactory (therefore not
given feedback for improvement), the teacher evaluation system is largely summative.

76

Public School C
Probationary teachers at Public School C are formally evaluated twice each year by three
evaluators, and permanent teachers are evaluated once every two years by two evaluators. Each
evaluatee, whether probationary or permanent, must identify professional growth goals, based on
the district’s teacher evaluation standards (Appendix C), and more specific sub-standards.
Additionally, each evaluatee must also outline specific strategies implemented or planned, in
order to continue professional growth. During the formal observation, the evaluators specifically
look for implementation of the identified growth strategies, or steps towards implementation.
Since probationary teachers are evaluated twice a year, evaluators look for growth
between the first and second observation. After the first of the two annual evaluations,
administrators provide probationary teachers with a list of recommendations, strategies, or
professional development opportunities geared towards professional growth. During the second
of the two annual evaluations, administrators look for evidence of growth and implementation of
new strategies.
Permanent teachers are evaluated once every two years, but administrators conduct at
least one informal observation for permanent teachers each year. After each observation,
whether informal or formal, administrators ask permanent teachers to reflect on which strategies
have been implemented that show professional growth. Permanent teachers who are rated
satisfactory in their evaluation are still required to identify areas of growth, and strategies
towards continuing professional growth.
The evaluation system at Public School C is formative. Whether probationary or
permanent, teachers are expected to continually reflect on their teaching practices, and
77

implement strategies that lead to professional growth. Professional growth is centered on the
district’s teacher evaluation standards, but also specific sub-standards. According to Principal
Cotter, professional growth is a key focus of teacher evaluations, regardless of the years of
experience a teacher has.

Public School D
Probationary teachers at Public School D are formally evaluated once a year, and
permanent teachers are evaluated once every two years by two evaluators. Prior to the
observation, each teacher must self-reflect on teaching practices using guided questions, as
outlined in the teacher evaluation documents (Appendix D). Part of this self-reflection includes
identifying areas of professional growth, and new strategies implemented geared towards growth
of teaching practices, and implantation of professional development topics. During the formal
observation, the evaluator specifically looks for implementation of the identified growth
strategies, or steps towards implementation. Each teacher also has at least one informal
evaluation per year, in which administrators specifically look for implementation of new
strategies and growth.
During the post-observation conference, administrators use the self-reflection questions
as a basis for a guided discussion of effective teaching practices, and professional growth.
Teachers are also asked to identify evidence of meeting each of the five instructional standards
during their lesson. Administrators also present evidence of meeting, or not meeting, each of the
five instructional standards, and provide feedback towards continuing professional growth.
78

The evaluation system at Public School C is mostly formative. Whether probationary or
permanent, each teacher is expected reflect on their teaching practices, and identify strategies for
professional growth. However, permanent teachers are evaluated once every two years, with
only one informal observation in between evaluation years. As a result, the self-reflection and
growth process is not formally required each year. According to Principal Davis, permanent
teachers who are not evaluated are still encouraged to pursue professional growth through
informal self-reflection within their departments, and through participation in professional
development opportunities.

Charter School A
Charter School A evaluates each teacher on an annual basis, regardless of years of
experience. A beginning of the year conference is held between each teacher and evaluator
within the first four weeks of school. At this time, each teacher sets a growth goal, based on one
of the six evaluation standards (Appendix E). The evaluator conducts informal observations
once a month to collect evidence and monitor progress of the identified growth goal. An
informal conference may be requested by an administrator at any point, if the administrator
notices any area of concern, or if sufficient progress is not seen toward meeting the growth goal.
A formal evaluation takes place during the second semester. Prior to the formal
evaluation, each teacher meets with the evaluator in order to discuss notes from informal
observations, discuss areas of growth, and strategies towards meeting any areas of growth. Each
teacher is rated on a scale of Level One to Level Four for each of the evaluation standards.
Teachers are very rarely rated at the highest level, Level Four. During the post-observation
79

conference, teachers are asked to identify strategies for growth for each of the instructional
standards. Administrators continue to conduct informal observations after the formal evaluation,
and take note of whether growth is taking place.
The evaluation process at Charter School A is formative, as each teacher is evaluated
informally on a monthly basis, and is asked to self-reflect continuously, with the goal of
implementing new instructional strategies. The four rating levels allow teachers to continue their
growth, as it is rare for a teacher to receive the highest on any given standard. Teachers are
encouraged to pursue attainment of the highest level of rating, through continuous reflection and
professional growth.

Charter School B
Probationary teachers at Charter School B are evaluated annually, and tenured teachers
have the option of being evaluated once every three to five years (at the discretion of the
evaluating administrator). According to Principal Burns, 90% of tenured teachers are evaluated
once every five years, and remaining 10% are evaluated once every three years. During the
evaluation year, each is teacher is required to complete an online self-assessment, in which the
teacher rates him/herself as “ineffective”, “developing”, or “effective” for each of the teacher
evaluation standards. Using the results of the self-assessment, along with student achievement
data (if available from the previous year), the evaluatee completes a self-reflection online. After
completing the self-reflection online, the evaluatee then completes an Initial Planning Sheet
(IPS) and identifies an instructional growth objective, a professional growth objective, and a
data-based objective. Each of the identified growth objectives must have a focus element,
80

strategies that might help achieve the objective, and specific action steps the teacher will take in
order to implement the strategies. After submitting the IPS online, the evaluating administrator
either approves the IPS, or responds electronically with feedback or to request changes.
During the formal observation, the evaluator scripts the entire lesson, and links each
aspect of the lesson to one of the instructional standards (Appendix F). The evaluator also looks
for evidence of the specific instructional strategies to promote growth identified in the Initial
Planning Sheet. The evaluation process for probationary teachers is formative, as each
probationary teacher is evaluated annually and is asked to reflect, identify growth goals, and
implement specific strategies. The evaluation process for permanent teachers is partially
formative, as each permanent teacher is asked to identify growth goals, and implement specific
strategies. However, since permanent teachers are evaluated once every three to five years, there
is no observed evidence of growth taking place in between evaluation years.

Charter School C
Charter School C is chartered through a large urban public school district, and therefore
uses the district’s evaluation procedures and forms. Probationary teachers are evaluated each
year on all six standards (Appendix G). Permanent teachers are able to choose from three of the
first five standards to be evaluated on, and are also evaluated on standard six. Permanent
teachers who have received two consecutive “satisfactory” reviews are eligible to be evaluated
once every five years upon request.
According to Principal Chavez, formal observations are just that – a mere formality.
Every teacher is evaluated informally, on a monthly basis. Informal observations and subsequent
81

bi-monthly meetings between a teacher and his/her administrative coach are much more effective
at promoting teacher growth than formal evaluations. During each bi-monthly meeting, the
administrative coach and teacher collaboratively choose a standard (and sub-standards) to focus
on for the month, and create lesson plans that focus on the chosen standard(s). The coach then
informally observes the lessons as they are presented to students. A debrief of the informal
observation takes place at the next bi-monthly meeting. The teacher and administrator both
reflect on areas of success, and areas of growth. These ideas are embedded in future bi-monthly
meetings and informal observations. Therefore, there is constant reflection and growth in
teaching practices. The evaluation process at Charter School C is formative.

Charter School D
Teachers at Charter School D are evaluated twice a year, regardless of years of
experience. The evaluation process at Charter School D is meant to be reflective, and begins
with the evaluatee submitting a lesson plan to the administrator, which becomes a collaborative
working document. The administrator observes the lesson, identifying evidence of each of the
domains (Appendix H). Prior to the post-observation meeting, the evaluatee collects student
work from the observed lesson, grades the student work, and completes a self-reflection that
includes perceived strengths and areas of improvement of the lesson, analysis of student work,
and any insight gained. After completing a self-reflection, the teacher rates him/herself on each
of the subcategories in every domain. This self-rating is compared with the administrator’s
rating of the teacher in each of the subcategories, and the process is used to guide a dialogue
82

between the teacher and administrator. To conclude the evaluation process, each teacher is
provided with a growth plan, and specific steps that can be taken to achieve the growth goals.
During the second annual evaluation, each teacher is asked to reflect on steps taken in
order to meet the growth goals outlined during the first evaluation, and also to identify new goals
to aspire toward for the second evaluation. The process of constant reflection and improvement
of teaching practices fosters a culture of growth among all teachers, including those who are
effective teachers. The teacher evaluation process at Charter School D is formative, as
it encourages and evaluates teacher growth during the school year through reflection,
collaboration, and professional growth opportunities.

Summary
While a summative evaluation focuses on outcome, specifically whether teachers meet
certain performance standards, a formative evaluation focuses on improvement. Rather than
being final and judgmental, a formative evaluation fosters reflection, development, and growth
(Danielson, 2001).
Of the four public schools in the study, the two struggling schools utilized teacher
evaluation systems which were summative, and the two successful schools utilized teacher
evaluation systems which were mostly formative. Due to regulations mandated by union
contracts for most public schools, tenured teachers are evaluated once every two to five years,
which makes ongoing formative evaluations extremely difficult to implement.
Of the four charter schools in the study, three schools utilized teacher evaluation systems
that were formative, and one school used a teacher evaluation system that was partially
83

formative. The three charter schools which used formative teacher evaluation systems formally
evaluated their teachers annually, but also conducted ongoing informal observations and post-
observation meetings in order to help teachers reflect and grow in their teaching practices. A
study by Abbott and McKnight (2010) discovered that administrators who frequently visited
classrooms for informal evaluations, and collaborated with teachers for ongoing feedback,
positively influenced teaching practices.

Research Question Three
What supports do principals provide for teachers who are deemed unsatisfactory in their
evaluation?
Public School A
A teacher who is rated “unsatisfactory” in two or less evaluation standards (Appendix A)
is provided written suggestions from the evaluator. However, there is not a follow-up
observation until the following school year to verify whether the written suggestions have been
implemented. A teacher who is rated “unsatisfactory” in three or more standards may require an
additional evaluation, and is referred to the district’s Peer Assistance and Review (PAR)
program. A teacher who is referred to PAR works with a consulting teacher, who observes the
referred teacher, and helps improve teaching practices through one-on-one meetings.
Administrators at Public School A have a “hands-off” approach once a teacher is referred to
PAR, and do not work with the teacher directly unless a second formal observation takes place.

84

Public School B
Administrators at Public School B must provide each evaluatee with an observation
report, which includes commendations and/or recommendation for areas needed improvement.
Areas needed improvement must be accompanied by specific recommendations for
improvement, such as opportunities to observe other teachers, mandated professional
development, or district led assistance programs. A teacher is referred to the district’s Peer
Assistance and Review (PAR) program, if he/she is rated “unsatisfactory” on four or more
evaluation standards. A teacher who is referred to PAR works with a consulting teacher, who
observes the referred teacher, and helps improve teaching practices through one-on-one
meetings.
A final end of the year evaluation is submitted as the formal evaluation document to be
placed in a teacher’s personnel file. Any area of improvement noted in a previous observation
that has since been corrected is not to be included in the final evaluation. If an area of
improvement still exists, a formal written plan for improvement must be presented to the teacher.

Public School C
Teachers who are rated unsatisfactory in any evaluation category (Appendix C) are given
guidance in an effort to improve areas of weakness. The administrator may structure a specific
program of improvement, which could include direct assistance from the administrator or
another permanent teacher, professional development opportunities, released time for
observation of other classes, frequent observations, or regular conferences with an administrator.
The most common aspects of an improvement program are frequent observations, paired
85

with regular conferences with an administrator. It is extremely rare for a teacher to get referred
to a professional development workshop, or mentor outside of the school. Any teacher placed on
an improvement program must be formally evaluated after a reasonable amount of time to
determine whether the areas of improvement were successfully met. However, since most
teachers on an improvement plan are observed frequently by an administrator, and offered
ongoing feedback, the formal observation is often replaced by the frequent informal
observations, which continue until improvement is noted.

Public School D
Teachers who are rated “unsatisfactory” in any standard (Appendix D) are required to
demonstrate improvement of teaching practices within the standard. The evaluator provides a
written document with a specific plan of action, which includes strategies that may be
implemented immediately. The plan may also include additional meetings with an administrator
or experienced teacher, professional development, or a district led peer assistance and review
program. According to Principal Davis, an improvement plan most often includes observations
by an administrator or experienced teacher on campus, along with post-observation meetings. A
formal evaluation is conducted, specially focused on any standard(s) in which the teacher was
rated as “unsatisfactory” previously.

Charter School A
Teachers at Charter School A are rated on a four tier scale in each of the evaluation
standards (Appendix E). A teacher who is rated a ‘Level One’ or ‘Level Two’ on any standard is
86

required to meet weekly with the administrative coach in order to collaboratively learn strategies
to improve towards meeting the standard. This weekly meeting is followed by an informal
observation, during which the administrator tracks progress towards ‘Level Three’ within any
standard(s) needing improvement. Other than weekly meetings with the administrator, teachers
may be asked to observe other teachers within the school. However, no district led programs or
outside professional development is offered. After a reasonable amount of coaching, the
administrator is required to conduct another formal observation, focusing specifically on the
standard(s) in which improvement is needed.

Charter School B
Teachers at Charter School B are rated “ineffective”, “developing”, or “effective”. If a
teacher is rated “ineffective” in any standard (Appendix F), the administrator may refer the
teacher to classes offered by the Los Angeles Unified School District or the United Teachers Los
Angeles union. After completion of the course(s), the administrator is required to complete
another formal evaluation. If the teacher is still rated as ineffective, the teacher may be referred
to a peer assistance and review program offered through the district, or may be observed by
district personnel to validate the administrator’s rating. Most of the support for teachers needing
improvement comes from outside the school, through either district/union classes or through a
peer assistance and review program. Administrators usually do not provide written
recommendations, suggestions, or support to teachers.

87

Charter School C
Principal Chavez states that formal evaluations are conducted as a formality, but much of
the real work towards improving teaching practices is done on an ongoing basis, through
informal coaching meetings and observations. Each teacher is assigned an administrator, who
serves as the academic coach, as well as evaluator. Bi-monthly meetings are scheduled during
each teacher’s conference period between the teacher and his/her academic coach. During these
meetings, the teacher and coach collaboratively choose a standard and sub-standards (Appendix
G) to focus on for the month, and create lesson plans that focus on the chosen standard(s). The
academic coach then informally observes the lessons as they are presented to students. A debrief
of the informal observation takes place at the next bi-monthly meeting. These ongoing coaching
meetings result in constant reflection and growth in teaching practices.

Charter School D
The evaluation system at Charter School D is based on four domains (Appendix H). In
the third stage of the formal evaluation process, the evaluator presents a Professional Growth
Plan, which includes specific actions to be taken by the teacher, resources that the administrator
will provide to help complete these actions, and a target date of completion. If a rating of Level
One or Level Two is given in any domain, the administrator is required to provide a
comprehensive support plan, which could include ongoing observations and meetings with an
administrator, professional reading, appropriate website for the area of concern, outside
workshop or conference, observation of a peer, or demonstration lesson by an experienced
88

teacher in the teacher’s classroom. The support process is collaborative, and requires specific
resources to be provided by the evaluator, along with a date of completion for accountability.

Summary
Providing support to improving teachers is essential in developing their teaching practice,
and increasing student achievement. According to Danielson (2011), improving teachers need an
evaluation system that provides relevant feedback, support, and opportunities for growth.
Of the four public schools in the study, two schools provide written suggestions for
improvement if a teacher is rated “unsatisfactory” on two or less standards at Public School A,
and three or less standards at Public School B. Neither school requires a follow-up evaluation to
verify whether the suggestions have been implemented. Both Public School A and Public
School B refer teachers to a district led Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) program, if an
unsatisfactory rating is given on more evaluation standards. Once a teacher has been referred to
PAR, administrators have a “hands-off” approach.
At Public School C and Public School D, a teacher who is rated “unsatisfactory” in any
standard is placed on a program of improvement, which could include direct assistance from the
administrator or another permanent teacher, professional development opportunities, released
time for observation of other classes, frequent observations, or regular conferences with an
administrator. The most common aspects of an improvement program at both schools are
frequent observations, paired with regular conferences with an administrator. Unlike Public
School A and Public School B, administrators are directly involved in observing and meeting
with improving teachers on an ongoing basis. A study by Kaplan and Owings (2001) found that
89

the most successful schools, with significant gains in student achievement, have administrators
that work closely with teachers on an ongoing basis, and provide constructive feedback, as well
as introduce new instructional strategies.
Charter School B is chartered through the Los Angeles Unified School District, and any
teacher who is rated “ineffective” is referred to classes offered by the district, or by the United
Teachers Los Angeles union. Administrators provide little support for improving teachers. In
contrast, administrators at Charter School A, Charter School C, and Charter School D meet
regularly with improving teachers, and collaboratively work towards growth of teaching
practices through observations, reflection, and learning new strategies.

Research Question 4
How do principals incentivize, encourage, and support teachers, who are meeting or
exceeding expectations, to continue growing as educators?

Public School A
Teachers who are rated “satisfactory” on all standards (Appendix A) are not required to
demonstrate growth, as part of the evaluation process. Exemplary teachers are given
opportunities to attend professional development conferences, and present their findings to their
department, or to the entire staff during faculty meetings.

90

Public School B
Teachers who are rated “satisfactory” on all standards (Appendix B) are not required to
demonstrate growth, as part of the evaluation process. Administrators ask exemplary teachers to
allow their lessons to be observed by probationary teachers, or by permanent teachers who are
rated “unsatisfactory”. Exemplary teachers also asked to serve as leaders within Professional
Learning Communities.

Public School C
Teachers who are rated “satisfactory” on all standards are expected to continue growth
within specific subcategories of the evaluation standards (Appendix C), through specific
suggestions offered by the evaluator, or through reflection on probing questions. Administrators
ask exemplary teachers to allow their lessons to be observed by probationary teachers, or by
permanent teachers who are rated “unsatisfactory”. Exemplary teachers also lead monthly
workshops, highlighting specific practices that have proven effective in their classrooms.

Public School D
Teachers who are rated “satisfactory” on all standards (Appendix D) are not required to
demonstrate growth, as part of the evaluation process. Exemplary teachers are asked to lead
professional development sessions during faculty meetings, and are asked to be leaders within
Professional Learning Communities.

91

Charter School A
During the first month of the school year, each teacher, regardless of years of experience
or rating on previous evaluations, is required to set a growth goal for the remainder of the year.
The goals must be based on one of the six evaluation standards (Appendix E), and can include
subcategories. The evaluating administrator conducts informal walk-through once a month in
order to observe progress towards the stated goal. According to Principal Abbott, teachers who
are meeting or exceeding expectation are required to continue growth of their teaching practices,
and demonstrate growth. During the formal evaluation, each teacher is rated on a four-tiered
scale in each of the evaluation standards. It is extremely rare for a teacher to score at a Level
Four in any standard. As a result, teachers who are rated satisfactory (Level Three) are
encouraged to continue developing their teaching practices in order to reach Level Four, with
specific feedback and recommendations from administrators.

Charter School B
The evaluation process at Charter School B begins with the evaluatee completing an
online self-assessment, in which the teacher rates him/herself as “ineffective”, “developing”, or
“effective” in each of the evaluation categories (Appendix F). Using the results of the self-
assessment, along with student achievement data (if available from the previous year), the
evaluatee completes a self-reflection online. After completing the self-reflection online, the
evaluatee then completes an Initial Planning Sheet (IPS), which asks the evaluatee to identify an
instructional growth objective, a professional growth objective, and a data-based growth
objective. Teachers who are meeting or exceeding expectations must also identify growth
92

objectives, and demonstrate evidence of meeting the objectives. According to Principal Burns,
approximately 80% of tenured teachers are evaluated once every three to five years. As a result,
a majority of tenured teachers are expected to demonstrate growth once every three to five years.

Charter School C
At Charter School C, each teacher is evaluated informally, on a monthly basis. Informal
observations and subsequent bi-monthly meetings between a teacher and his/her administrative
coach focus on teacher growth, regardless of years of experience or rating on formal evaluations.
During each bi-monthly meeting, the administrative coach and teacher collaboratively choose a
standard and sub-standards (Appendix G) to focus on for the month, and create lesson plans that
focus on the chosen standard(s). The coach then informally observes the lessons as they are
presented to students. A debrief of the informal observation takes place at the next bi-monthly
meeting. The teacher as well as administrator reflect on areas of success, and areas of growth.
These ideas are embedded in future bi-monthly meetings and informal observations. There is
constant reflection and growth in teaching practices, and teachers who are meeting or exceeding
expectations continually grow as educators.

Charter School D
Teachers at Charter School D are rated on a four tier scale in each of the evaluation
domains (Appendix H). According to Principal Day, it is extremely rare for a teacher to score at
a Level Four in any standard. During the post-observation meeting, each teacher is given a
Professional Growth Plan, which includes specific actions to be taken by the teacher, resources
93

that the administrator will provide to help complete these actions, and a target date of
completion. Teachers who meet or exceed expectations are given a Professional Growth Plan,
and must demonstrate evidence of working towards the goals of the Professional Growth Plan by
the target date of completion. Exemplary teachers are asked to be a part of the Instructional
Leadership Team, which plans and delivers professional development for teachers.

Summary
An effective evaluator serves as an instructional leader to all teachers, and provides
meaningful feedback through a mutual dialogue, in order to promote growth (Toch & Rothman,
2008). The opportunity to acquire new methods, regardless of years of experience, by receiving
guidance from administrators and peers in areas of growth is essential to increasing student
achievement (Weems & Rogers, 2010).
At each of the public schools in the study, exemplary teachers are asked to lead
professional development workshops within their department, or during faculty meetings. At
two of the public schools, exemplary teachers are asked to be leaders in Professional Learning
Communities.
At each of the charter schools in the study, teachers are asked to set professional growth
goals for the school year, regardless of their rating in previous evaluations. Three of the four
charter schools provide teachers with feedback for professional growth, regardless of years of
experience, or a satisfactory/exemplary evaluation.

94

A Comparison of Public and Charter Schools
Table 1 and Table 2, organized by public and charter schools, summarize aspects of
teacher evaluations addressed in this study, and indicate whether each of the schools utilizes the
specific aspect in their evaluation systems. A score of ‘1’ indicates that the school fully utilizes a
specific aspect, a score of ‘0’ indicates that the school does not utilize a specific aspect, and a
score of ‘0.5’ indicates that the school partially utilizes the aspect.
Table 1
Aspects of Teacher Evaluations – Public Schools
Aspects of Teacher Evaluations A B C D
Probationary teachers are evaluated annually 1 1 1 1
Permanent teachers are evaluated annually 0 0 1 1
Permanent teachers can opt to be evaluated once every 3-5 years 1 1 1 1
Probationary teachers are evaluated multiple times each year 0 1 1 0
Permanent teachers are evaluated multiple times each year 0 0 1 0
Pre-observation conference takes place 1 1 1 1
Teachers are required to submit a lesson plan prior to observation 1 0 1 0
Teachers complete a self-reflection prior to the formal evaluation 0 0 0 1
Each teacher is asked to identify professional growth goals 0 0 1 1
Evaluators look for subcategories within evaluation standards 0 0 1 0
Teachers are evaluated using a binary rating scale 1 1 1 1
Teachers are evaluated using a multi-tiered rating scale 0 0 0 0
Administrators provide a growth plan for improving teachers 1 1 1 1
Administrators provide a growth plan for all teachers 0 0 0 0
95

Administrators conduct 1-2 informal walk-throughs per year 0 0 1 1
Administrators regularly conduct informal walk-throughs 0 0 0 0
Each teacher meets regularly with academic coach/administrator 0 0 0 0
Improving teachers referred to district led program 1 1 1 1
Improving teachers meet regularly with evaluator 0 0 1 1
Evaluation system is formative 0 0 1 0.5
Evaluation system is summative 1 1 0 0.5

Table 2
Aspects of Teacher Evaluations – Charter Schools
Aspects of Teacher Evaluations A B C D
Probationary teachers are evaluated annually 1 1 1 1
Permanent teachers are evaluated annually 1 0 1 1
Permanent teachers can opt to be evaluated once every 3-5 years 0 1 0 0
Probationary teachers are evaluated multiple times each year 1 0 1 1
Permanent teachers are evaluated multiple times each year 1 0 1 1
Pre-observation conference takes place 1 1 1 1
Teachers are required to submit a lesson plan prior to observation 1 0 1 1
Teachers complete a self-reflection prior to the formal evaluation 1 1 0 1
Each teacher is asked to identify professional growth goals 1 0 1 1
Evaluators look for subcategories within evaluation standards 1 1 1 1
Teachers are evaluated using a binary rating scale 0 0 0 0
Teachers are evaluated using a multi-tiered rating scale 1 1 1 1
96

Administrators provide a growth plan for improving teachers 1 1 1 1
Administrators provide a growth plan for all teachers 1 0 1 1
Administrators conduct 1-2 informal walk-throughs per year 0 0 0 1
Administrators regularly conduct informal walk-throughs 1 0 1 0
Each teacher meets regularly with academic coach/administrator 1 0 1 0
Improving teachers referred to district led program 0 1 0 0
Improving teachers meet regularly with evaluator 1 0 1 1
Evaluation system is formative 1 0.5 1 1
Evaluation system is summative 0 0.5 0 0

Teacher evaluation systems at public and charter schools in the study are notably
different in several aspects. Permanent teachers at all four public schools can opt to be evaluated
once every three to five years, although two of the four public schools require annual informal
observations of permanent teachers. As a result, only two of the four public schools have
evaluation systems that are formative in nature. Permanent teachers at three of the four charter
schools are evaluated annually, and also multiple times throughout the school year. All four
charter schools have evaluation systems that are formative in nature.
According to Brandt et al. (2007), the summative nature of many current teacher
evaluation systems does not allow teachers to get ongoing feedback about their teaching
practices, and therefore does not promote growth. Weems and Rogers (2010) found that regular
observations and feedback provides the opportunity to learn new skills and implement changes
97

through guidance and mentoring from administrators. This process leads to improvement of
teaching practices, and ultimately, an increase in student achievement.
While administrators play a crucial role in the growth of teachers, the process must begin
with the teacher. Taylor and Tyler (2012) found that teacher evaluation systems that encourage
self-reflection and goal setting lead to growth of teaching practices compared to evaluation
systems that do not. Two of the four public schools in the study required teachers to self-reflect
and identify growth goals for the school year. However, none of the public schools provided
permanent teachers with a professional growth plan as a part of the evaluation process. In
comparison, all four of the charter schools asked teachers to self-reflect and identify growth
goals for the year, as well as provided teachers (both probationary and permanent) with a
professional growth plan.
In order to foster growth of teachers, both probationary and permanent, administrators
must serve as instructional leaders within their schools, and provide teachers with guidance in
improving teaching practices. A study of school leadership conducted by Waters, Marzano, and
McNulty (2004), of 2802 schools and nearly 1.5 million students, concluded that there is a strong
correlation between instructional leadership and increased student achievement. As instructional
leaders, administrators must help teachers improve their teaching practices through ongoing
collaboration, and by providing support and opportunities for professional development. This is
especially true for improving teachers. Although all four public schools provided improving
teachers with suggestions for growth, only two of the four schools required improving teacher to
regularly meet with an administrator. Three out of four charter schools required improving
teachers to regularly meet with an administrator. At two of the charter schools in the study,
98

teachers regularly met with an administrator, who served as an academic coach, to
collaboratively discuss and grow their teaching practices. This practice was not seen at any of
the public schools in the study.

A Comparison of Successful and Struggling Schools
Table 3 and Table 4, organized by struggling and successful schools, summarize aspects
of teacher evaluations addressed in this study, and indicate whether each of the schools utilizes
the specific aspect in their evaluation systems. A score of ‘1’ indicates that the school fully
utilizes a specific aspect, a score of ‘0’ indicates that the school does not utilize a specific aspect,
and a score of ‘0.5’ indicates that the school partially utilizes the aspect.
Table 3
Aspects of Teacher Evaluations – Struggling Schools
Aspects of Teacher Evaluations PS
A
PS
B
CS
A
CS
B
Probationary teachers are evaluated annually 1 1 1 1
Permanent teachers are evaluated annually 0 0 1 0
Permanent teachers can opt to be evaluated once every 3-5 years 1 1 0 1
Probationary teachers are evaluated multiple times each year 0 1 1 0
Permanent teachers are evaluated multiple times each year 0 0 1 0
Pre-observation conference takes place 1 1 1 1
Teachers are required to submit a lesson plan prior to observation 1 0 1 0
Teachers complete a self-reflection prior to the formal evaluation 0 0 1 1
Each teacher is asked to identify professional growth goals 0 0 1 0
Evaluators look for subcategories within evaluation standards 0 0 1 1
99

Teachers are evaluated using a binary rating scale 1 1 0 0
Teachers are evaluated using a multi-tiered rating scale 0 0 1 1
Administrators provide a growth plan for improving teachers 1 1 1 1
Administrators provide a growth plan for all teachers 0 0 1 0
Administrators conduct 1-2 informal walk-throughs per year 0 0 0 0
Administrators regularly conduct informal walk-throughs 0 0 1 0
Each teacher meets regularly with academic coach/administrator 0 0 1 0
Improving teachers referred to district led program 1 1 0 1
Improving teachers meet regularly with evaluator 0 0 1 0
Evaluation system is formative 0 0 1 0.5
Evaluation system is summative 1 1 0 0.5

Table 4
Aspects of Teacher Evaluations – Successful Schools
Aspects of Teacher Evaluations PS
C
PS
D
CS
C
CS
D
Probationary teachers are evaluated annually 1 1 1 1
Permanent teachers are evaluated annually 0 0 1 1
Permanent teachers can opt to be evaluated once every 3-5 years 1 1 0 0
Probationary teachers are evaluated multiple times each year 1 0 1 1
Permanent teachers are evaluated multiple times each year 1 0 1 1
Pre-observation conference takes place 1 1 1 1
Teachers are required to submit a lesson plan prior to observation 1 0 1 1
Teachers complete a self-reflection prior to the formal evaluation 0 1 0 1
100

Each teacher is asked to identify professional growth goals 1 1 1 1
Evaluators look for subcategories within evaluation standards 1 0 1 1
Teachers are evaluated using a binary rating scale 1 1 0 0
Teachers are evaluated using a multi-tiered rating scale 0 0 1 1
Administrators provide a growth plan for improving teachers 1 1 1 1
Administrators provide a growth plan for all teachers 0 0 1 1
Administrators conduct 1-2 informal walk-throughs per year 1 1 0 1
Administrators regularly conduct informal walk-throughs 0 0 1 0
Each teacher meets regularly with academic coach/administrator 0 0 1 0
Improving teachers referred to district led program 1 1 0 0
Improving teachers meet regularly with evaluator 1 1 1 1
Evaluation system is formative 1 0.5 1 1
Evaluation system is summative 0 0.5 0 0

In this study, the difference between schools with declining student achievement and
schools with increasing student achievement can be summarized by one notable aspect of teacher
evaluations – those that are summative in nature, as opposed to those that are formative in nature.
Three of the four struggling schools have evaluation systems that are partially or completely
summative in nature. All four of the successful schools have evaluation systems that are
partially or completely formative in nature.
Schools with summative evaluation systems have a lower frequency of evaluating
teachers. Three of the four struggling schools do not evaluate all teachers on an annual basis. In
101

contrast, schools with formative evaluation systems evaluate their teachers annually, and three of
the four schools evaluate teachers multiple times during the school year to observe growth.
Schools with summative evaluation systems focus on whether quality instruction is
taking place, whereas schools with formative evaluation systems focus on growth. Three of the
four struggling schools do not ask teachers to set growth goals for the year. In contrast, all four
of the successful schools ask teachers to set growth goals for the year, and administrators
conduct at least one evaluation to observe progress towards these goals. To facilitate the growth
of improving teachers, all four of the successful schools require improving teachers to meet
regularly with administrators in order to get suggestions and strategies towards developing their
teaching practices. Of the four struggling schools, three do not require improving teachers to
meet regularly with an administrator.
A study by Kaplan and Owings (2001) found that the most successful schools, with
significant gains in student achievement, have administrators that work closely with teachers on
an ongoing basis, and provide constructive feedback, as well as introduce new instructional
strategies. Another study by Abbott and McKnight (2010) discovered that administrators who
frequently visited classrooms for informal evaluations, and collaborated with teachers for
ongoing feedback, positively influenced teaching practices. The findings of this study are in
line with the current research in the field of teacher evaluation.

102

CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS

Introduction
Teacher evaluation systems have changed dramatically after the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act of 2001 was implemented. Prior to NCLB, Loup, Garland, Ellett, and Rugutt
(1996) found that teacher evaluation methods were mostly at the discretion of local school
boards, and often included a single classroom observation using checklists and subjective
records. States have played a much larger role in teacher evaluation practices since the
implementation of NCLB (Anderson, 2012), mandating the use of highly effective teachers in
order to raise achievement scores.
According to Tucker and Stronge (2005), the most significant factor in increasing student
achievement is teacher performance. Toch and Rothman (2008) found that teacher evaluations
can be the most effective instruments of increasing teacher performance, and therefore student
achievement. Since 2009, many states, including California, have overhauled their teacher
evaluation policies in order to foster teacher growth, according to The National Council on
Teacher Quality (2012).
Traditional teacher evaluation systems have been summative in nature, and used
primarily to verify that teachers were using effective instructional strategies in their classrooms
(Danielson & McGreal, 2000). However, many educators are calling for a shift in teacher
evaluation systems from a summative process to a more formative one, which fosters growth in
teachers (Danielson, 2007). As opposed to summative evaluation methods, which are
103

judgmental in nature, formative evaluation methods help teachers identify their strengths and
weaknesses, and use research-driven strategies to improve their weaknesses (Attinello, Lare, &
Waters, 2006).
An effective teacher evaluation system outlines desired outcomes by clearly stating and
communicating evaluation standards to teachers, and allows the evaluator to understand a
teacher’s strengths and weaknesses based on these standards through classroom observations
(Doherty, 2009). The observation results in a dialogue between the evaluator and teacher, in
order to give both the evaluator and teacher a chance to reflect, analyze the observed lesson,
examine strengths and areas of improvement, and discuss strategies to improve instructional
practices. (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005).
In spite of an abundance of research focusing on best practices for teacher evaluation,
each district has different methods of teacher evaluation, of various degrees of thoroughness and
complexity. This study examined teacher evaluation methods used by principals at several
schools within Southern California, both public and charter. It investigated the strategies
embedded in teacher evaluation systems, which principals used to promote teacher growth, and
increase student achievement.

Statement of the Problem
Researchers have found that teacher evaluation systems often fail in providing
constructive and meaningful feedback in order to improve teacher performance (Weisberg,
Sexton, Mulhern, & Kelling, 2009). Researchers have also found that a significant number of
teachers receive satisfactory (or higher) ratings on evaluations, regardless of whether teacher
104

performance and instruction reflects those ratings (Jacob & Lefgren, 2008; Thomas & Wingert,
2010).
A study conducted by The New Teacher Project found that close to 99% of teachers in
districts using binary ratings were rated satisfactory, while 94% of teachers received top ratings
in districts using a rating system with a broader range (Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern, & Keeling,
2009). In addition, 73% percent of teachers surveyed stated that their most recent evaluation did
not identify any areas of development.
According to Danielson (2007), an effective teacher evaluation system should identify
areas of growth for all teachers, and administrators should provide teachers with specific
instructional strategies to implement in the areas of growth. However, administrators report
feeling overwhelmed, unable to dedicate time to both operational responsibilities, as well as to
improving the instructional program (Danielson, 2007). As a result, studies show that
evaluations are often a formality, and rarely result in meaningful feedback (Brandt, Mathers,
Oliva, Brown-Sims, & Hess, 2007; Toch & Rothman, 2008).

Purpose of the Study
While there are numerous studies that focus on teacher evaluations, little research has
been conducted that compares the evaluation methods used by traditional public schools versus
charter schools. The purpose of this study was to conduct a comparative analysis of teacher
evaluation systems utilized by public and charter school districts in Southern California. It
analyzed the similarities and differences between teacher evaluation systems used by public
schools versus charter schools. The comparative analysis focused on evaluation methods used
105

by principals of schools that have seen consistently increasing student achievement, and the
similarities/differences to methods used by principals of schools that have seen consistently
decreasing student achievement. More specifically, the study looked at how principals use
evaluations to promote teacher growth, and ultimately increase student achievement.

Research Questions
The following questions guided this study:
1) What is the structure of the teacher evaluation system in place at each school in the
study?
2) Is the teacher evaluation system formative, focusing on improvement of teaching
practices, or summative, focusing on whether certain standards are being met?
3) What supports do principals provide for teachers who are deemed unsatisfactory in
their evaluation?
4) How do principals incentivize, encourage, and support teachers, who are meeting or
exceeding expectations, to continue growing as educators?

Methodology
This study aimed to compare the different teacher evaluation methods used by traditional
and charter public schools in Southern California, and understand how principals use teacher
evaluation to promote student growth and increase student achievement. The research conducted
also sought to understand why principals utilized particular methods, and asked principals to
reflect on the effectiveness of these methods. Participants in this study were interviewed in their
106

natural setting, and were asked to provide detailed accounts of their practices in evaluating
teachers. Since qualitative research looks at experiences of the participants in their natural
setting (Creswell, 2003), and seeks to develop a deep understanding of the participants’
experiences (Patton, 2002), this study was conducted using qualitative research.
In-depth interviews were used as the primary instrument of data collection. Through the
interviews, the researcher was able to gain an understanding how principals use teacher
evaluations to promote growth. The answers provided by the participants provided an insight
into how principals promote the growth of teachers who are deemed unsatisfactory during their
evaluation, and of teachers who are meeting or exceeding expectations. In addition, the
interview answers provided understanding of the challenges that principals face in evaluating
teachers.
The data analysis process was conducted using the Qualitative Comparative Analysis
(QCA) framework. The QCA design, developed by Dr. Charles Ragin in 1987, provides a
systematic framework for organizing data collected from interviews, and for determining
combinations of factors that lead to a particular outcome (Ragin, 1987). The QCA design begins
by identifying the desired outcome (such as increased student achievement), and cases (in this
study, each school represented a case) that embody that outcome, referred to as the “positive”
cases. Based on the desired outcome, “negative” cases are also identified. These are defined as
cases which meet the criteria to qualify for the desired outcome, but fail to meet it. The
“positive” and “negative” cases together form the set of cases pertinent to the analysis (Ragin,
1987).
107

After the set of cases is identified, qualitative data is collected across multiple cases (a
minimum of 5 cases is recommended under the QCA guidelines), and patterns are developed to
identify factors (or combinations of factors) that help achieve the desired outcome, or,
conversely, the lack of attainment of an outcome (Jordan et al. 2011). This study used the Fuzzy
Sets tool to analyze data collected through interviews, as described by Ragin (2000). The Fuzzy
Sets tool creates a table in which each case is analyzed through the lens of each factor identified
through data collection. If the factor (for example, a pre-observation reflection by the teacher)
applies to the case, a score of “1” is assigned in the table. If not, a score of “0”is assigned. If the
factor partially applies to the case, a score of “0.5” is assigned in the table (Ragin, 2000). After
the table is completed, the comparative analysis process takes place by looking the similarities
and differences between factors that contribute to the “positive” as well as “negative” cases. In
this study, different components of teacher evaluation methods, as collected through the
interview process and document review process, were given a score of “0”, “0.5”, or “1” for each
school in the study.

Findings
An analysis of the teacher evaluation systems utilized within the public schools in this
study found that all four of the public schools shared three characteristics – probationary teachers
are evaluated annually, tenured teachers have the option of being evaluated once every three to
five years, and teachers are evaluated using a binary rating scale. In addition, all four of the
public school principals in the study stated that tenured teachers are observed for a much shorter
length of time than probationary teachers due to time constraints created by the various other
108

responsibilities that are tied to leading a high school. This is supported by Danielson (2007),
who found that administrators reported feeling stretched, unable to devote sufficient time to both
operational responsibilities, as well as to improving the instructional program.
Research by Toch and Rothman (2008) found that in order to promote growth within all
teachers, principals must conduct ongoing formative evaluations in order to determine the areas
in which individual teachers need support, and provide specific instructional strategies to achieve
growth. Due to tenured teachers being formally evaluated once every three to five years,
administrators were not providing growth opportunities through the evaluation system.
However, this study found that the two struggling public schools utilized teacher
evaluation systems which were summative in nature, and the two successful schools utilized
teacher evaluation systems which were mostly formative. All teachers, including tenured
teachers, at the two successful public schools were evaluated annually, asked to identify areas of
growth for each school year, and provided instructional strategies by administrators to foster
growth.
Providing support to improving teachers is essential in developing their teaching practice,
and increasing student achievement. According to Danielson (2011), improving teachers need an
evaluation system that provides relevant feedback, support, and opportunities for growth.
The two struggling public schools in the study provided written suggestions to improving
teachers, who were rated “unsatisfactory” on three or less standards. Teachers rated
“unsatisfactory” on three or more standards were referred to a district led improvement program,
at which point administrators took a “hands-off” approach.
109

The two successful schools in the study placed any teacher who was rated
“unsatisfactory” in one or more standards on a program of improvement, which could include
direct assistance from the administrator or another permanent teacher, professional development
opportunities, released time for observation of other classes, frequent observations, or regular
conferences with an administrator. The most common aspects of an improvement program at
both schools were frequent observations by administrators, paired with regular conferences with
an administrator. The strategies utilized by the successful public schools the study are supported
by the findings of Kaplan and Owings (2001), who stated that the most successful schools, with
significant gains in student achievement, had administrators that worked closely with teachers on
an ongoing basis, and provided constructive feedback, as well as introduced new instructional
strategies.
An analysis of the teacher evaluation systems utilized within the charter schools in this
study found that all four of the public schools shared three characteristics – evaluators looked for
evidence of subcategories within standards, teachers are evaluated using a multi-tiered rating
scale, and the evaluation system is formative. In addition, administrators at three of the four
charter schools conducted multiple annual evaluations of both probationary and permanent
teachers, required each teacher to identify professional growth goals, provided a professional
growth plan, and met with improving teachers regularly to provide feedback and promote the
growth of teaching practices.
All four charter schools listed subcategories within each evaluation standard, which
detailed specific teaching strategies and approaches that are proven to be successful. A
110

characteristic of an effective teacher evaluation system is establishing clear standards of teaching
practices for conducting observations (Donaldson, 2009; Kane et al., 2010).
Research has shown that a vast majority of teachers receive a satisfactory rating when
evaluated using a binary scale, thus leaving little opportunity for professional growth (Reeder,
2005; Tucker, 1997). All four charter schools in the study used a four tier rating scale, which
allowed administrators to specify areas of growth for teachers, without deeming a teacher
ineffective or unsatisfactory in performance.
Each of the four charter schools in the study used a teacher evaluation system that was
formative in nature, and focused on growth of teaching practices. One aspect of a formative
evaluation system is self-reflection and goal setting, which three of the four charter schools
required. To facilitate instructional growth, administrators provided a professional growth plan,
regardless of a teacher’s evaluation rating. Marcoux et al. (2003) concluded that an evaluation
process that focuses on self-reflection and goal setting allows for improvement and growth in
teaching practices.
Three of the four charter schools conducted multiple evaluations of both probationary and
permanent teachers during a school year. Improving teachers at these schools were required to
hold regular meetings with an administrators in order to discuss classroom observations and
strategies to develop teaching practices. Toch and Rothman (2008) found that it is essential for
principals to conduct ongoing formative evaluations in order to determine areas in which
individual teachers need support, and provide specific strategies to facilitate growth.
111

The difference between struggling schools and successful schools in this study can be
characterized by one significant aspect of teacher evaluations – those that are summative in
nature, as opposed to those that are formative in nature.
Three of the four struggling schools evaluated teachers at a lower frequency, did not
require teacher to set annual growth goals, did not provide specific strategies to all teachers in
order to facilitate growth of instructional strategies, and did not provide ongoing support or
observations for improving teachers.
In contrast, all four of the successful schools in the study evaluated teachers annually, and
three of the four successful schools evaluated teachers multiple times annually to observe
growth. Teachers at the successful schools were required to set growth goals for the year, and
administrators conducted at least one evaluation to observe progress towards these goals.
Improving teachers regularly met with administrators in order to get suggestions and strategies
towards developing their teaching practices. The process of reflecting, and discussing effective
strategies leads to changes in instructional practices, which in turn fosters growth and increases
student achievement (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005).

Implications
The significant findings associated with this study contribute to the body of scholarly
literature by identifying the teacher evaluation strategies used by successful schools. The
successful schools in this study encourage teachers to not be satisfied with the status quo, and
identify areas of growth through continuous self-reflection and feedback from administrators.
Administrators conduct ongoing observations, not only to judge a teacher’s instructional quality,
112

but rather to help the teacher develop his/her teaching practices through an ongoing collaborative
effort, and through learning new strategies to implement in the classroom.
Improving teachers were given ongoing support from administrators at successful
schools, through regular observations, and post-observation meetings. Teachers who met or
exceeded expectations were also asked to continue their growth by implementing new strategies
in their instructional practices.
According to Donaldson (2009), the effectiveness of formative evaluations depends on
the feedback given to teachers by evaluators. In addition, the opportunity to learn new skills and
implement changes must occur through guidance and mentoring from administrators (Weems &
Rogers, 2010). Therefore, it is essential for administrators to improve their own instructional
practices by participating in professional development opportunities, staying current with new
research, and continually learning new strategies.

Recommendations for Future Study
This study suggested that principals conduct ongoing formative evaluations of teacher, in
order to identify areas of strength, areas needing improvement, and to promote continuous
growth within teachers. Based on this conclusion, the researcher recommends the following to
be considered for future study:
1. Identifying schools that transitioned from a summative teacher evaluation system to a
formative teacher evaluation system, in order to validate the results of this study. Such a study
would examine student achievement scores, and conduct interviews with teachers and
113

administrators in order to determine whether there has been a change in perception of growth
amongst teachers/administrators of instructional practices.
2. A mixed methods study, beginning with a quantitative survey of tenured teachers at
various schools, in order to determine whether a majority of teachers within a particular school
believe that they have developed and improved their teaching practices through the teacher
evaluation process. A qualitative study would then be conducted at the schools at which teachers
believe to have grown as educator through the teacher evaluation process.
3. Further research of schools utilizing non-traditional teacher evaluation systems, such
as team evaluations, portfolios, and multiple measures of teacher effectiveness.

Conclusion
According to Toch and Rothman (2008), teacher evaluations can be the most effective
instruments of school improvement. An effective teacher evaluation system has some common
characteristics – it is formative in nature, focusing on teacher growth, with a summative
component, which observes and recognizes this growth (Taylor & Tyler, 2012). It initiates a
collaborative dialogue between the evaluator and teacher throughout the year, in order to
exchange ideas and strategies that might lead towards growth of instructional practices.
However, due to limitations placed by teacher unions, and by the amount of time administrators
can devote to teacher evaluations, many schools do not utilize effective evaluation practices
(Danielson, 2007). As our educational system continues to evolve, educators must prioritize
implementing effective, research based teacher evaluation systems, in order to advance the
academic achievement of our students.
114

References
Abbott, C. J., & McKnight, K. (2010). Developing instructional leadership through
collaborative learning. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 7(2), 20-26.
Retrieved from https://www.aasa.org/
Anderson, J. (2012, February 19). States try to fix quirks in teacher evaluations. The
New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/education/states-
addressproblems-with-teacher-evaluations
Archer, J. (2004). Weaving webs. Education Week, 23(27), 50-53.
Attinello, J.R., Lare, D., & Waters, F. (2006, June). The value of teacher portfolios for evaluation
and professional growth. NASSP Bulletin, 90(2), 132-152.
Barton, S. N. B. (2010). Principals’ perceptions of teacher evaluation practices in an
urban school district. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of the
Pacific: Stockton, California.
Brandt, C., Mathers, C., Oliva, M., Brown-Sims, M., & Hess, J. (2007, November).
Examining district guidance to schools on teacher evaluation policies in the
Midwest region (Publication No. 030). Washington, DC: Institute of Education
Sciences U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?ProjectID=30
Burke, P., & Krey, R. (2005). Supervision: A guide to instructional leadership. Springfield, IL:
Charles C. Tomas.
Centra, J. A. (2005, July 9). Will teachers receive higher student evaluations by giving
higher grades and less coursework? Educational Testing Service.
115

Collinson, V. (2001). Book review evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and
best practice. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 15(2), 149-154.
Danielson, C. (2001). New trends in teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership, 58(5),
12-15.
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching, (2nd ed.)
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Danielson, C. (2010). Evaluations that help teachers learn. Educational leadership 68(4), 35-39.
Danielson, C. (2011). Evaluations that help teachers learn. Educational Leadership,
68(4), 35-39.
Danielson, C. (2012). It’s your evaluation – Collaborating to improve teacher practice. The
Education Digest, 77(8), pp. 22-27.
Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional
practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development & Educational Testing Service.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for
effectiveness and improvement. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A.E., & Pease, S.R. (1983). Teacher evaluation in the
organizational context: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 53(3),
285-328.
Denner, P. R., Miller, T. L., Newsome, J. D., & Birdsong, J. R. (2002). Generalizability
116

and validity of the use of a case analysis assessment to make visible the quality of
teacher candidates. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 16(3), 153-
174. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov
DiPaola, M. F., & Hoy, W. K. (2008). Principals improving instruction, supervision, evaluation,
and professional development. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Donaldson, M.L. (2009, June). So long Lake Wobegon? Using teacher evaluation to raise
teacher quality. Retrieved from Center for American Progress website:
http://www.americanprogress.org
Donaldson, M. L. (2010). No more valentines. Educational Leadership, 67(8), 54-58.
Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/
Donaldson, M.L., & Donaldson Jr., G.A. (2012). Strengthening teacher evaluation: What
district leaders can do. Educational Leadership, 69(8), 78-82.
Donaldson, M.L. & Peske, H.G. (2010). Supporting effective teaching through teacher
evaluation. Retrieved from
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2010/03/10/7381
Doherty, J. F. (2009). Perceptions of teachers and administrators in a Massachusetts
suburban school district regarding the implementation of a standards-based
teacher evaluation system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Seton Hall
University.
Ellett, C. D., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Teacher evaluation, teacher effectiveness and school
effectiveness: Perspectives from the USA. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in
Education, 12(1), 101-128.
117

Fuhrman, S. H. (2010). Tying teacher evaluation to student achievement. Education Week,
29(28), 32-33. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/04/07/28fuhrman_ep.h29.html?print=1
Glanz, J. & Sullivan, S. (2005). Supervision that improves teaching: strategies and techniques
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2005) The basic guide to
supervision and instructional leadership. Boston: Pearson Education Company.
Goldstein, J. (2005). Debunking the fear of peer review: Combining supervision and
evaluation and living to tell about it. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in
Education, 18(4), 235-252.
Grissom, J.A., Loeb, S., & Master, B. (2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders:
Longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational Researcher, 42(8),
433-444.
Heneman, H. G., Milanowski, A., Kimball, S. M., Odden, A. (2006). Standards-based
teacher evaluation as a foundation for knowledge- and skill-based pay. CPRE
policy briefs RB-45. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, 16, 1-16.
Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/
Hill, H. C., Charalambous, C. Y., & Kraft, M. (2012). When rater reliability is not enough:
Observational systems and a case for the G-study. Educational Researcher, 41(2), 56–64.
Hinchey, P. H. (2010). Getting teacher assessment right: What policymakers can learn
from research. National Education Policy Center.
Hopkins, G. (2001). The best and worst things about being a principal. Education
118

World. Retrieved from
http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin253.shtml
Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2008). Can principals identify effective teachers?
Evidence on subjective performance evaluation in education. Journal of Labor
Economics, 26(1), 101-136.
Kane, T.J., Taylor, E.S., Tyler, J.H., & Wooten, A.L. (2010, March). Identifying effective
classroom practices using student achievement data. Working paper, National Bureau of
Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Kaplan, L. S., & Owings, W. A. (2001). Teacher quality and student achievement:
Recommendations for principals. NASSP Bulletin, 85(628), 64-73.
Kersten, T.A. & Israel, M.S. (2005). Teacher evaluation: principals’’ insight and suggestions for
improvement. Planning and Changing, 36, (1), (2), 47-67.
Labaree, D.F. (2011, Summer). Targeting teachers. Dissent. 58(3), 9-14.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership
influences student learning. New York: The Wallace Foundation.
Loup, K., Garland, J., Ellett, C, & Rugatt, 1. (1996). Ten years later: Findings from the
replication ofa study of teacher evaluation practices in our 100 largest school
districts. Journal o/Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10(3),203-226.
Marcoux, J., Brown, G., Irby, B. J., & Lara-Alecio, R. (2003, April). A case study on the
use of portfolios in principal evaluation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works. Alexandria, VA:
119

ASCD.
MET Project. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high quality
observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.metproject.org
Milanowski, A. T. (2005). Split roles in performance evaluation--A field study involving
new teachers. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 18(3),
153-169.
Milanowski, A., & Heneman, H.G. III. (2001). Assessment of teacher reactions to a
standards-based teacher evaluation system: A pilot study. Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 15, 193-212.
National Council on Teacher Quality (2012). State of the states 2012: Teacher effectiveness
policies. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/p/publications/docs/
Updated_NCTQ_State%20of%20the%20States%202012_Teacher%20Effectiveness%20
Policies.pdf
National Education Association. (2010). Teacher assessment and evaluation: The
National Education Association’s framework for transforming education systems to
support effective teaching and improve student learning. Retrieved from National
Education Association website: http://www.nea.org/home/41858.htm
Noakes, L. (2009). Adapting the utilization-focused approach for teacher evaluation. Journal of
Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 6(11), 83-88.
Norman, A.D. (2010). Assessing accomplished teaching: Good strides, great challenges. Theory
Into Practice, 49, 203-212.
120

Odden, A. (2004). Lessons learned about standards-based teacher evaluation systems.
Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 126.
Olivia, P. & Pawlas, G. (2004). Supervision for today’s schools. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing.
Ovando, M.N., & Ramirez Jr., A. (2007). Principals’ instructional leadership within a
teacher performance appraisal system: Enhancing students’ academic success. Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20, 85-110.
Palazuelos, A. E., & Conley, S. (2008). Choice in teacher evaluation. Association of
California School Administrators. Retrieved from
http://www.acsa.org/MainMenuCategories/ProfessionalLearning/PromisingPracti
ces/HumanResources/Teacherevaluations.aspx
Peterson, K. D. (1987). Teacher evaluation with multiple and variable lines of evidence.
American Educational Research Journal, 24(2), 311-317.
Peterson, K. D. (2004). Research on school teacher evaluation. NASSP Bulletin, 88(639),
60-79.
Peterson, K. D. (2006). Using multiple data sources in teacher evaluation systems. Evaluating
teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Popham, W. J. (1988). The dysfunctional marriage of formative and summative teacher
evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 1, 269–273.
Portin, B. S., Knapp, M. S., Dareff, S., Feldman, F. A., Samuelson, C., & Yeh, T. L. (2009).
Leadership for learning improvement in urban schools. Seattle: University
of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Retrieved from
121

http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/
Reeder, S. (2005). The hidden cost of tenure. Small Newspaper Group. Retrieved from
http://www.thehiddencostsoftenure.com/
Reitzug, U. C., West, D. L., Angel, R. (2008). Conceptualizing instructional leadership:
The voices of principals. Education and Urban Society, 40(6), 694-714.
Ripley, A. (2012). Why kids should grade teachers. Atlantic Monthly (10727825),
310(3), 88-93.
Saunders, W.M., Goldenberg, C.N., & Gallimore, R. (2009). Increasing achievement by
focusing grade level teams on improving classroom learning: A prospective,
quasi-experimental study of title I schools. American Educational Research
Journal, 46(4), 1006-1033.
Spillane, J. P., & Diamond, J. B. (2007). Taking a distributed perspective. In
J. P. Spillane & J. B. Diamond (Eds.), Distributed leadership in practice (pp. 1-15).
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Spooren, P., & Mortelmans, D. (2006) Teacher professionalism and student evaluation of
teaching: Will better teachers receive higher ratings and will better students give
higher ratings? Educational Studies, 32(2), 201-214.
Stroble, E. & Cooper, J. M. (1988). Mentor teachers: Coaches or referees? Theory into
practice 27(3), 231–236.
Stronge, J. H. (1997). Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Stronge, J. H. (2006). Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice
122

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Stumbo, C., & McWalters, P. (2011). Measuring effectiveness: What will it take?
Educational Leadership, 68(4), 10-15.
Taylor, E., & Tyler, J. (2012). Can teacher evaluation improve teaching? Evidence of systematic
growth in the effectiveness of midcareer teachers. Education Next, 12.4, 79+.
Thomas, E., & Wingert, P. (2010, March 6). Why we must fire bad teachers.
Newsweek. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/2010/03/05/why-wemust-
fire-bad-teachers.html
Toch, T. (2008). Fixing teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership, 66(2), 32-37.
Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/
Toch, T., & Rothman, R. (2008). A rush to judgment: Teacher evaluation in public
education. Educator Sector Reports. Washington, DC.
Tucker, P. D. (1997). Lake wobegon: Where all teachers are competent (or, have we
come to terms with the problem of incompetent teachers?). Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 11(2), 103-126.
Tucker, P. D., & Stronge, J. H. (2005). Linking teacher evaluation and student learning.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
United States Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/.
Wahlstrom, K. L, & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership:
The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 458-495.
123

Watanabe, T. (2010, September 16). California Board of Education addresses teacher
evaluation issues. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/16/local/la-me-ed-board-20100916
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30
years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement.
Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Webb, L. D., & Norton, M. S. (1999). Human resources administration. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Weems, D. M., & Rogers, C. B. H. (2010). Are US teachers making the grade? A proposed
framework for teacher evaluation and professional growth. Management in Education,
24(1), 19-24.
Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national
failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. Retrieved from the
New Teacher Project website: http://widgeteffect.org/downloads/TheWidgetEffect.pdf
Wilkerson, D. J., Manatt, R. P., Rogers, M. A., & Maughan, R. (2000). Validation of
student, principal, and self-ratings in 360 degree feedback (registered) for teacher
evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(2), 179-192.
Zimmerman, S., & Deckert-Pelton, M. (2003). Evaluating the evaluators: Teachers’ perceptions
of the principal’s role in professional evaluation. NASSP Bulletin, 87, 28-37.

124

Appendix A: Evaluation Standards – Public School A

1.0 Engages and supports all students in learning.
2.0 Creates and maintains an effective learning environment for all students.
3.0 Understands and organizes subject matter for student learning.
4.0 Plans instruction and designs learning, experiences for all students.
5.0 Assesses student learning.
6.0 Develops as a professional educator.

125

Appendix B: Evaluation Standards – Public School B

1. Management of instructional time.
2. Instructional strategies.
3. Instructional presentation.
4. Appropriate Curriculum.
5. Management of student behavior.
6. Management of classroom environment.
7. Instructional monitoring.
8. Instructional feedback.

126

Appendix C: Evaluation Standards – Public School C

1. Engaging and supporting all students in learning.
a) Connecting students’ prior knowledge, life experience, and interests with learning
goals.
b) Using a variety of instructional strategies and resources to respond to students’
diverse needs.
c) Facilitating learning experiences that promote autonomy, interaction, and choice.
d) Engaging students in problem solving, critical thinking, and other activities that
make subject matter meaningful.
2. Creating and maintaining effective environments for student learning.
a) Creating a physical environment that engages all students.
b) Establishing a climate that promotes fairness and respect.
c) Promoting social development and group responsibility.
d) Establishing and maintaining standards for student behavior.
e) Planning and implementing classroom procedures and routines that support student
learning.
f) Using instructional time effectively.
3. Understanding and organizing subject matter for student learning.
a) Demonstrating knowledge of subject matter content and student development.
b) Organizing curriculum to support student understanding of subject matter.
c) Interrelating ideas and information within and across subject matter areas.
127

d) Developing student understanding through instructional strategies that are
appropriate to the subject matter.
e) Using materials, resources, and technologies to make subject matter accessible to
students.
4. Planning instruction and designing learning experiences for all students.
a) Drawing on and valuing students’ backgrounds, interests, and developmental learning
needs.
b) Establishing and articulating goals for student learning.
c) Developing and sequencing instructional activities and materials for student earning.
d) Designing short-term and long-term plans to foster student learning.
e) Modifying instructional plans to adjust for student need.
5. Assessing student learning.
a) Establishing and communicating learning goals for all students.
b) Collecting and using multiple sources of information to assess student learning.
c) Involving and guiding all students in assessing their own learning.
d) Using the results of assessments to guide instruction.
e) Communicating with students, families, and other audiences about student progress.
6. Developing as a professional educator.
a) Reflecting on teaching practice and planning professional development.
b) Establishing professional goals and pursuing opportunities to grow professionally.
c) Working with communities to improve professional practice.
d) Working with families to improve professional practice.
128

e) Working with colleagues to improve professional practice.
f) Balancing professional responsibility and maintaining motivation
g) Promoting self-directed, reflective learning for all students.

129

Appendix D: Evaluation Standards – Public School D

1. Engages and supports all students in learning.
2. Creates and maintains an effective learning environment for all students.
3. Understands and organizes subject matter for student learning.
4. Plans instruction and designs learning, experiences for all students.
5. Assesses student learning.
6. Develops as a professional educator.

130

Appendix E: Evaluation Standards – Charter School A

1. Engaging and supporting all students in learning.
a) Connecting students’ prior knowledge, life experience, and interests with learning goals.
b) Using a variety of instructional strategies and resources to respond to students’ diverse
needs.
c) Facilitating learning experiences that promote autonomy, interaction, and choice.
d) Engaging students in problem solving, critical thinking, and other activities that make
subject matter meaningful.
e) Promoting self-directed, reflective learning for all students.
2. Creating and maintaining effective environments for student learning.
a) Creating a physical environment that engages all students.
b) Establishing a climate that promotes fairness and respect.
c) Promoting social development and group responsibility.
d) Establishing and maintaining standards for student behavior.
e) Planning and implementing classroom procedures and routines that support student
learning.
f) Using instructional time effectively.
3. Understanding and organizing subject matter for student learning.
a) Demonstrating knowledge of subject matter content and student development.
b) Organizing curriculum to support student understanding of subject matter.
c) Interrelating ideas and information within and across subject matter areas.
131

d) Developing student understanding through instructional strategies that are appropriate to
the subject matter.
e) Using materials, resources, and technologies to make subject matter accessible to
students.
4. Planning instruction and designing learning experiences for all students.
a) Drawing on and valuing students’ backgrounds, interests, and developmental learning
needs.
b) Establishing and articulating goals for student learning.
c) Developing and sequencing instructional activities and materials for student learning.
d) Designing short-term and long-term plans to foster student learning.
e) Modifying instructional plans to adjust for student need.
5. Assessing student learning .
a) Establishing and communicating learning goals for all students.
b) Collecting and using multiple sources of information to assess student learning.
c) Involving and guiding all students in assessing their own learning.
d) Using the results of assessments to guide instruction.
e) Communicating with students, families, and other audiences about student progress.
6. Developing as a professional educator.
a) Reflecting on teaching practice and planning professional development.
b) Establishing professional goals and pursuing opportunities to grow professionally.
c) Working with communities to improve professional practice.
d) Working with families to improve professional practice.
132

e) Working with colleagues to improve professional practice.
f) Balancing professional responsibility and maintaining motivation.

133

Appendix F: Evaluation Standards – Charter School B

1.0 Planning and preparation.
a) Awareness of students’ skills, knowledge, and language proficiency.
b) Standards based learning activities.
c) Planning assessment criteria.
2.0 The classroom environment.
a) Classroom climate.
b) Management of routines, procedures, and transitions.
c) Monitoring and responding to student behavior.
3.0 Delivery of instruction.
a) Communicating the purpose of the lesson.
b) Use of academic language.
c) Quality and purpose of questions.
d) Discussion techniques and student participation.
e) Standards based projects, activities, and assignments.
f) Purposeful and productive instructional groups.
g) Feedback to students.
4.0 Additional professional responsibilities.
a) Engagement of families in instructional program

134

5.0 Professional growth.
a) Use of reflection to inform future instruction.
b) Promoting a culture of professional inquiry and collaboration.

135

Appendix G: Evaluation Standards – Charter School C

1. Engaging and supporting all students in learning.
a) Connecting students’ prior knowledge, life experience, and interests with learning goals.
b) Using a variety of instructional strategies and resources to respond to students’ diverse
needs
c) Facilitating learning experiences that promote autonomy, interaction, and choice.
d) Engaging students in problem solving, critical thinking, and other activities that make
subject matter meaningful.
e) Promoting self-directed, reflective learning for all students.
2. Creating and maintaining effective environments for student learning. 2.
a) Creating a physical environment that engages all students.
b) Establishing a climate that promotes fairness and respect.
c) Promoting social development and group responsibility.
d) Establishing and maintaining standards for student behavior.
e) Planning and implementing classroom procedures and routines that support student
learning
f) Using instructional time effectively.
3. Understanding and organizing subject matter for student learning.
a) Demonstrating knowledge of subject matter content and student development.
b) Organizing curriculum to support student understanding of subject matter.
c) Interrelating ideas and information within and across subject matter areas.
136

d) Developing student understanding through instructional strategies that are appropriate to
the subject matter.
e) Using materials, resources, and technologies to make subject matter accessible to
students.
4. Planning instruction and designing learning experiences for all students.
a) Drawing on and valuing students’ backgrounds, interests, and developmental learning
needs.
b) Establishing and articulating goals for student learning.
c) Developing and sequencing instructional activities and materials for student learning.
d) Designing short-term and long-term plans to foster student learning.
e) Modifying instructional plans to adjust for student need.
5. Assessing student learning.
a) Establishing and communicating learning goals for all students.
b) Collecting and using multiple sources of information to assess student learning.
c) Involving and guiding all students in assessing their own learning.
d) Using the results of assessments to guide instruction.
e) Communicating with students, families, and other audiences about student progress.
6. Developing as a professional educator.
a) Reflecting on teaching practice and planning professional development.
b) Establishing professional goals and pursuing opportunities to grow professionally.
c) Working with communities to improve professional practice.
d) Working with families to improve professional practice.
137

e) Working with colleagues to improve professional practice.
f) Balancing professional responsibility and maintaining motivation.

138

Appendix H: Evaluation Standards – Charter School D

Domain 1: Data-Driven Planning and Assessment
1.1 Establish standards-based learning objectives for instructional plans.
1.2 Organize instructional plans to promote standards-based, cognitively
engaging learning for students.
1.3 Use student data to guide planning.
1.4 Use knowledge of subject matter content/skills and learning processes to
plan for student learning.
1.5 Design assessments to ensure student mastery.
Domain 2: Classroom Learning Environment
2.1 Create a classroom/community culture of learning.
2.2 Manage student behavior through clear expectations and a balance of
positive reinforcement, feedback, and redirection.
2.3 Establish a culture of respect and rapport which supports students’
emotional safety.
2.4 Use smooth and efficient transitions, routines, and procedures to maintain
instructional momentum.
Domain 3: Instruction
3.1 Communicate learning objectives to students.
3.2 Facilitate Instructional Cycle.
3.3 Implement instructional strategies.
139

Domain 4: Assessment and Data Driven Instruction
4.1 Engage in critical reflection, constantly revising practice to increase
effectiveness.
4.2 Engage in collaborative relationships with peers to learn and share best
practices and ensure continuity in student learning.
4.3 Uphold and exhibit the district norms and expectations.
4.4 Develop two-way communication with families about student learning and
achievement.

140

Appendix I: Information Letter

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEMS UTILIZED
BY PUBLIC AND CHARTER SCHOOLS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Amit Mishal under the
supervision of Dr. Pedro Garcia at the University of Southern California because you are an
administrator at a public high school in Southern California. Research studies include only
people who voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this
study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to examine teacher evaluation systems utilized by public and charter
school districts in Southern California. It analyzes the similarities and differences between
teacher evaluation systems used by public schools versus charter schools, and how principals use
evaluations to promote teacher growth, and ultimately increase student achievement. This study
is conducted by interviewing eight principals in Southern California using qualitative methods.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT

If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in a 45 minute audio-
recorded interview. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to; if you do not
wish to be recorded, handwritten notes will be taken. As part of the interview, you will be asked
to provide the researcher with documentation used by the principal to evaluate teachers (no
teacher names or identifiers should be included). This documentation will be reviewed by the
researcher, and used in the comparative analysis.

CONFIDENTIALITY

With permission from the principal, the interviews will be recorded with an iPhone, and
transcribed professionally. Hand-written notes will also be taken during the interview. Both the
recorded interviews and hand-written notes will be labeled using a pseudonym to protect the
privacy and confidentiality of the schools and principals in the study. The recorded interviews
will be stored on a password protected laptop computer, and will be deleted after the
transcription process is completed. The hand-written notes will be stored in a locked cabinet.
At the completion of the study, direct identifiers will be destroyed. The de-identified data will be
stored on a password protected computer and/or in a locked file cabinet in the researchers office
141

for three years after the study has been completed and may be retained for future use. If you do
not want your data used in future studies, you should not participate.

The members of the research team, and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

A report of study findings will be made to the participating sites, but all data will be presented in
aggregate form such that no individual respondents can be identified.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION

Your alternative is to not participate. Your relationship with your employer or institution will not
be affected whether or not you participate in this study.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION

If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Amit Mishal
by phone at (714) 394 – 0443, or through email at ‘mishal@usc.edu’.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION

If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 led to drastic changes in the educational system, and placed emphasis on improving student achievement scores. State and federal governments mandated that schools only employ highly effective teachers, which led to the transformation of teacher evaluation systems across many states. This study conducted a comparative analysis of teacher evaluation systems utilized in four traditional public schools and four charter public schools using a qualitative case study methods design. It examined the similarities and differences between public and charter schools, as well as the differences between schools that saw increasing versus decreasing student achievement over a span of three years. Data was collected through the interviewing of eight principals. ❧ The study was designed to answer the following four research questions: 1) What is the structure of the teacher evaluation system in place at each school in the study? 2) Is the teacher evaluation system formative, focusing on improvement of teaching practices, or summative, focusing on whether certain standards are being met? 3) What supports do principals provide for teachers who are deemed unsatisfactory in their evaluation? 4) How do principals incentivize, encourage, and support teachers, who are meeting or exceeding expectations, to continue growing as educators? ❧ The study’s findings indicate that the successful schools, with increasing student achievement, used teacher evaluation systems that were formative in nature, compared to struggling schools, with decreasing student achievement, which used teacher evaluation systems that were summative in nature. In addition, successful schools provided ongoing support for improving teacher, through regular observations and post-observation meetings with administrators. In comparison, struggling schools referred improving teachers to a district led teacher improvement program, or simply provided written suggestions, without a follow-up observation to verify whether the suggestions had been implemented. Finally, teachers at successful schools were required to identify annual growth goals through a self-reflection process, and implement new instructional strategies to achieve these goals.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The teacher evaluation: key components that positively impact teacher effectiveness and student achievement

PDF

Best practices charter school CEOs are implementing to recruit and retain teachers

PDF

A case study of promising leadership practices employed by principals of Knowledge Is Power Program Los Angeles (KIPP LA) charter school to improve student achievement

PDF

Initiatives implemented by urban high school principals that increase and sustain achievement in algebra for African American students

PDF

Investigating the promising practice of teacher evaluation in two California charter schools

PDF

Digital teacher evaluations: principal expectations of usefulness and their impact on teaching

PDF

The leadership skills, knowledge, and training required of high school principals to effectively evaluate classroom teachers

PDF

Resource allocation practices in start-up charter schools in relation to identified school reform strategies

PDF

Superintendents increase student achievement by selecting effective principals

PDF

School leaders' use of data-driven decision-making for school improvement: a study of promising practices in two California charter schools

PDF

The impact of principal leadership on teacher retention in K-4 charter schools in South Los Angeles

PDF

Elements of a 1:1 computer laptop program in a Los Angeles County high school and implications for education leaders

PDF

Use of Kotter’s change model by elementary school principals in the successful implementation of inclusive education programs for students with disabilities in K-6 elementary schools in Southern ...

PDF

Comparative study of the networked principal vs. the isolated principal

PDF

Implementation of instructional programs targeting African American students to increase academic achievement

PDF

Instructional coaching, educational technology, and teacher self-efficacy: a case study of instructional coaching programs in a California public K-12 school district

PDF

Teacher self-efficacy and instructional coaching in California public K-12 schools: effective instructional coaching programs across elementary, middle, and high schools and the impact on teacher...

PDF

School board and superintendent relationships and how they promote student achievement in California’s urban districts

PDF

Effective leadership practices of principals of low socioeconomic status high schools consisting of predominantly African-American and Latino students showing sustained academic improvement

PDF

Instructional coaching in California public K-12 school districts: instructional coaching programs in elementary, middle, and high schools and the impact on teacher self-efficacy with educational...

Asset Metadata

Creator Mishal, Amit (author)

Core Title A comparative analysis of teacher evaluation systems utilized by public and charter schools in Southern California

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/14/2016

Defense Date 03/28/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag charter schools,OAI-PMH Harvest,teacher evaluation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Garcia, Pedro E. (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy (committee member), Gothold, Stuart (committee member)

Creator Email mishal@usc.edu,ripcord17@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-250824

Unique identifier UC11280598

Identifier etd-MishalAmit-4429.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-250824 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MishalAmit-4429.pdf

Dmrecord 250824

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Mishal, Amit

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA