An analysis of perceptions and implementation of California's teacher evaluation process in a K--5 public school and its impact on teacher practice

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content AN ANALYSIS OF PERCEPTIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
CALIFORNIA’S TEACHER EVALUATION PROCESS
IN A K-5 PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ITS IMPACT
ON TEACHER PRACTICE
by
Stefanie Paimell Phillips
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2005
Copyright 2005 Stefanie Pannell Phillips
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3180456
Copyright 2005 by
Phillips, Stefanie Pannell
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3180456
Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my grandmother, Mrs. Ruth Edmonson,
who inspired me to learn and achieve when I did not believe that I could do so. She
taught me to focus and to work hard. She motivated me to make a contribution to
education and to make a difference in the lives of students.
This dissertation is also dedicated to my beloved sons, Brandyn and Blayke
Phillips. I could say that I did all of this for me but, in truth, it was really for them.
They are my main motivation. It is very important to me for them to know that
there are no boundaries except those that one places on oneself. I urge them to
work hard and to learn that struggles only make one stronger, better. I will always
be there to support them, no matter what. Doing what is best for them drives me to
be the best that I can be.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank my husband, Bryan Phillips, for his patience through this long
journey. There were times that he did not understand my passion to pursue this
goal, but he stood by me anyway. I thank him for his understanding and support.
My mother, Elaine Pannell, has been my biggest supporter during my entire
life, and I cannot adequately express my appreciation to her. She gave me the work
ethic and the drive to overcome challenges and hurdles. She is my rock, and I am
grateful that she has given so much of herself for me.
I would not be at this point if it were not for Dr. Edmond Heatley, a mentor
and friend. He embodies the concept of “each one reach one,” and I sincerely
thank him for his support.
Every time I felt that I could not go further, I felt the strength of Eunice
Price and Karla Rhay holding me up and moving toward my goal.
Dr. Sharon McGehee and Mr. Bruce Mangerich have been fully supportive
of my academic pursuits. I would have never imagined that employers could be so
supportive and encouraging. Without the nurturing environments that I have found
with them, I would not have been able to flourish.
I appreciate the invaluable input, support, and assistance of Dr. Dennis
Hocevar and Dr. Thomas Halvorsen on this stimulating journey.
Dr. Stuart Gothold saw something in me and encouraged me to grow and
achieve at the university. It was very encouraging to work with a professor who
sincerely believed that I had something to offer in the world of education.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION.........................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS......................................................................................iii
LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................viii
LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................ ix
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................ x
CHAPTER
1. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY.......................................... 1
Background......................................................................................... 3
Problem Description........................................................................... 6
Purpose of the Study........................................................................... 7
Research Methodology....................................................................... 7
Research Questions..............................................................................8
Importance of the Study.......................................................................8
Limitations of the Study....................................................................10
Delimitations of the Study.................................................................10
Assumptions.......................................................................................11
Definition of Terms...........................................................................11
Organization of the Dissertation........................................................17
2. LITERATURE REVIEW.........................................................................19
History of Teacher Evaluation.......................................................... 20
Governance and the Environment of Accountability........................23
California Teacher Evaluation Policy............................................... 29
Local School District Evaluation Policy and Practices.....................35
Current State of Teacher Evaluation..................................................37
Other Factors and Processes That Improve Teacher Practice............39
Site-Based Reform..................................................................... 40
Standardized State Assessments................................................ 40
Professional Development......................................................... 41
Peer Review............................................................................... 42
Self-Assessment......................................................................... 43
Site-Based Management............................................................ 44
Shared Decision Making........................................................... 44
School Culture........................................................................... 45
Standards-Based Education....................................................... 45
Data-Driven Decision Making................................................... 47
Summary........................................................................................... 52
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..............................................................56
Research Questions............................................................................57
Sample and Population..................................................................... 57
Selected School District.................................................................... 58
Selected Elementary School............................................................. 60
Educational Leader Participants................................................ 62
Teacher Participants.................................................................. 63
Instrumentation................................................................................. 64
Frameworks for Instrument Design.................................................. 65
Framework for the First Research Question...............................66
Framework for the Second Research Question..........................67
Framework for the Third Research Question.............................67
Framework for the Fourth Research Question...........................70
Data Collection Instruments............................................................. 70
Case Study Guide...................................................................... 71
Case Study Guide...................................................................... 74
Data Collection................................................................................. 75
Data Analysis.................................................................................... 77
Summary........................................................................................... 77
4. ANALYSIS OF DATA AND FINDINGS................... 79
First Research Question: District Teacher Evaluation Policy..........80
An Overview of the Policy.........................................................81
The Process for Policy Development.........................................84
Policy Dissemination..................................................................88
Policy Implementation................................................................89
Funding of Policy and Strategy Implementation........................90
Summary of the Findings for die First Research Question 92
Second Research Question: School Site Implementation of
District Policy............................................................................ 94
Degree of Design Implementation..............................................95
Program Planning Strategies......................................................98
Accountability of Implementation..............................................99
Stages of Concern.....................................................................100
Improving Teacher Practice Through Implementation
ofPG S...............................................................................101
Teacher Perception...................................................................101
Summary of the Findings for the Second Research
Question.............................................................................106
Third Research Question: Factors Shaping School Reform...........107
Nature of School Leadership....................................................108
Other Efforts That Impact Culture............................................114
High Expectations.............................................................114
Parental Involvement.........................................................116
Accountability in School Culture......................................117
Summary of the Findings for the Third Research Question 119
Nature of School Leadership.............................................119
Other Factors Influencing Implementation of
Teacher Evaluation.....................................................119
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Fourth Research Question: Effectiveness of Policy and
Strategy Design.........................................................................120
Teachers’ and Administrators’ Perceptions of the
Teacher Evaluation Process...............................................122
Teachers’ Perceptions........................................................122
Administrators’ Perceptions..............................................122
Evidence of Changes in Teacher Practice Emanating
From the Evaluation Process.............................................123
Degree to Which Other School Efforts Improve Teaching
Practices.............................................................................124
Cost Effectiveness of Teacher Evaluation................................125
Consequences for Perceived “Weak” and “Strong”
Teachers.............................................................................126
Summary of the Findings for the Fourth Research
Question.............................................................................127
Administrators’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of the
Teacher Evaluation Process.......................................127
Evidence of Changes in Teacher Practice Emanating
From the Evaluation Process......................................128
Other School Efforts Improving Teacher Practice............128
Cost Effectiveness of Teacher Evaluation.........................129
Consequences for Perceived “Weak” and
“Strong” Teachers......................................................129
Summary..........................................................................................130
5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................131
Overview..........................................................................................131
Purpose of the Study.................................................................131
Significance of the Study..........................................................132
Research Methodology.............................................................132
Sample and Population......................................................132
Instrumentation..................................................................133
Instrument Design.............................................................133
Data Collection Instruments.....................................................133
Data Collection.........................................................................134
Data Analysis............................................................................134
Summary of the Findings.................................................................135
The First Research Question.....................................................135
The Second Research Question................................................136
The Third Research Question...................................................137
The Fourth Research Question.................................................137
Conclusions......................................................................................139
Discussion of Findings.............................................................140
Research-Based Practices..................................................140
Leadership.........................................................................141
Collaboration.....................................................................142
Implications of the Findings.....................................................143
Recommendations for Practice........................................................145
Suggestions for Additional Research...............................................147
vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
REFERENCES.....................................................................................................149
APPENDICES......................................................................................................158
A. PROFESSIONAL GROWTH SYSTEM................................................159
B. TEACHER SURVEY.............................................................................183
C. DATA NEEDS CHART........................................................................188
D. CASE STUDY GUIDE..........................................................................191
E. LIST OF COLLECTED DOCUMENTS AND ARTIFACTS.............. 201
F. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT...................................203
G. ADDITONAL SOURCES.................................................................... 217
v ii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
1. Characteristics of the School and District....................................................60
2. Characteristics of the Sample and Data Collection Instruments..................64
3. Instrumentation Organization.......................................................................80
4. District Policy and Strategy Planning and Design: Results of the
Teacher Survey.....................................................................................103
5. School Site Implementation: Results of the Teacher Survey.................... 104
6. Factors Shaping the School-Level Effort: Perceptions............................. 109
7. Factors Shaping the School-Level Effort: Beliefs..................................... 111
8. Teachers’ Perceptions of Effectiveness: Results of the
T eacher Survey.....................................................................................115
viii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Stages of concern......................................................................................... 68
2. Developmental stages of leadership............................................................ 69
3. Program planning strategies........................................................................ 69
4. Data collection schedule.............................................................................. 76
5. Professional Growth System (PGS).............................................................82
6. Professional Growth System timetable........................................................96
7. Rubric of Effectiveness.................................................................................121
ix
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate, analyze, and describe how the
use of teacher evaluation processes and tools have impacted the way in which Cali
fornia schools improve teacher practice and, ultimately, student performance. The
study explored and assessed teachers’ beliefs and perceptions of the teacher
evaluation process to ascertain its usefulness from a teacher’s perspective. Ulti
mately, the purpose of this study was to examine whether teacher evaluation was a
useful tool to reform teacher practice and, if not, what elements could be changed
to facilitate usefulness of the evaluation process.
The study described how one well-performing elementary school utilized
the teacher evaluation process to improve the teacher practices, which allowed for
higher academic achievement by its students. The key design elements, the extent
to which the design was implemented, and the adequacy of design were of major
importance and the main focus of the study. Teacher evaluation data and school
site student performance data were collected via document reviews, questionnaires,
and interviews. Board policies, collective bargaining agreements, and teacher
evaluation tools were examined, and completed questionnaires from 37 teachers
(84%) in the school were analyzed. One-on-one interviews were conducted with 6
classroom teachers, 1 principal, and 2 district administrators.
Analysis of the questionnaire results and interview responses indicated that
the school was fully and effectively implementing the district’s intended policy
design. Further indications were that, with continued focus and support, the dis
trict’s teacher evaluation policy will be effective in improving teacher practice.
x
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The results of this study provide a road map for any school district to improve
teacher practices through the use of the teacher evaluation process.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Since the Reagan Administration’s release of A Nation at Risk (National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) educational policy has been
evolving toward the goal of increased student achievement and a greater sense of
accountability for all stakeholders. The evolution of state and federal policy has
mandated accountability measures with which schools and districts must comply or
face corrective sanctions. Many factors impact student achievement; there is no
single path to increased student achievement. Educational restructuring efforts
since the 1980s have all suggested at least one of the following four reforms:
(a) increased accountability, (b) increased attention from state government,
(c) improved instructional practices, and/or (d) development of specialized pro
grams. As part of the effort to intervene on the behalf of students, the following
four strategies, which mesh well with reform recommendations, have emerged:
(a) professional development to ensure skillful teaching, (b) redesigning the school
to support learning, (c) providing targeted support, and (d) improved assessments
(Darling-Hammond, 1998). Improved assessments of teacher practice and teacher
effectiveness are clearly necessary, although in practice very rarely addressed.
However, teacher effectiveness has been identified by researchers as having a
significant impact. So, even though there are many other factors that schools
cannot control, one way to meet the student assessment targets mandated by federal
accountability legislation, No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2002), and California’s
state accountability legislation, the Public School Accountability Act (PSAA) is to
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ensure that teachers are utilizing instructional methods that research has identified
as successful in motivating and educating students.
Research concerning standards-based education, accountability, and teacher
effectiveness indicates that each of these factors has a profound impact on student
performance. California has made great progress in each of these areas. However,
in order to make the aforementioned reforms fully effective and influence teacher
effectiveness, California must develop multiple measures for monitoring teacher
performance and student learning, and that data should be used in alignment with
federal and state programs that support student learning and performance.
The use of tests and assessments has been a key element in the waves of
educational reform in the United States; unfortunately, tests for student and school
accountability over the past 50 years have not dramatically improved education and
student learning (Linn, 2000). Many schools and districts are using state assess
ments to motivate and improve teaching practices with teacher inservice programs.
However, these programs are typically short lecture-type sessions that do not train
teachers to the point of application (Hollins, 2003). Therefore, very little effective
adjustment actually takes place during the course of an academic year.
In this age of accountability, policy makers are attempting to use specific
data to hold districts accountable for student achievement. In turn, district adminis
tration must also utilize that same data not only to identify but to address deficien
cies in instructional delivery models and teacher practice. Utilizing these data in
conjunction with current educational research will also allow districts and schools
to move forward in improving instructional practices and, in turn, student out
comes. The data should drive not only what is taught but how it is taught. These
revelations in the data should then be goals and objectives for teacher performance,
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
measured by formative and summative teacher evaluation tools. Ensuring that
teachers are adequately prepared via credentialing and professional development
and then holding them accountable for their performance is necessary. Without
this, there is no assurance of instructional effectiveness and no linkage between the
data and classroom innovation.
Background
A ramification of low student outcomes is the ever-widening achievement
gap between groups of students with respect to family income and ethnicity. This
is fueling the economic disparity of the “haves and have-nots,” in addition to hav
ing significant implications for the United States in ensuing decades.
Anyon (1996) depicted the current educational system in America as pro
moting the status quo. To the degree that this is accurate, the only reform mechan
ism that would be truly effective is teacher practice, impacted significantly through
teacher preparation, selection, and evaluation. To this end, existing personnel
processes must be innovated in order to foster systematic change that will support
teachers toward success but also hold them accountable for their classroom
performance.
Existing academic methodologies and behaviors are so steeped in cultural
norms that educators are often rebellious against this type of reform, not because it
is ineffective but because it is uncomfortable. Teachers will continue to do the
same things that they have always done, which, for many, is simply insufficient and
ineffective. Just as important as the PSAA and Academic Performance Index (API)
is the level of expectation that districts place on themselves, their schools, adminis
trators, individual teachers, parents, and students. The idea that every student can
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
learn to high standards requires that every student be given the opportunity to learn
what is expected of him or her and given the best opportunity to demonstrate
mastery of that content.
Clearly, policymakers, educational leaders, and teachers alike must use
sound educational practices when dealing with high standards and the academic
performance of all students. A strong push toward holding all stakeholders
accountable will go a long way to eliminating the gap between the haves and the
have-nots. The nation is at war: at war against illiteracy and the inability to
compete in the international community (Heatley, 2002). In order to combat this
deficiency, there must be a strategic plan based in research and focused on the
individual needs of every student and teacher.
The review of literature in chapter 2 lends itself to further research and
investigation into what measures, including teacher evaluation, impact classroom
teacher practice. Many factors, such as teacher preparation and teacher effective
ness, have been identified by researchers as having a high correlation to student
success on standardized test scores. Recent studies of teacher effectiveness at the
classroom level using the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System and a simi
lar database in Dallas, Texas, have shown that differential teacher effectiveness is a
strong determinant of differences in student learning, far outweighing the effects of
differences in class size and heterogeneity (Jordan, Mendro, & Weerasinghe, 1997;
Sanders & Rivers, 1996; Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997). So, even though there
are many other factors that schools cannot control, one way to meet the student
assessment targets mandated by NCLB and PSAA is to ensure that teachers are
utilizing instructional methods that are successful in motivating and educating
students.
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The new educational reform movement establishes the structural founda
tions upon which strong standards-based curriculum and systemic accountability
are built. NCLB legislation gives schools a clear target to ensure that all students
achieve. The Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) ranking, the federal measurement of
academic progress detailed in NCLB legislation, is based on standardized test
data—data that schools and districts should be disaggregating to improve the
instructional delivery. With these data, schools should include targeted academic
alternatives that support the needs of those students who are not achieving at or
above grade level. In essence, schools must be designed to ensure that all students
learn, regardless of experiences and abilities (Barth & Mitchell, 1994). As school
administrators are being held accountable for student learning, so must teachers be
held accountable and, more important, be made successful. Instead of repeatedly
delivering curriculum in the same, it is a teacher’s duty to meet children where they
are and to work with differentiated techniques to achieve success (Adams, 1996).
Without an outcome-based performance appraisal, there is no way to objectively
ascertain a teacher’s effectiveness in this reform.
Evaluation is defined as a process to assess job performance. According to
Danielson (2001), teacher evaluation has been historically the basis for the promo
tion, retention, or dismissal of teachers. However, a good evaluation system should
also be used as a tool to improve the effectiveness of a teacher’s practice (Joki,
1982), more specifically, the delivery of instruction. While it is clear in California
that evaluations are used as tools to dismiss teachers or reward teachers with
tenure, the improvement of instruction is an aspect of evaluation that schools and
districts have not maximized.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The evaluation of teachers in the nation’s public schools has evolved
throughout history from a process of inspection to that of instructional supervision.
Supervision is the process of engaging teachers in instructional dialogue for the
purpose of improving teaching and increasing student achievement (Sullivan &
Glanz, 2000). Although there is no single way to achieve the purpose, teacher
preparation and effectiveness has been identified by researchers as one of the major
impacts on student success. While there are many other factors that schools cannot
control, one way to meet the student assessment targets mandated by NCLB and
PSAA is to ensure that teachers are appropriately prepared to educate and motivate
the populations of students whom they serve. In light of current research findings
that indicate that teacher expertise is the most important factor in student achieve
ment, policymakers know now, more than ever, that having good teachers in the
classroom is imperative (NCTAF, 1996). The foundation on which Congress
enacted the 1998 amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965 was the belief
that good teaching is key to student achievement (Christy & McNeil, 2000).
Problem Description
There is little current evidence of a significant linkage between teacher
evaluation goals and feedback and other strategies to increase student achievement
in this era of educational accountability (i.e., federal NCLB legislation and
California’s PSAA).
Teacher evaluation is mandated by the State of California (Education Code
§ 44660). The statutes prescribe a baseline process, and a great deal of time and
effort are being expended on this process. However, this process has been rumored
to be ineffective at changing teacher practice. To the extent that the mandated
6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
evaluation is ineffective, state or local policy must be revised to reflect a more
effective process or the mandated policy should be abandoned, with resources
being more efficiently allocated.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to investigate, analyze, and describe how the
use of teacher evaluation processes and tools have impacted the way in which
California schools improve teacher practice and, ultimately, student performance.
Further, the purpose of the study is to describe how one well-performing
elementary school utilizes the teacher evaluation process to improve the teacher
practices. The intent of the study is to examine what tools, practices, and processes
are currently available to schools that may allow for higher academic achievement
in students. The study makes recommendations to improve the evaluation process
to effectively impact or improve teacher practice, allowing students to achieve at
their highest level. Research indicates that efforts have been made in California to
improve teacher practice; however, what is not known is how effective the current
mandated evaluation process is in improving teacher practice. The purpose of this
study is to examine whether teacher evaluation is a useful tool to reform teacher
practice and, if not, to identify elements that could be changed to facilitate use
fulness of the evaluation process.
Research Methodology
Teacher evaluation data and school site student performance data were
collected over a 6-week period via observations, document review, surveys, and
interviews. A qualitative epistemology was used in designing data gathering
techniques.
7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In describing a phenomenon in education, researchers look for constructs
and themes that can be used to explain the phenomenon or that can be validated
through professional literature. In developing a possible explanation, researchers
look for causal or relational patterns to develop theoretical models of the phenome
non. Finally, in evaluating the phenomenon, researchers make judgments about the
phenomenon.
Research Questions.
The research questions that guided this study were as follows:
1. What is the district’s policy and strategy for carrying out teacher
evaluation?
2. How does the school carry out teacher evaluation?
3. What factors have shaped this school level effort?
4. How effective is the teacher evaluation process at the school level?
Importance of the Study
As noted by the Third International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS), conducted in 1995, the United States showed significantly lower levels of
academic performance when compared to other industrialized nations. This study
examined the student performance and instructional delivery models of 41
countries in the areas of mathematics and science. Likewise, the National Assess
ment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reported that California was doing just as
poorly in comparison to the other states (National Center for Education Statistics
[NCES], 2000a). NAEP, established in 1969, is a test mandated by Congress and
administered in all 50 states, to monitor the knowledge, skills, and performance of
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
a representative group of U.S. 9-, 13- and 17-year-old students in mathematics and
science, alternating with reading and writing, on what has been a 4-year cycle.
An issue that contributes to California’s student performance concerns is
that California neglects to incorporate systematically what are known as “best
practices,” promote continuity of educational program, and develop and promote a
vehicle for collaboration among school districts, schools, or even individual
teachers. In other words, there is no mechanism for the sharing of best instruc
tional and teacher practices. With the emergence of NCLB, the PSAA and
California’s High School Exit Exam (HSEE), increasing numbers of schools are
experimenting with various strategies to ensure that all students are performing at
or above grade level.
However, the evidence shows a nation, a state, and a society that are still at
risk. This study bears importance for policy makers, educational researchers,
district office personnel, and site administrators, as well as teachers. The findings
from this study can have a direct impact on the use of teacher evaluation tools and
processes to improve student performance via improved teacher practices and as a
means of accountability for classroom activities. Current educational literature will
validate that accountability is necessary; however, it is what is done post-evaluation
that is critical to holding districts, school sites, and individual teachers accountable
for increases in student performance.
Policy makers can gain insight as to how evaluation legislation actually
impacts teacher practice. The results of this study may provide a framework for
district and site-level administrators to evaluate the implementation of their current
evaluation policies and practices. School site leaders who are responsible for
evaluation, personnel decisions, and professional development decisions will be
9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
provided with a breadth of research-based strategies that may increase teacher
performance through the evaluation process. Understanding the elements of a good
process and effective implementation strategies will also assist key policy makers
in making the evaluation process more meaningful. Teachers may find that, with
the use of an effective evaluation process and accurate feedback, it may become
easier to revise their practices in order to facilitate increased student learning and
performance.
Limitations of the Study
The design of the study presents a range of limitations. First, respondents to
the survey and the interviews participated on a volunteer basis. Surveys are limited
in their capacity to obtain in-depth responses. Although there were opportunities
for follow-up responses through the interview process, those responses were
limited to those participants who volunteered to be interviewed. Further, the
researcher can neither ensure that respondents fully understood the meanings of the
survey questions nor ensure that all respondents understood the question in the
same way.
Delimitations of the Study
The researcher’s interpretation of the data collected through interviews and
observations may not fully reflect the respondents’ intentioned responses. Data
were collected in only one elementary school, which was not randomly selected.
As participants in the study were delimited to a single school site and representa
tives of that district office, the generalizability of this study is limited to the find
ings within the boundaries of the schools in the selected district and may not reflect
changes to future policies and procedures. The study focuses on teacher and
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
administrator perceptions of the teacher evaluation process and other related
factors, and their impact on teacher practice. Data collection was delimited to the
following instrumentation: teacher surveys, teacher and administrator interviews,
observations, and document review.
Assumptions
The following were assumptions of the researcher.
1. The measures utilized in the study were reliable valid indicators of
constructs that were studied.
2. The district leaders, school leaders, and teachers selected to participate in
interviews provided honest and candid responses.
3. The measures were accurately recorded and analyzed.
4. The purposes, processes, and elements of the study framework had a
degree of applicability and generalizability to schools throughout the selected
district.
Definition o f Terms
For the purpose of this study, key terms are defined to provide a common
theoretical understanding.
Academic Performance Index (API). The API is an index used in California
to rate the performance of schools, particularly in terms of academic achievement
of their students based on standardized test results (California Department of
Education [CDE], 2000).
Accountability. Measures to ensure that responsible individuals accomplish
the goal of improving students’ academic achievement. It entails setting specific
standards, interwoven with the continual process of assessing and improving
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
student performance (Schmoker, 1996). Persons to be held accountable for results
of increased student performance should also maintain the responsibility and
authority for program decision making and resource allocation. It is these persons
who will reap the rewards of success or suffer sanctions (Tucker & Codding, 1998).
Administrator. A school administrator is an educational leader who pro
motes the success of all students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school
culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff pro
fessional growth (Hessel & Holloway, 2002). The site administrator, the principal,
or the vice principal is usually the individual responsible for teacher evaluation.
Annual Yearly Progress (AYP). This federal measurement of academic
progress, detailed in NCLB legislation, is based on standardized test data and
annual measurable objectives set by the U.S. Department of Education.
Assessment. A tool, instrument, process, or exhibition composed of a
systematic sampling of behavior for measuring a student’s competence, knowledge,
skills, or behavior. The assessment tool can be used to measure differences in
individuals or groups or changes in performance from one occasion to the next
(U.S. Department of Education, NCES, 2000b).
Benchmarks. Checkpoints to monitor student progress toward meeting
performance goals, as well as detailed descriptions of expected levels (age, grade,
or developmental) of student performance (Linn, 2000).
California Distinguished School. An honor given to exemplary and
inspiring California public schools. Selected schools are strong, well-rounded
community schools. Five percent of California schools are selected each year.
Awards are valid for 4 years.
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP). The first
teaching performance standards having statewide validity in California (Whittaker,
Synder, & Freemen, 2001). The CSTP are not linked to curriculum or subject
matter standards but are linked to classroom teaching practices.
Collaboration. The process of working together as a team, in tandem, to
accomplish a mutually agreed upon goal.
Collective bargaining. A process that seeks to empower employee and
employer groups in decisions concerning salaries, fringe benefits, and working
conditions.
Comprehensive reform. A process that seeks to change all elements of a
school’s operating environment simultaneously in a coordinated, coherent fashion
so those elements align with a central, guiding vision. The ultimate goal of
comprehensive reform is to improve education for all students, as measured by
increased student performance on high content and performance-based standards
through standardized testing (Hertling, 2000; NCES, 2000b).
Content standards. Broadly stated expectations of what students should
know and demonstrate in particular subjects and grade levels; standards of expected
student skills and knowledge that are defined for teachers, schools, students, and
the community that determine what should be taught in schools (Linn, 2000).
Criterion-referenced examination. An examination in which there is a fixed
performance standard for all students and all student groups (Charles A. Dana
Center, 2000). Defining learning results that all students will master has also been
termed outcome-based education (Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 1999).
Data. A collection of things known or assumed—facts, figures, evidence,
records, statistics—information that describes or from which conclusions can be
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Data. A collection of things known or assumed—facts, figures, evidence,
records, statistics—information that describes or from which conclusions can be
inferred. A piece of data can be a number or a paragraph of text (Xuan, Erickson,
& Thomas-Strong, 1995). For the purpose of this study, data are both verifiable
and valid and are related to student performance.
Data-based decision making. Schools that pay close attention to and
analyze numerical patterns and trends with regard to student performance data to
determine how well schools are doing and what they should do next, while recog
nizing disparity between subgroups are using a data-based decision-making process
(Noyce, Perda, & Traver, 2000).
Evaluation. A process to assess job performance.
Formative evaluation. A benchmark assessment that gives the evaluated
person an opportunity to modify and enhance instructional practice within the
specified evaluation period.
High-stakes testing. State-mandated standardized tests often used to make
decisions about tracking, promotion, and graduation of students (Hoffman, Assaf,
& Paris, 2001). According to Kohn (2000), high-stakes tests frequently rely on
rewards and punishments to increase scores.
Immediate Intervention for Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP).
Action designed to provide assistance and intervention for schools identified as
underperforming (those in the bottom half of the performance statewide for two
consecutive years; CDE, 2000).
Intervention strategies. Instructional strategies that are incorporated into
the curriculum to prevent students from failing in school. These strategies can
include extended learning programs offering additional instruction, classes on study
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
skills, one-on-one tutoring, cross-age tutoring, changes in teacher or classroom
assignment, increased parental involvement, diagnostic assessment, individualized
education plans, and improved service delivery models for students and families
who would benefit from school-linked integrated services (Johnson & Rudolph,
2001).
No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Federal legislation passed in 2001
(Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act [ESEA]) that
requires that 100% of students be grade-level proficient in English and mathematics
by 2013.
Norm-referenced testing. A testing approach in which individual test scores
are compared to the scores earned by the group used in the norming process (Gall,
Borg, & Gall, 1996).
Performance assessment. An approach to evaluating individuals by
examining their performance on complex, complete, real-life tasks that have
intrinsic value (Gall et al., 1996).
Performance standards. Explicit grade-level achievement indicators that
demonstrate a specific level of academic proficiency (Linn, 2000).
Policy. A methodology used to embrace the goals and to guide acceptable
procedures of an organization.
Professional development. Training or education of individuals in the work
setting that is intended to benefit their work productivity.
Professional Growth System (PGS). A 2004-2005 school year pilot teacher
evaluation process in the Maple (California) Unified School District that contains
collaboration between the evaluator and teacher as well as jointly directed pro
fessional growth plans.
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Public Schools Accountability Act (PS AA). A collection of related
programs, mandated in the California Education Code (2003), designed to help
California’s state leaders, educators, and the public to evaluate the quality and
progress of public schools (PSAA, 2002).
Restructuring. Redesigning the school, usually involving school-based
management, enhanced decision-making roles for teachers, multiple innovations,
collaboration, reorganization of teacher education, restructured timetables, develop
ment or redevelopment of a shared mission and goals by various stakeholders, and
new roles for mentors, coaches, and other leaders (Fullan, 1993).
Stakeholder. Anyone who has a role in the program being evaluated or who
might be affected by or interested in the findings of the evaluation (Gall et al.,
1996). In education, stakeholders may include students, parents, teacher, adminis
trators, district office personnel, community members, and the Board of Education.
Standardized testing. An approach to testing in which all tests are adminis
tered and scored in a consistent way (Gall et al., 1996).
Standards. The broadest of a family of terms referring to statements of
expectations for student learning. Related terms include content standards,
performance standards, and benchmarks (Linn, 2000).
Standards-based education. “A way of operating schools and education
systems so that standards for student performance are at the center, and the sole
objective for everyone in the system is ensuring that students meet the standards”
(Tucker & Codding, 1998, p. 320). A standards-based system consists of inter
linked elements that promote effective use of standards for the improvement of
teaching and learning. The most important of these elements is an integrated
system of: assessment and accountability; investment in retooling through
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
professional development, curriculum revision, and instructional materials; local
flexibility in implementation; and a means for assisting students not meeting the
standards (Mauer & Zimmerman, 2000).
Stull Bill. California legislation passed in 1971 and subsequently modified
that requires all teachers to be evaluated within specified guidelines.
Summative evaluation. A culminating assessment of job performance at the
end of a specified work period. It is used in making personnel decisions and
determining the adequacy of job performance.
Supervision. The direction and oversight of school operations (Konnert &
Augenstein, 1995).
Teacher practice. Methods and means by which classroom teachers deliver
instruction.
Title I. Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) is the largest federal program in K-12 education. It is intended
to improve the quality of education in high-poverty schools and/or give extra help
to struggling students.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation records a descriptive case study designed to provide an
in-depth analysis of one elementary school’s experience in improving teacher
practices and, ultimately student achievement, through its teacher evaluation
process. In this case, the NCLB legislation and the PSAA are both significant
factors that determine the context of accountability.
Chapter 2 reviews current literature and establishes a historical perspective
of this discussion. It includes key topics related to new reform efforts focused on
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
school accountability and student performance, and the processes of teacher evalua
tion to improve teacher practice and student performance. Chapter 3 explains the
research design and instrumentation used in the study. All instrumentation and
processes contributing to research methods and procedures for data collection,
analysis, and reporting are described in detail. Chapter 4 presents the data collected
in the study. Research findings based on an analysis and interpretation of the data
gathered through interviews, observations, questionnaires, and document reviews
are discussed. Chapter 5 reviews the key themes of the study. Conclusions,
implications, and recommendations follow a summary of the problem, methodo
logy, and major findings.
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Teacher evaluation has historically been the basis for the promotion, reten
tion, or dismissal of teachers (Danielson, 2001). However, improvement of teacher
practice should also be a goal of a good evaluation system (Joki, 1982). While it is
clear in California that evaluations are used as tools to dismiss or reward teachers
with tenure or permanency, the improvement of instruction is an aspect of evalua
tion that schools and districts have yet to maximize.
Effective evaluation begins with a clear definition and statement of teaching
expectations. There are two types of teacher evaluation: summative and formative.
Summative evaluation is used as a culminating assessment of job performance at
the end of a specified work period. It is used in making personnel decisions and
determining the adequacy of job performance. Formative evaluation is used as a
type of benchmark to modify and enhance instructional practice. Formative evalua
tion should include a professional development component that complements the
program of assessment and improvement (Barrett, 1986).
This chapter provides a review of the literature related to teacher evaluation
and its uses related to improving teacher practice. This chapter is divided into six
sections: (a) History of Teacher Evaluation, (b) Governance and the Environment
of Accountability, (c) California Teacher Evaluation Policy, (d) Local School
District Evaluation Policies and Practices, (e) Current State of Teacher Evaluation
and (f) Other Factors That Contribute to Effective Teacher Practice.
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
History of Teacher Evaluation
The evaluation of teachers in the nation’s public schools has evolved
throughout history from a process of inspection to one of instructional supervision.
The first principal was not appointed until 1839. During the 19th century, educa
tion had professional supervisors who were not trained in curriculum; instead, they
oversaw the physical plant and operation of the school, focusing on attendance and
school cleanliness and repairs. It was not until the late 1870s that the role of
principal was changed to that of “teacher of teachers,” focusing on instruction and
mentoring poorly trained teachers.
During the late 1880s through 1905, the focus was on order and control of
schools. This brought more of an authoritarian supervision, which promoted
centralization in the organization of schools. Following this trend was the era of
economy and efficiency, influenced by Fredrick Taylor’s scientific approach to
supervision, measuring teacher efficiency. This type of management occurred until
the 1920s and 1930s, when there was a shift in supervision from plant management
to a more evaluative model. This shift was due to constant conflict between
teachers and administrators, teachers challenging the notion that schools were to be
operated like factories.
As the number and size of school systems grew, so did the complexity of
issues confronting supervision (Hessel & Holloway, 2002). In the 1930s, A. S.
Barr introduced the notion of objective and measurement to determine achieve
ment. In this way, good teacher practice could be dissected into smaller compon
ents and analyzed more insightfully (Sullivan & Glanz, 2000). This model required
increasing levels of observation to improve instruction. This trend continued over
the next two decades, through the 1950s.
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
However, in the 1960s and 1970s, clinical supervision became the order of
the day. The premise of clinical supervision was that teaching could be improved
by a prescribed formal process of collaboration between teacher and supervisor.
Clinical supervision was used to evaluate teacher performance, focusing on teacher
input and teacher behaviors. Key elements of clinical supervision were collegiality,
collaboration, assistance, and improvement (Sullivan & Glanz, 2000).
Clinical supervision grew out of dissatisfaction with instructional practice.
Student performance in the United States was beginning to lag behind that of
students in other industrial nations. The United States was threatened by perceived
Russian educational superiority due to Russian innovations in space technology.
Supreme Court decisions of the era mandated equal opportunities for all, for both
teachers and students. These court decisions led to more racially integrated school
campuses.
During this period, collaboration spawned ideas of empowerment; and the
concept of “teacher as a leader” began to influence supervision, leading to ideals of
peer supervision. In the 1970s, educational philosophy was based on the Madeline
Hunter model, which encouraged teacher-centered, structured classrooms. The
shift over time has evolved from a bureaucratic system to a democratic system and
from inspection to participation and dialogue. Sullivan and Glanz (2000) defined
supervision as the process of engaging teachers in instructional dialogue for the
purpose of improving teaching and increasing student achievement. Further, the
authors suggested that bureaucratic inspection should be extricated from
supervision.
In the 1980s and 1990s, educators felt increased pressure to help students to
achieve more complex outcomes, emphasizing critical thinking, problem solving,
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
lifelong learning, and deeper understanding. This entailed a shift from a behavior-
ist perspective to a view of learning derived from the cognitive learning theory. In
the 1980s, the prevalent educational philosophy focused on teacher effectiveness,
cooperative learning strategies, discipline models, and expectancy studies. In the
1990s, learning philosophies focused on critical thinking, content knowledge and
pedagogy, multiple intelligence, collaborative learning, constructivist classrooms,
and teaching for understanding. The focus included a much greater emphasis on
student outcomes. Research in the 1990s touted that evaluation systems were
important and even necessary to this end and should be designed to support teacher
growth and development through formative evaluation techniques. These tech
niques were said to provide higher levels of satisfaction, reflective practice, and
accountability for teachers. This prompted further shifts toward more collaborative
models of evaluation, including mentor programs.
In the mid-1980s, many states (including California, with its Stull Bill and
subsequent revisions) developed evaluation regulations or guidelines. It was about
this time that ^ 4 Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education,
1983) was released and new accountability programs became the fad, requiring
school improvement plans and ongoing staff development.
By 2000, alternative methods of evaluation, such as the portfolio, had been
introduced. A professional portfolio is a systematic and organized collection of
evidence and artifacts used to confirm competence and document growth in a goal
area. A key component of portfolio development is reflection. This often takes the
form of a brief statement attached to each artifact to explain its significance, as well
as a summative written reflection by the unit member about the overall significance
of the portfolio’s contents to that member’s performance and professional growth.
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
However, this is not the only acceptable format. Teachers are allowed to use their
individual talents and creativity to demonstrate performance and professional
growth, as long as the evaluator approves the format prior to submission.
Although teacher evaluation can take many forms, research shows that the
process must focus on student learning. This approach has been proven successful
in developing increased ownership and reflective judgment among teachers, as well
as increases in student scores on standardized tests (Halligan, 1999). This shift in
focus may require professional development for both teachers and administrators,
as well as changes to school culture (Barker, 1992).
Governance and the Environment
of Accountability
Through the years, both federal and state policies have placed increased
accountability on both schools and school districts. Public education is a federal
interest, a state function, and a local responsibility. The federal government has an
interest in education, as it has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be an implied
right of citizenship pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. On the other hand, the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution specifies that states reserve powers that are
not specifically delegated nor prohibited by the Constitution; there is nothing in the
U.S. Constitution that speaks explicitly to education. Therefore, states assumed the
responsibility for education as society began to push for education of the masses in
the 1800s; this responsibility is now explicitly addressed in state constitutions.
Hence, education is a function of the state. It is also a local responsibility, as
school boards govern the school district operations. However, this is a delegated
state responsibility, and ultimate control and responsibility rests with the state.
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Since education is a state function, reserved by constitutional law, the
federal government can only place requirements and sanctions on agencies receiv
ing federal dollars, as a stipulation of apportionment. However, in reality, the
federal influence is pervasive, as very few states and districts can afford, fiscally or
politically, to refuse federal funding,.
Public education becomes a local responsibility because most state legis
latures have delegated the responsibility to local school boards elected by local
constituents. In California, the governance structure is as follows: The State Board
of Education is headed by the State Superintendent of Schools, a constitutionally
CDE established, elected position. In addition to this structure that creates policy
for the CDE to enforce, the Secretary of Education is an appointed position in the
Governor’s cabinet. The Secretary of Education and the State Superintendent do
not act in tandem, and may in fact have opposing agendas for the California
education platform.
In 1983, President Ronald Regan established the National Commission on
Excellence in Education. That same year the Commission released a report entitled
A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), and
since that time there has been a greater focus on student performance in the United
States. This report pointed out that America’s public schools were failing to meet
the educational needs of all students and that American students often ranked last
on academic tests when compared to students internationally (Pulliam & Van
Patten, 1995). A Nation at Risk and subsequent reports have not enhanced the
public’s opinion of education (Carroll, Krop, Arkes, Morrison, & Flanagan, 2005).
Disillusionment with public schooling, including publicly funded charter
schools, has many sources: a general distrust of teachers and of other educators;
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
politicians who exploit the public’s fears of cultural dissolution and point to
schools as being hotbeds of immorality and centers of mediocrity; private school
proponents who undermine publicly funded education with the aim of gaining
public monies for private schooling in the form of vouchers or tuition tax credits;
and a economic uncertainty and the failure of a high school diploma to assure
employment. James Gallagher (2002) offered yet another reason: inflated expecta
tions of consumers as to what can or should be accomplished through educational
innovation and research. These “inflated expectations” are due to the public’s
constant exposure to fantastic technological breakthroughs arising from basic
science; likewise, Americans expect simple solutions for complex social problems.
When these overnight anecdotes for social ills are not immediately forthcoming,
disillusionment follows, with educators eventually being made the culprits. There
is irony here: Teachers are being portrayed as both the last great hope and the most
culpable villains in what ails American schools (Cochran-Smith, 2001).
School restructuring efforts since the 1980s have all suggested at least one
of four reforms: (a) increased accountability for student outcomes, (b) increased
focus on educational policy at the state government level, (c) improved instruc
tional practices, (d) and/or the development of specialized programs. As part of the
effort to intervene on the behalf of students, the following four strategies, which
mesh well with reform recommendations have emerged: (a) professional develop
ment to ensure skillful teaching, (b) redesigning the school to support learning,
(c) provision of targeted support, and (d) improved assessments (Darling-
Hammond, 1998). Improved assessments of teacher practice and teacher effective
ness are clearly necessary, although in practice very rarely addressed.
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The premise upon which Congress enacted the 1998 amendments to the
Higher Education Act of 1965 was the belief that good teaching is key to student
achievement (Christy & McNeil, 2000). The intent of NCLB is to eliminate the
achievement gap between those who have and those who do not have, “between the
hopeful and the hopeless” (Paige, as cited in U.S. Department of Education, 2002,
f 1). NCLB requires that reforms in reading and math be based on research. This
is the logic imbedded in the NCLB legislation that mandates that all students being
served with federal funding have highly qualified teachers. The idea is to have all
students taught by highly qualified teachers; however, this is an issue of govern
ance and authority (NCES, 2000b). If no child is to be left behind, then all children
need good teachers (Hawley & Valli, 1998). Monk (1994) concluded that subject
matter knowledge alone is not sufficient for effective teaching. Students were more
successful when their teachers in mathematics and science had more preparation in
subject matter methods (Wenglinsky, 2002). Student achievement gains are more
influenced by the assigned teacher than by other factors, such as class composition
and class size (Sanders & Horn, 1995a, 1995b; Sanders & River, 1996; Wright et
al., 1997).
While NCLB holds schools accountable for student achievement, student
assessment data can be used to provide appropriate professional development and
support for teachers in meeting the needs of all students. Teachers can also utilize
the data to make informed classroom decisions that provide the best possible
instructional practice for student success. Utilizing these data in conjunction with
current educational research will also allow districts and schools to move forward
steadily in improving instructional practices and, in turn, student outcomes. The
data should drive not only what is taught but how it is taught. These revelations in
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the data should then be goals and objectives for teacher performance, measured by
formative and summative teacher evaluation tools. Ensuring that teachers are
adequately prepared via credentialing and professional development and then
holding them accountable for their performance are necessary actions. Without
these actions, there is no assurance of instructional effectiveness and no linkage
between the data and classroom innovation.
The public has not been satisfied with the incremental, slow gains that pro
fessional educators and researchers have been able to provide. However, marginal
improvements and rising test scores provide parents a small measure of comfort
about the hard work and have been of some benefit, as has politicians’ validation of
their wise decision to impose external controls on teachers and teacher educators
with regard to policy (Bullough, Clark, & Patterson, 2003).
With the enactment of NCLB, school districts are being held accountable
for the achievement of all students, not merely a select few, as student performance
cannot occur without a valid and real accountability for results (Schmoker, 1999).
To the degree that NCLB has mandated the notification of parents when the class
room teacher is not of highly qualified status, or when a school is under corrective
sanctions, the federal government has drawn at least a dotted line of accountability
and responsibility down to the individual classroom teacher. To the extent that
districts and sites do not utilize existing or available systems to appropriately evalu
ate and improve teacher practice, the accountability loop cannot be effectively
closed.
While the nation begins to focus on accountability for the lack of students
prepared to enter the work force or college upon graduation from high school, it has
become more and more critical for state departments of education and school
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
districts to look at teacher practice. Universities and colleges are stating that enter
ing freshman cohorts are unprepared to master the basic courses of study, while the
business community has become disheartened by the lack of qualified applicants
for entry-level positions. This dilemma has materialized due to the world becom
ing a global village full of well-educated, motivated competitors, but the education
and skills of America’s workers are suited for the societal needs of the 1950s era
rather than the 21st century.
In order for educators to meet the demands of society, there is a need to
examine teacher practice. Recent studies of teacher effects at the classroom level
using the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System and a similar database in
Dallas, Texas, have found that differential teacher effectiveness is a strong deter
minant of differences in student learning, far outweighing the effects of differences
in class size and heterogeneity (Jordan et al., 1997; Sanders & Rivers, 1996; Wright
et al., 1997).
Any effective accountability system should be based on clear and rigorous
standards, aligned with teacher preparation, support, and curriculum materials and
accompanied by positive and negative consequences (EdSource, 2000). Teacher
evaluation data can be used as evidence in accountability audits for districts. As
state and federal measures become more rigorous, it will become increasingly
important for school districts to show documentation on what is being done to
improve student outcomes (Schwarzenegger, 2005).
The greatest obstacle in teacher evaluation is the subjective nature of the
task. There is significant public debate defining the good teacher. In order for the
evaluation tool to be effective for the teacher, evaluation criteria must be
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
measurable. An effective teacher in the current educational literature is good at
ensuring that a high level of student learning is taking place (Barrett, 1986).
Since districts cannot rely on an ever-plentiful pool of highly qualified
teachers at the time of need, many are developing their own certification and
induction programs to formulate their own highly qualified pool. This is step one
toward increasing student achievement.
In this age of accountability, policy makers are attempting to use specific
data, such as student standardized test scores, to hold districts accountable for
student achievement. In turn, district administration must also utilize those same
data not only to anticipate but also to address deficiencies in instructional delivery
models and teacher practice. An effective accountability system should be based
on clear and rigorous standards, aligned with teacher preparation, support, and
curriculum materials, and accompanied by positive and negative consequences
(EdSource, 2000). A standards-based system involves the setting of necessary
learning outcomes and holds students accountable for their individual progress.
Schools must therefore have valid measures of student performance toward meet
ing the set standards, as well as reliable assessments of teacher performance in
meeting student needs. Teachers are no longer simply lesson presenters; they must
now ensure student learning (Heatley, 2002; McGehee, 2004).
California Teacher Evaluation Policy
Today’s California teacher evaluation policy was established in 1971 with
the passing of the Stull Bill. The Stull Bill has undergone many revisions in its 33
years; however, it remains a very prescriptive evaluation system based on specified
student objectives. The purpose of the Stull legislation is to “establish a uniform
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
system of evaluation and assessment of the performance of all certificated per
sonnel within each school district of the state (California Education Code, 2003,
§ 44660).
In the mid-1980s, many states (including California) developed evaluation
regulations or guidelines. However, policy makers did not get the results that they
had expected, as measured by standardized test results. It was about this time that
A Nation at Risk was released and new accountability programs began to require
specific school improvement plans and ongoing staff development.
California’s attempt at comprehensive school reform was Senate Bill (SB)
813. This bill, among other things, enhanced the state’s responsibility to adopt
curriculum guidelines to guiding local instructional and textbook decisions
(EdSource, 2001b). This seemed to be the turning point, since after this bill was
passed, California’s reform efforts throughout the 1980s were focused increasingly
on the classroom teacher. This was the beginning of standards in California’s
delivery of instruction. Unfortunately, while California began to implement a
standards-based program, California’s students consistently lost ground in the
NAEP ranking.
In the 1990s, most reform addressing student achievement was focused on
standards-based instructional delivery and increased scores on standardized tests.
However, the ideal of teachers being able to improve classroom practice was still
present. Legislation passed in 1996 was very significant in reducing class size in
grades K-3. Although the intent of the class size reduction program was to improve
instruction in reading and mathematics by limiting class size to 20, this “optional”
program created an immediate teacher shortage in California. To exacerbate the
shortage, a year later, the legislature expanded the program to ninth-grade English
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and mathematics classes. During this shortage, all types of uncredentialed teacher
candidates entered the field on emergency credentials, further diluting the effective
ness of teacher practice on overall student gains.
In 1997, the California Commission for the Teacher Credentialing (CCTC)
adopted the CSTP, the first teaching performance standards having statewide
validity (Whittaker et al., 2001). The CSTP are not linked to curriculum or subject
matter standards; since their adoption, the CSTP has become the cornerstone docu
ment for teaching policy in California, being used to support Beginning Teacher
Support and Assessment (BTS A) participants, guide the design of preservice
education program standards, guide the design of teacher assessment tools for
licensure, frame the Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) program to support
experienced teachers in improving their practice and provide standards for teacher
evaluation throughout the state.
This 1997 adoption set the stage for ensuring legislation and the sweeping
reforms of SB 2042. Along with increasing teacher credentialing requirements, SB
2042 revamped teacher preparation and induction programs, requiring that program
standards for these programs be aligned with both CSTP and other adopted student
content standards. Other legislative efforts to address teacher recruitment and
retention were as follows: the creation of the California Center for Teaching
Careers (CalTeach) to facilitate teacher recruitment statewide in 1997, increases in
the credentialing reciprocity with other states in 1998, the creation of PAR to
encourage and guide districts toward establishing peer review programs (replacing
then existing mentor program) in 1999, and increased funding for districts to
increase beginning teacher salaries across the state to at least $34,000 in 2000.
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Even with those reform efforts, it is clear that Californians are not yet
satisfied with the product that public education is producing (Carroll, 2005).
Because of this, the California Legislature more recently created policies that
attempt to closely monitor school districts and the achievement of students. This
legislation came in the form of the PSAA, which mandated the reporting of results
of districts, individual schools, and their students’ achievement on the Standard
Testing and Reporting (STAR) examination. The Legislature has also implemented
the HSEE, which has prompted districts, schools, and individual teachers to look at
the results of these tests, evaluate the data, and institute changes in the delivery of
their instructional programs. With the advent of the API, the state identified what
was needed to ensure that California students would be able to compete in this
workforce (Heatley, 2002).
PSAA (Senate Bill IX) was driven in part by the poor showing of students
on the initial or benchmark year of the Stanford Achievement Test Version Nine
(SAT 9). Passed in 1999, the main tenets of this bill were as follows: (a) School
districts must administer the achievement test designated by the state Board of
Education as part of the STAR program; (b) based on the results of the standard
ized test and other state-approved accountability instruments, the schools were
given an API with yearly goals, and all schools in California were then ranked
based on their API; (c) low-performing schools were to be placed in an II/USP; and
(d) schools that reach their state assigned target were to be eligible for a Governor’s
High Achieving/Improving Schools program (CDE, 2002). The Governor’s High
Achieving/Improving Schools program was funded for one cycle, then funding was
withheld. The program remains unfunded and unoperational.
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Following the lead of many other states, California has also implemented a
single statewide high school exit examination. In spring 2001, the state field tested
its first version of the HSEE. Beginning in 2004, the HSEE became a graduation
requirement. As the test focuses on English and mathematics skills, this is an
accountability measure that, on the surface, affects only students from the middle
school level and higher. Unfortunately, this is when the public begins to pay a
great deal of attention to student performance. As public attention is directed
toward student performance data, more and more attention has focused on the
elementary levels. While high school students will have a number of opportunities
to take the HSEE, a passing score must be earned in order to receive a diploma.
The legality of the HSEE may come under question at some point in the near
future, as evident by the legal challenges posed in the legal implications section of
this review of the literature. California has also implemented an English Language
Development Exam. The examination is designed to test English proficiency and
progress of students who come to school speaking another language. The test
includes reading, writing, listening, and speaking in English and is administered to
all English Language Learners (ELL).
Prior to 1997, accountability was limited in California schools. There were
federally mandated compliance reviews for schools, fiscal accountability statutes,
and school accountability (EdSource, 2001a). Since then, there have been only
modest gains in California’s student performance. Although student scores rose
slightly in 1998 to 1999 and in 1999 to 2000, they remain almost universally below
the national average. The strongest growth in scores was seen in grades 2 to 4
(Carroll et al., 2005), but the scores of students from low socioeconomic status
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
families and English language learners are low across the board (McCombs,
Nataraj, Barney, Darilek, & Magee, 2004).
Since 1998, state officials have formally adopted demanding standards for
what students should know and be able to do. They are continuing to adjust the
high-stakes assessment and accountability system that were created to hold
schools and students responsible for meeting the standards. However, the key for
California’s 6 million public school students is what happens in the local schools
and classrooms, not what the state mandates. As the standards-based reform is
evaluated, there are two questions that must be asked: (a) How are the standards
affecting instruction and student performance? and (b) What other measures could
be employed to facilitate full implementation and accountability for standards-
based reform?
The new educational reform movement establishes structural foundations
upon which strong standards-based curriculum and systemic accountability are
built. The API, although evolving, gives schools a goal or target to ensure that all
students achieve. Using the data, schools and districts should be disaggregating in
order to improve the instructional delivery and individual student support. In
essence, schools must be designed to ensure that all students learn, regardless of
their experiences and abilities (Barth & Mitchell, 1994). However, if teachers are
not held accountable to these same targets, these data are of no use. Teachers will
continue to do the same things that they have always done; for many, that is simply
insufficient. Instead of delivering curriculum in the same manner over and over, it
is a teacher’s duty to meet children where they are and to work with differentiated
techniques to achieve success (Adams, 1996). Without an outcome-based
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
performance appraisal, there is no way to ascertain objectively a teacher’s
effectiveness in this reform.
Currently, many California school districts have developed their evaluation
process strictly according to the provisions of the Stull Bill. These districts fit their
operation to the evaluation process. Other districts have personalized the object
ives and revised the process to fit culturally within the district. Hence, all districts
have not implemented the legislation in the same manner. Many of the differences
in implementation are a direct reflection of differences in district collective bar
gaining agreements. Because the passage of SB 160 in 1975 mandated districts to
enter into the collective bargaining process, some of the specific issues related to
teacher supervision and evaluation are subject to the collective bargaining process.
These issues enter the realm of collective bargaining because they are characterized
as conditions of employment. These reforms definitely addressed some aspects of
teacher preparedness, recruitment, and retention; however, there remains a missing
link to accountability.
Local School District Evaluation
Policy and Practices
Decisions made with respect to teacher employment are delegated to school
districts. While districts must comply with pertinent Education Code provisions,
the specific vehicles may and do differ by district. Education Code §44660 states,
The [evaluation] system shall involve the development and adoption by
each school district of objective evaluation and assessment guidelines which
may, at the discretion of the governing board, be uniform throughout the
district or, for compelling reasons, be individually developed for territories
or schools within the district, provided that all certificated personnel of the
district shall be subject to a system of evaluation and assessment adopted
pursuant to this article.
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This code section clearly affords local districts the flexibility to create alternative
forms of teacher evaluation.
Currently, many California school districts have developed their evaluation
process strictly by the statutes of the Stull Bill. These districts fit their operation to
the evaluation process. Other districts have personalized the objectives and revised
the process to fit culturally within the district. Hence, all districts have not imple
mented the legislation in the same manner. Many of the differences in implementa
tion are a direct reflection of differences in district collective bargaining agree
ments. Because the passage of SB 160, legislation mandating districts to enter into
the collective bargaining process, some of the specific issues related to teacher
supervision and evaluation are subject to the collective bargaining process. These
issues enter the realm of collective bargaining because they are characterized as
conditions of employment.
By 1992, SB 1422 created the BTSA program, via the California New
Teacher Project, to improve the quality of teacher induction programs. The project
identified the need to provide teachers with focused induction support, which
should be provided at a level of intensity sufficient to make a difference in the
performance, retention, and job satisfaction of beginning teachers. The BTSA
program is administered at the district level in accordance with Education Code
§44279.2 and encourages collaboration by local districts, county offices of educa
tion, colleges, and universities in the delivery of new teacher induction (BTSA
Basics, 2001).
BTSA programs vary in design and use a variety of methods to provide
targeted support to beginning teachers. The purpose of the program is to coordin
ate mentor support for new teachers by grade or subject level, conduct inservice
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
training, model lessons, facilitate the writing of goals and objectives, develop
formal and informal objectives, institute peer coaching, and conduct formative
assessment aligned to the CSTP. Decisions made with respect to teacher employ
ment are delegated to school districts. While districts must comply with pertinent
Education Code provisions, such as Stull Bill language, the specific vehicles may
and do differ by district.
Current State of Teacher Evaluation
According to state and local policy, teacher evaluation is meant to improve
teacher practice (California Education Code, 2003, §§44660-44665; California
School Boards Association [CSBA], 1999). However, the function of teacher
evaluation remains mainly a summative process meant to comply with local policy.
Currently, many districts are using the teacher evaluation process as a means to
make personnel decisions.
To improve the quality of teaching practices, it is imperative to have clearly
defined policies outlining not only the process of evaluation but also the accounta
bility and corrective measures associated with the process (Joki, 1982). Teacher
evaluations, including pre/post observation conferences, should focus on reinforc
ing practices that contribute to the success of student learning or strengthening
practices that will contribute to student learning. The teacher evaluation system
must make sense to both the teacher and the administrator in dealing with the
characteristics of instruction. Too many school and district administrators are
paralyzed by what they perceive teacher evaluation to be that they resist promising
new alternatives (Iwanicki, 2001).
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Analyzing teaching on the basis of student learning is consistent with
cognitive perspectives on teaching, which consider what students should be able to
do, what the teacher can do to foster such learning, how successful the teacher has
been in achieving the desired student outcomes, and how the teacher should teach
the lesson the next time (Woolfolk, 2004).
All effective evaluation begins with a clear definition and statement of
teaching expectations. Successful evaluation methods must have validity and
reliability. Effective methods must also be feasible (Wise, Darling-Hammond,
McLaughlin, & Bernstein, 1984). Results must be consistent, useful, and effective
in terms of time and money for evaluation training, materials, and procedures.
Evaluation criteria must include both tangible and intangible aspects (Darling-
Hammond, 1983; Wise et al.; Woolever, 1985). Intangible things would include
student character development and student rapport and intangible aspects would
include test scores, curriculum pacing, and standards based lessons (Barrett, 1986).
There are two types of teacher evaluation: formative and summative.
Formative evaluation includes specific feedback in which a staff development com
ponent is implemented to complete the program of assessment and improvement
(Barrett, 1986). Formative evaluation is used to improve instruction, whereas
summative evaluation is a tool used in making personnel decisions. Summative
evaluations make judgments as to whether a teacher’s work is satisfactory and
whether the teacher should be granted tenure or may be used as part of a disciplin
ary action against the teacher (Danielson, 2001).
Research in effective teacher evaluation indicates that, whatever the pro
cess, the focus of teacher evaluation must be on student learning. This revelation
seeks to develop increased ownership and reflective judgment among teachers and
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
has been successful in increasing student scores on standardized tests (Halligan,
1999). Analyzing teaching on the basis of student learning is consistent with
cognitive perspective on teaching, which consider what students should be able to
do, what the teacher can do to foster such learning, how successful the teacher has
been in achieving the desired student outcomes, and how the teacher should teach
the lesson the next time.
According to Sullivan and Glanz (2000), the bureaucratic inspection aspect
of teacher evaluation should be completely eliminated from supervision. Instead,
the evaluation should focus on collaboration and communication, emphasizing
reflection and refining instructional techniques. The elimination of barriers to
communication that would make this effort successful includes judging and evalu
ating, not addressing the concerns of the teacher. However, a shift in focus to this
end may require professional development for teachers and administrators as well
as changes to a collective commitment and school culture. Leadership is critical to
changing the culture (Barker, 1992).
Other Factors and Processes That
Improve Teacher Practice
Currently, a variety of efforts outside the evaluation process are being made
to improve teacher practices. Research has reported several factors that impact
teacher practices, and some districts and schools are currently implementing many
of these measures in varying degrees. Today, there are various models of certifi
cated supervision that attempt to blend the formative evaluation with summative
evaluation to determine the effectiveness of teachers.
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Site-Based Reform
The National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching
(NPEAT) focuses attention on how schools can be restructured to foster teacher
and student learning simultaneously. Odden and Odden (1995) synthesized the
findings of researchers on change theory, identifying similar factors critical to the
success of local change endeavors:
1. Teacher participation mattered, particularly in regard to designing
implementation strategies;
2. Extensive, ongoing, intensive training and classroom-specific assistance
was critical in all stages and through all levels of teacher involvement; and
3. Teacher commitment was also critical, with teachers needing to be
involved in setting the structural and curricular vision for the change (Crandall,
Eiseman, & Seashore Lewis, 1986; Huberman & Miles, 1984; McLaughlin, 1991;
Miles, 1993; Odden & Marsh, 1988; Odden & Odden, 1995).
Standardized State Assessments
Many schools and districts are using standardized assessments to motivate
improved teaching practices. These tests are typically summative and evaluative in
nature, which does not benefit the teacher in reforming practice. The tests are not
diagnostic, which would aid in addressing the individual needs of students. By the
time schools receive data and are able to disaggregate the data, the students have
moved into the next grade level. However, many schools and districts are using
state student assessments to motivate improved teaching practices. Educators are
using interim assessments and other benchmarking measures to guide instruction
during the school year. Districts that understand the importance and benefits of
assessments can blend state and local assessments to improve instruction. This
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
multifaceted approach to assessment is currently implemented in many districts in
the state (Committee for Economic Development, 2001).
The API is California’s state-constructed measure of school performance
mandated by the 1999 California PSAA. Beginning in 1999, in grades 2 through
11, an annual summary score for each school was constructed to create an overall
score by weighting student national percentile rankings in each content area of state
normed tests (CDE, 2000). In addition to the API rankings, the API datasets made
available by the CDE contain additional variables measuring various types of
school characteristics. Three main categories of variables are utilized in the
analyses: (a) variables related to students’ background characteristics, (b) variables
related to teacher characteristics, and (c) variables indicating the type of calendar
that the school follows. This index and the accountability associated with the tool
have also motivated reform of teacher practice by defining student learning
objectives and defining the consequences of failure to meet the objectives for
schools.
With the real threat of school reconstitution looming based on the API,
schools should position themselves to address the test in a manner that promotes
valid gains on measures aligned with standards (Gratz, 2000). Much of what can
be considered “damage control” has been seen in regard to the SAT 9 exam and
augmentation, as individual districts and the CDE struggle for an answer to the
media criticism leveled at them.
Professional Development
The goal of professional development is to enhance knowledge, skills, and
strategies to improve teacher practice. However, unless the conditions of work
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ensure that new approaches are developed and implemented, teachers are unlikely
to change their classroom practice (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995;
Fullan, 1994; Hawley & Rosenholtz, 1985; Little, 1993; Sykes & Darling-
Hammond, 1999). The “will” and “skill” (Louis & Miles, 1990) necessary for
teachers to support reformed practice must be a strong consideration within the
planning and implementation of a new reform or change model. In support of site
staff, and in order to carry a change effort through to completion, the development
of cross-role teams was posited by H. W. Marsh (1987) to enhance teacher efficacy
and build the necessary morale for reform systematization and sustainability.
Professional development must be based on an improved model of delivery
and follow-through. Research suggests very little benefit from the standard model
of training, which typically consists of a “show-and-tell” session lasting from 30
minutes to 2 hours (Hollins, 2003). In order to reach the desired goal in a reform
effort, the value and beliefs of staff must change in order to provide fidelity with
the desired outcomes and to provide sustainability for the change effort. Pro
fessional development is critical in this regard, as the desired training outcomes
provide a change in the individuals’ skills, behaviors, and perceptions—all of these
strongly related to the core set of values and beliefs each teacher possesses (Boyd
& Hord, 1994).
Peer Review
Literature on schools as learning organizations supports the idea of
collaborative problem solving in which teachers address issues of effectiveness and
practice in their collegial groups. This approach would yield a more school-
oriented accountability rather than individual-focused evaluation, making teacher
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
evaluation process less threatening. Then each collaborative team would be
accountable for its accomplishment of student learning objectives and each other’s
teacher practice. The downfall of this approach in isolation is a potential backlash
in morale and a potential lack of consequence for the individual who fails to meet
the group standard (Iwanicki, 2001). Moving teachers between this model and a
more individualized evaluation program may create stigma and target the site
administrator for problems.
In California, the PAR program (Education Code §44500) is an optional
program for districts. PAR is a referral process for experienced teacher who have
not had satisfactory evaluations. The purpose of the program is to improve teacher
practice; however, specific outcomes of the program are not used in California’s
evaluation process. Further, the site administrator cannot use the recommendations
from the PAR process to plan professional development activities for teachers.
Self-Assessment
Drawing on recent developments in business, Powell (2000) made a case
for the value of self-assessment, a key component of professionalism, and pre
sented a compelling criticism of traditional evaluation practices and their concern
with outcome measures: There has been a consistent failure to question the nature
of assessment in relation to the qualities that it does or should identify and influ
ence, not only for pupils but also for teachers. Powell suggested that the nature of
change in complex organizations argues against traditional evaluation practices that
denigrate the individual teacher by centralizing policy and resources and by holding
teachers responsible to standards over which they have no influence and by
decreasing the range of their professional decision making. Such impositional
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
models are grounded in distrust and reflect a domineering instrumental interest in
control. Externally imposed, such models seek to compel rather than invite change
and development.
Site-Based Management
Although reforms have taken many turns, such as site-based management,
with the growth of standards-based accountability instructional leadership has come
full circle as the vehicle to meet accountability targets. To accomplish this, the site
leadership must set clear goals, allocate resources to instruction, manage the
curriculum, monitor lesson plans, and evaluate teachers. Professional development
and the use of data to make decisions must be included (King, 2002).
Shared Decision Making
Sergiovanni (1991) characterized the principal as the “chief learning
officer” who bears the ultimate responsibility for success or failure of the school.
Even though a growing number of researchers ascribe to the notion that instruc
tional leadership is a shared function of the entire school community, superintend
ents, and policy makers, even this idea does not imply a simple division of labor
but instead role players whose actions are interdependent. Distributed leadership
eases the principal’s load of assigned duties as well as empowers other staff with
responsibilities, which enhances school effectiveness. However, the principal can
only set the environment (culture) and arrange professional development oppor
tunities; teachers must be accountable for actually applying the new ideas in the
classroom. So, even with a shared vision of leadership, there is individual
accountability.
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
School Culture
School culture plays an important role in teacher performance and
improvement in student achievement. Culture consists of the interwoven pattern of
beliefs, values, practices, and artifacts that define for staff members, student,
parents, and stakeholders who they are and how are they to function (Bolman &
Deal, 1997).
Create an organizational structure for accountability in which everyone
knows what he or she is responsible for and responsibilities are distributed
in a way that corresponds to accountabilities-make sure that each person in
the organization reports to one and only one person, bring all special
resources under the control of the principal. (Tucker & Codding, 1998,
pp. 242-243)
Research in the 1980s showed that most effective schools, regardless of
socioeconomic status or demographic composition, had principals who maintained
a high focus on instruction. Blase and Blase (2000) surveyed teachers who sug
gested that principals having a positive influence on student learn exhibited two
themes: (a) talking with teachers and promoting professional development
expressed in specific behaviors such as making suggestions, giving feedback,
modeling effective instruction, soliciting opinions, facilitating collaboration, and
giving praise for effective teaching; and (b) respecting teacher knowledge and
autonomy. Leadership is critical to changing the culture (Barker, 1992). The
culture and climate school set foundation for these beliefs to come to life (Bolman
& Deal, 1997).
Standards-Based Education
Spillane (1999) stated that standards are doctrines that call for a more
intellectually demanding content of studies for students. The creation of these
standards determines what students are supposed to learn, by grade level, and
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
therefore also identifies what teachers should be teaching. California’s content
standards were created by the legislature for four content areas: Mathematics,
Science, Social Science, and English-Language Arts. These standards are
guidelines for districts and schools regarding what is taught and tested and reflect
what the state policymakers have decided students should master. Currently,
significant numbers of students face a nightmare of educational reform. This is to
mean that, until there is true alignment between the written, taught, and tested,
there will always be some group that wants to create a new reform movement.
Also, many teachers do not know exactly how to teach students with diverse back
grounds. To comply with state content standards, there must be a reframing of
classroom instruction to ensure that all students demonstrate proficiency in those
identified skills and content knowledge.
Principles o f Learning (Tucker & Codding, 1998) characterized an effective
standards-based educational system. The authors noted that, in order to get all
students to achieve at high levels, similar and clear expectations must be set for all
students. A student’s effort is a more important determinant of achievement than
ability, giving rise to the belief that all students can achieve at high levels (Oakes,
1992; Tucker & Codding; Wheelock, 1998). Correspondingly, teachers, adminis
trators, parents, and most important, the students themselves must be of the belief
and commitment that learning is more than a possibility; rather, it is a certainty.
Within the accountability reform context, there is an underlying belief that a
student’s failure is also a teacher’s failure, with respect to providing students with
the support needed to meet standards (Wheelock).
Likewise, the standards and clear expectations for teacher performance are
potential tools for improving teacher practice. Standards should clearly link teacher
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
learning opportunities, collaboration, and schoolwide goals to ensure that students
are taught by teachers who are knowledgeable and competent (i.e., highly qualified
teachers (Hawley & Valli, 1998). Teacher evaluations must also integrate staff
development processes with school reform efforts (Iwanicki, 2001).
Data-Driven Decision Making
According to Olson (1999), even with the best assessments, too few schools
use the results or data for diagnostic purposes or have staff members who are
trained to do so. However, Olson suggested suggests that educators who make
good use of assessment data worry about more testing. Assessment data will con
tribute to improved teaching and learning only if educators know how to interpret
and use these data to make their instructional practices more effective.
Individual teachers should use data to improve their delivery of instruction,
to identify student needs, and to identify additional resources that may be needed.
In order for this to occur, teachers are in great need of additional training (pro
fessional development) with regard to what the content standards are and how they
relate to what their students are tested on, how to disaggregate the data, and how to
incorporate what they learn from the data to improve what is presented in the
classroom (Calvo et al., 1999).
The most logical starting point in using data is to make the best use of
existing data prior to any program implementation or modification. Performing a
systematic analysis of the data currently accumulated can reveal previously unseen
patterns and opportunity for specific improvement (J. Johnson, 1997). Research
data support this concept. Two years of data were collected prior to the imple
mentation of Project ACHIEVE at Polk County and Hillsborough County School
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
District (Knoff & Batsche, 1995). These baseline data were absolutely necessary in
pinpointing existing systematic problems exacerbating student behavioral prob
lems, versus focusing only on the symptoms. In this way, policymakers were able
to implement appropriate solutions.
Project ACHIEVE focused on, among other things, enhancing teachers’
problem-solving skills with regard to student discipline and the level of compre
hensive services to underachieving students as well as enhancing parent involve
ment and creating a school climate where everyone is accountable for the progress
of every student. After identifying specific issues, it is necessary to determine
whether the data are directly linked to the issue, gathering additional information as
necessary. If existing data had not been utilized in Project ACHIEVE, the districts
involved could have spent the necessary resources in myriad efforts attempting to
impact the identified problem, and missing the goal altogether. While alternative
methods may have been logical in theory, without the data driving the reforms, the
methods would likely not have impacted student behaviors and ultimately student
performance, as seen with Project ACHIEVE. Within 4 years of implementation of
the project in both districts, disciplinary referral and special education referrals
decreased by an average 67% and suspension rates fell by 10%, while grade
retention decreased from 61 students/year to 0.5 students/year.
In further support of this point, in the case study “Implementing a Highly
Specified Curricular, Instructional, and Organizational School Design” (Stringfield
& McHugh, 1998), in order to effectively implement the Calvert curriculum, it was
necessary to examine the student demographic and achievement data to ensure that
the curriculum would address the needs of students. While this implementation
was experimental, the responsible policy makers were intent for the student’s
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
success and the only way to accurately measure success was through bench
marking.
The second major step of data-driven school reform is the implementation
of the recommendations formed through data disaggregation. But it is imperative
to have proper and appropriate analysis so that appropriate recommendations are
made for effective implementation of reform. Methods and measures must be
carefully implemented in order to effect the desired outcomes and not to cause
other unnecessary consequences (Heatley, 2002). Data must be collected on a
regular and continual basis to effectively implement teacher practices and monitor
student outcomes in order to know whether practices are and continue to be
effective. To the extent that these major steps are followed, data should play a key
role in the improvement of teacher practice. Without implementing recommenda
tions, the collection of data is relatively useless. Each data collection cycle and the
outcome measures should be thought of as information on the progress made
toward a collective goal, assisting all members as they continue to implement and
improve practices to enhance student performance (Calhoun, 1994).
In all of the stages, from the implementation stage to the data collection
stage, educators must look not only at data from the student performance and
student attendance databases but also at data regarding the teacher performance,
deployment, salary, and demographic areas, as well as per-pupil spending, levels of
spending on materials and supplies, and funding allocations to the sites. There are
also databases that districts can access easily to measure themselves against other
districts, using fiscal data, personnel data, and other parameters (Odden & Picus,
2000). In this way, agencies can find other districts with similar profiles to get
information, collaborate, and/or find alternative solutions that could be
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
implemented. All of this information can be gathered and evaluated at no
significant cost, either fiscally or at the expense of a district’s student performance.
The data must be collected on a regular and continual basis, not only to
implement today’s changes but also to monitor tomorrow’s progress of these same
programs and processes so a district will know whether it has, in fact, met student
performance goals and objectives. Each data collection cycle and the outcome
measures should not be thought of as an activity with a grade, but rather as
information on the progress made toward a collective goal, assisting all members of
the team as they continue to implement corrective policies to enhance student
performance (Calhoun, 1994).
In Project ACHIEVE reported by Knoff and Batsche (1995), data were
measured with regard to student performance, disciplinary/behavior actions, grades,
staff development, parent involvement, special education referrals, and grade
retention. While the outcomes were significantly successful, the argument could be
made that other data measures, such as site staffing and resource allocation, could
have enhanced the outcomes by ensuring the site resource equity from the district
level. If school staff feel that they are treated equitably, then that attitude will
reflect onto the student, possibly enhancing student behaviors.
The research study entitled “Supporting Data Use Among Administrators
Results from a Delta Planning Model” (Khanna, Trousdale, Pennell, & Kell, 1999)
illustrated several points regarding data, assessment, and student performance in
the San Francisco Unified School District. This study identified that many schools
had strong accountability systems where data such as test results were readily
available for use in the planning and implementation of reform to improve student
performance. The availability of such data allowed the district as well as individual
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
school sites to identify critical gaps in the achievement of the different groups,
abilities of teachers, the lack of resources, the lack of qualified teachers and
administrators, and other data that could be used in identifying low-achieving
students and assisting them to improve.
In a study of “90/90/90” schools it was determined that most of the identi
fied schools conducted weekly assessments of student progress. The “90/90/90”
refers to the three characteristics: 90% of students eligible for free or reduced
lunch, 90% of students from ethnic minority groups, and 90% of students achieving
at high academic levels (Reeves, 2000). The weekly assessments were not state or
district examinations but were measures constructed and administered by the indi
vidual teachers. This study illustrates how the practitioners aligned the curriculum
to the assessment piece and collected data to show how there was or was not an
increase in student performance.
The federal government has agreed that schools should be addressing
reform through data-driven approaches. The U.S. Department of Education has
severely restricted funding of educational reform projects. Newly funded programs
will accept only projects or reforms that are research based (i.e., empirically data
based). Hence, reforms that have come out of qualitative and action research
design studies may not be acceptable, as they are not deemed by the federal
government to be “valid research.”
To the extent that these major steps are followed, data, as intended by
educational leadership, should play a key role in comprehensive school reform.
Without the last step, the collection of data is relatively useless.
Schools operate now under the new age of accountability, whereby school
districts are required to be accountable for the achievement of all students, not
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
merely a select few, as student performance cannot occur without a valid and real
accountability for results (Schmoker, 1999). There have been modest gains in
California’s student performance. Although student scores rose slightly in 1998 to
1999 and 1999 to 2000, they remain almost universally below the national average.
The strongest growth in scores was seen in grades 2 to 4, but the scores of students
from low socioeconomic status families and English language learners are low
across the board.
Summary
This chapter presented the literature reviewed for this study. This compre
hensive study included six areas of focus: (a) History of Teacher Evaluation,
(b) Governance and the Environment of Accountability, (c) California Teacher
Evaluation Policy, (d) Local School District Evaluation Policies and Practices,
(e) Current State of Teacher Evaluation and (f) Other Factors That Contribute to
Effective Teacher Practice.
Although reforms since the 1983 A Nation at Risk report (National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) have taken many turns, such as
site-based management and the growth of standards-based accountability, instruc
tional leadership has come frill circle as the vehicle to meet accountability targets.
The original definition of instructional leadership involves setting clear goals,
allocating resources to instruction, managing the curriculum, monitoring lesson
plans, and evaluating teachers. It has evolved to include professional development
and the use of data to make decisions (Heatley, 2002).
It is clear that NCLB accountability is not complete. NCLB holds local and
state governance structures accountable for levels of student achievement.
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Likewise, there are sanctions placed in state statutes that hold district and site
administrators accountable for student achievement. However, there is no
systematic process for administrators to issue sanctions and or corrective measures
to teachers for unsatisfactory teacher practice. Hence, if a school is low performing
for several years in a row and the school has instituted systemic reform with no
evidence of significant gains, the site administrator could be removed under NCLB;
however, teachers are not held strictly accountable for instructional practices. The
collective bargaining environments prevalent in public school districts prevent this
link from occurring systematically. Teacher evaluation can be that link. This
process is included in the scope of collective bargaining and, if utilized properly,
could be linked with other factors that improve student achievement.
To improve the quality of teaching, it is imperative to have clearly defined
policies outlining not only the process of evaluation but also the accountability and
corrective measures associated with the process (Joki, 1982). Teacher evaluations,
including pre/post observation conferences, should focus on reinforcing practices
that contribute to the success of student learning or strengthening practices that will
contribute to student learning.
In essence, schools must be designed to ensure that all students learn,
regardless of their experiences and abilities (Barth & Mitchell, 1994). However, if
teachers are not held accountable for these targets along with administrators, these
data are of no use. Teachers will continue to do the same things they have always
done; for many, that is simply insufficient.
Instead of delivering curriculum in the same manner over and over, it is a
teacher’s duty to meet children where they are and work with differentiated tech
niques to achieve success (Adams, 1996). Without an outcome-based performance
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
appraisal, there is no way to ascertain a teacher’s effectiveness objectively in this
reform. Existing academic methodologies and behaviors are steeped in cultural
norms, and educators are often rebellious against this type of reform, not because it
is ineffective but because it is uncomfortable (Anyon, 1996). Just as important as
the PSAA and API is the level of expectation that districts place on themselves,
their schools, administrators, individual teachers, parents, and students. The idea
that every student can learn to high standards requires that every student be given
the opportunity to learn what is expected of him or her and given the best oppor
tunity to demonstrate mastery of the content.
Clearly, policy makers, educational leaders, and teachers alike must use
sound educational practices when dealing with high standards and the academic
performance of all students. A strong push toward holding all stakeholders
accountable will go a long way to closing the gap between the haves and the have-
nots. The nation is at war against illiteracy and the inability to compete in the
international community. In order to combat this, there must be a strategic plan
based in research and focused on the individual needs of every student and teacher.
The effectiveness of the teacher evaluation process will certainly depend on
what communication, support and tools, data collection, and analysis are used in
the process. Just as important as the Stull legislation requiring evaluation is the
level of expectation that districts place on schools, administrators, and individual
teachers. The idea that the evaluation process can be used to improve teacher
practice and ultimately student achievement requires that every teacher be given the
opportunity to learn what is expected of him or her and given the best opportunity
to demonstrate or remediate those practices. This study highlights effective
methods of the teacher evaluation process to increase student performance.
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Further, this study adds to the literature by illuminating multiple measurement
criteria for monitoring teacher performance and student learning to be used in
alignment with federal and state programs that support student learning and
performance. The review of literature in this chapter lends itself to further research
and investigation into how effective the mandated evaluation process is on
improving teacher practice.
55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to investigate, analyze, and describe how
NCLB, PSAA, CSTP, API, and high-stakes tests (the SAT 9 and Content Standards
Test) have impacted the way in which California school districts and individual
schools utilize teacher evaluations to improve teacher practice. More specifically,
the purpose of this study was to examine whether teacher evaluation is a useful tool
to reform teacher practice and, if not, what elements could be changed to facilitate
usefulness of the evaluation process.
Data from the Maple Unified School District (MUSD; specifically, King
Elementary School site) was collected for an individual case study. These data
were gathered over a 6-week period via interviews, observations, document
reviews, and surveys. As stated by Gall, Gall, and Borg (2003), case studies serve
three purposes: (a) to produce detailed descriptions of a phenomenon, (b) to
develop possible explanations for the phenomenon, and (c) to evaluate the
phenomenon.
The phenomenon in this case study was the teacher evaluation process and
its current uses within the accountability movement. When introducing or describ
ing a phenomenon in education, most researchers look for constructs and themes
that can be used to explain the phenomenon or that can be validated through pro
fessional literature. In developing a possible explanation, researchers look for
causal or relational patterns to develop theoretical models of the phenomenon.
Finally, in evaluating the phenomenon, researchers make judgments about the
phenomenon.
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This chapter describes the design of the research study and the methodology
used for instrumentation development, data collection, and data analysis of the
phenomenon of accountability.
Research Questions
Four research questions guided this study:
1. What is the district’s policy and strategy for carrying out teacher
evaluation?
2. How does the school carry out teacher evaluation?
3. What factors have shaped this school level effort?
4. How effective is the teacher evaluation process at the school level?
A thematic research group of 14 doctoral students explored policies,
practices, and strategies used to address teacher performance. The collective
findings of the study, which is representative of California public school districts at
both the elementary and secondary school levels, would make a good topic for
further research. NCLB requires teachers to be highly qualified, based on the
strong correlation between teacher qualifications and certification (preparedness)
and student achievement. However, California’s students are not enjoying clear
success on standardized tests, as measured by proficiency levels on AYP data,
despite credentialing requirements that incorporate CSTP standards. For these
reasons, this study focused on the use of teacher evaluation to improve teacher
performance.
Sample and Population
This study was delimited to a K-5 school within a K-12 public school
district. The district and school selected for this study met the following criteria:
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(a) The school was considered a high-academic-performing school, currently hav
ing an API score of greater than 700; (b) the school had experienced at least 3 con
secutive years of API growth; and (c) the school outperformed its statewide API
ranking on the similar schools rank by at least 1 point for at least 3 years consecu
tively. The selected district, MUSD, located in southern California, has a district-
wide API of 706 and is situated in an urban setting.
The API reports include a “similar schools rank.” This information shows
where a school ranks academically on a scale of 1-10, ten being the highest
rank, compared with 100 other schools with similar demographic character
istics. California public schools serve students with many different back
grounds and needs. As a result, schools face different educational
challenges. The similar schools ranks allow schools to look at their aca
demic performance compared to other schools with some of the same
opportunities and challenges, including demographic, SES, district size, and
grade level configuration. The comparison of similar schools is required by
the PSAA (Education Code § 52056(a)) and provides additional information
about schools beyond that provided by APIs and statewide ranks. The
PSAA also requires that similar school comparisons be based on specified
demographic school characteristics. (CDE, 2002, p. 1)
Selected School District
MUSD has a district-wide API of 706 and is considered a high-performing
district, having outperformed its statewide rank on the similar schools rank by 2.
The enrollment of 19,700 in 2000 has grown to a current enrollment of 24,500
students, and is expected to reach 30,000 enrollment by the year 2010. The district
is attempting to build schools as rapidly as possible to meet growth expectations
and to maintain the quality of instruction that each student currently receives. It is
in the process of constructing its fourth middle school and 18th elementary school.
The district is comprised of two high schools, four middle schools, 18 elementary
schools, two alternative schools, and one adult education program. The Maple
Unified School District is located in southern California, halfway between Los
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Angeles and San Diego, bordered by the San Bernardino Mountains and the Pacific
Ocean.
MUSD has been recognized as a leader in public education, as measured by
state and national awards for excellence. Twenty percent of the schools in MUSD
have been recognized in the National Blue Ribbon Schools Program and 60% have
been recognized as a California Distinguished Schools. This is a significant
achievement, since only 4% of all public schools in the nation have received these
state or national honors.
Students enrolled in MUSD represent over 30 ethnic groups and languages
(American Indian 1.4%, Pacific Islander and Filipino 1.5%, Asian 11.9%,
Hispanic/Latino 30.7%, African American 13.5%, and European American 41%).
Approximately 33% of the district’s student population are eligible to receive Title
I services.
In 2001, the district and the teacher’s association began a collaborative
process to revamp the process and tools utilized for evaluation teachers. This was
done with the intent not only of ensuring the academic success of all students but
also that all teachers be given every opportunity to succeed. This new process is
entitled PGS (see appendix A).
MUSD created the PGS in which teacher performance goals drive teachers’
expectations and student performance. The plan calls for continuous monitoring of
teacher performance, including a prescribed level of communications with parents
and guardians. The Board of Trustees for MUSD believes that a focused teacher is
a successful teacher who will aid in the facilitation of student learning. Because of
this, MUSD is involved in an ongoing search for new and better ways to provide
teachers with innovative teaching experiences.
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Selected Elementary School
The selected school for the study, King Elementary School (King), has an
API of 755 and serves approximately 900 students in grades Kindergarten through
5 and operates on a traditional 9-month school year schedule. King is considered a
high-performing school and has outperformed its statewide rank on the similar
schools rank by 3. The school was recognized as a California Distinguished School
in May 2004. Of the 900 students who attend King, 10% are African American,
2% are Asian, 5% Pacific Islander, 5% Filipino, 0% are American Indian, 26%
European American, and 52% are Latino/Hispanic. Over half (52%) of King’s
students are eligible to receive free or reduced lunches. English Language learners
make up 26% of the student population. Table 1 summarizes the school’s
characteristics.
Table 1
Characteristics o f the School and District
Characteristic and category School District
Race/ethnicity
American Indian 0.0 0.7
Asian/Pacific Islander 12.0 8.1
African American 10.0 11.4
Hispanic/Latino 52.0 47.8
European American 26.0 31.9
Demographic data
Free/reduced price lunch 52.0 51.0
English Language Learners 26.0 24.0
Title I recipients 33.0 8.0
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The school opened in 1987 and, over the past 16 years, the campus has
changed dramatically. From an initial student enrollment of 730, King’s student
enrollment has grown to 900 in 2004, with a waiting list of more than 100. The
study revealed that many of the school’s newer initiatives can be linked to changing
demographics. Significant demographic shifts over the past 8 years, reflecting
increases in King’s Asian (+81%), African American (+33%), and Hispanic
(+37%) populations dynamically reflect California’s emerging demographics.
The mission of King is to educate all students in a challenging, disciplined,
and supportive environment to become outstanding communicators, complex
thinkers, technological participants, productive individuals, and lifelong learners,
so they can reach their full potential of becoming productive citizens.
King’s vision statement is as follows:
[King’s] vision is to provide an environment where all students can suc
ceed, which celebrates learning, and appreciates each child’s uniqueness.
Students are encouraged to be responsible for their actions. Excellence is
promoted by providing a rich, balanced meaning-centered curriculum that
addresses the academic, social, and emotional needs of each child. Parent
involvement is promoted and viewed as an integral part of each child’s
educational program. (Personal communication from the principal of King
school)
At King, students are guided not only toward completion of their educa
tional requirements but assurance of future success in school and in society. To
that end, through the Read 180 program, King offers each student the opportunity
to achieve at the top of his or her abilities. King has also infused character values
into the curriculum and environment of the school and community to ensure that all
students have a well-rounded educational experience.
In May 2004, King was honored as a California Distinguished School. In
order to maintain a safe environment focused on learning, King has a zero tolerance
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
policy toward weapons, violence, and drugs, which directly aligns to the Governing
Board’s zero tolerance policy for dissident behavior. Parents of King students give
the school exemplary marks for its safe environment (Jackson, 2004). Students
trained in conflict resolution help their peers to work together toward fair and pro
ductive agreements. The campus supervision program is enhanced by an estab
lished parent volunteer component, which assists in maintaining a safe campus.
The instructional staff consists of 42 full-time certificated classroom
teachers, one nurse’s aide, one library clerk, one textbook clerk, three instructional
aides, and one bilingual community service liaison. The administrative staff
consists of one Principal, a School Base Resource Teacher, and a Teacher on
Special Assignment. The Principal functions as the instructional leader.
Educational Leader Participants
Three educational leaders were selected for this study: the Associate
Superintendent of Human Resources, the district’s BTSA coordinator, and the
Principal of King Elementary School.
The district’s Associate Superintendent of Human Resources, a Black male,
supervises the district’s performance evaluation efforts as well as the district’s staff
development programs. He has served in his present position for 3 years. Prior to
this position, this district leader served as an Assistant Superintendent of Education
Services in another California school district for 2 years, Director of Staff Develop
ment for 1 year, site administrator (Learning Director) for 2 years, dean of students
in a Virginia high school, and mathematics and special education teacher in
Virginia. He has been employed as an education administrator for 8 years and has
been in the education field for 10 years, 3 of which have been with MUSD. He
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
holds a doctorate in educational leadership and was interviewed regarding the
district’s teacher evaluation policy and process, as well as the district’s process in
developing the professional growth system.
The BTSA Coordinator, a White female, has been the primary driver in
developing the professional growth system. This position is contained within the
teacher’s collective bargaining unit. During her tenure in the district, she has
served in several positions: PAR Coordinator, BTSA Support Provider, and
elementary teacher. She has spent her entire educational career of 15 years with
MUSD. She was interviewed regarding the district’s teacher evaluation policy and
process and the district’s process in developing the PGS.
The principal has been the instructional leader of King for the past 2 years.
She holds a doctorate in education administration and has worked 8 years as a
teacher, 12 years as a school counselor, and 4 years as an elementary assistant
principal. She actively coordinates and executes the evaluation of teachers at King
and was interviewed regarding the implementation of district evaluation policies in
King as well as the new PGS evaluation system.
Teacher Participants
Thirty-seven teachers agreed to participate in this study. Their years of
experience ranged from 1 to 36. The staff is predominately White female, although
there are a few men and minority staff members. Thirty-seven of 44 (84%) of the
certificated staff completed the anonymous teacher survey.
Six teachers, selected by the principal, participated in one-on-one evidence-
based interviews with the researcher. The teachers’ education levels ranged from a
Baccalaureate to a doctorate; the have served at King for from 1 to 30 years.
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Teacher interviews encompassed topics of teacher evaluation, district policy,
school reform efforts, school culture, and personal beliefs. Table 2 summarizes the
characteristics of the sample and the instruments used to collect data from them.
Table 2
Characteristics o f the Sample and Data Collection Instruments
Participant n Location Instruments used
District Leader 1 District office Case Study Guide, Observation Guide,
and Quantitative Data
District Leader 1 District office Case Study Guide, Observation Guide,
and Quantitative Data
School Leader 1 School Case Study Guide, Observation Guide,
and Quantitative Data
Teachers 44 School Observation Guide and Teacher
Survey
6a School Case Study Guide and Observation
Guide
included in the 44 teachers.
Instrumentation
The methodology was qualitative in nature. The descriptive-analytic
approach provided a means for conducting an in-depth case study of teacher
evaluation practices in a California school district, more specifically, an elementary
school that has outperformed its statewide ranking on the similar schools API
ranking. Data collection instruments were designed by using theoretical frame
works related to each research question. Four instruments were used to collect four
64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
types of data for this study: (a) responses from interviews, (b) teacher surveys
(which allowed the researcher to obtain large amounts of data without intruding on
the teachers’ privacy), (c) observations, and (d) a review of documents containing
quantitative information.
Framework for Instrument Design
The first phase of instrument design began with theoretical frameworks for
each of the four research questions and data collection instruments, which were
developed during summer 2004 by the 14-member thematic dissertation group.
The 6-week seminar, held during April through August 2004, served as a work
session for research group.
The original group began with 17 doctoral students who defined the topic to
be pursued. While the group was in agreement on the importance of the general
topic area of teacher evaluation, there was much deliberation over whether the
primary focus should encompass the larger topic of instructional supervision versus
the more focused topic of teacher evaluation. Once consensus was reached on the
topic of evaluation and its relevance to teacher practice, the group began to con
ceptualize the methodology and specific data collection methods. During the
course of this collaborative effort, 3 of the original 17 chose to perform a quanti
tative analysis on the topic and 14 maintained a qualitative focus on the topic.
Current literature was reviewed, which provided a framework for the
development of instrumentation and data collection techniques for each of the four
research questions that addressed the purpose of the study. Criteria for individual
case studies were considered and instruments were designed and developed. The
group revised the instruments as necessary to ensure reliability and validity. In
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
particular, the survey instrument was field tested by members of the thematic group
to ensure that its measurements were valid and reliable (appendix B).
Guided by University of Southern California professor Dr. Stuart E.
Gothold, the thematic group, primarily from southern California, met for sessions
of approximately 6 hours to collaboratively design the research study and instru
mentation. In addition, each member reviewed relevant literature, shared drafts of
group work, and communicated through electronic mail.
The research questions were framed to gather information addressing issues
of district policy, site implementation, adequacy of the process with regard to
teacher practice, and other factors influencing teacher practice. The group
developed a data needs chart to ensure that each research question was appropri
ately addressed by the data collection instruments (appendix C).
Framework fo r the First Research Question
The first research question asked, What is the district’ s policy and strategy
for carrying out teacher evaluation? State and federal statutes, regulatory codes,
local school board policy, collective bargaining agreements, and district programs
provided structure for which this research question was designed. The researcher
utilized a document review guide to analyze the gathered data. The first research
question included the following four factors: (a) overview of the state policy and
law used in the district, (b) district policy and procedures for teacher evaluation,
(c) district approaches to teacher improvement and their relations to teacher
evaluation, and (d) district data about teacher performance and its use.
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Framework fo r the Second Research Question
The second research question asked, How does the school carry out teacher
evaluation? Two subquestions were posed: (a) To what extent has the district
teacher evaluation policy been carried out at the school level? and (b) How do the
district, school, and individual teacher hold each other accountable for the teacher
evaluation process?
The researcher utilized a Case Study Guide (appendix D) and an observa
tion guide to gather data related to this question. Based on the research of Hall,
Wallace, and Dossett (1973), the researcher utilized the Stages of Concern model to
assess the level of implementation of the district teacher evaluation policy. Hall et
al. suggested that, as people go through the process of personally adopting an
innovation in their local setting (for example, new programs or procedures), they
individually go through seven stages of concern associated with the implementation
(Figure 1).
D. Marsh (1992) researched the connection of management support to
educational leadership and identified three stages in the development of strong
educational leaders that were able to link the two (Figure 2).
The researcher utilized this model in assessing the characteristics of
leadership at the school site. The researcher also utilized McLaughlin and Marsh’s
(1978) outlined four general project implementation planning strategies, of which
each has very different impact and success levels at the school site level (Figure 3).
Framework fo r the Third Research Question
The third research question asked, What factors have shaped this school
level effort? Bolman and Deal’s (1997) four frames provided the theoretical
framework upon which the research questions were designed. The authors
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Stage Description
0 Awareness: indicates that the individual has little concern
or involvement with the innovation
1 Informational: indicates a general awareness of the
conceptual innovation and an interest in obtaining more
information. There are no personal concerns for
individuals at this point.
2 Personal: indicates an uncertainty about the demands of
the innovation and personal inadequacy to meet those
demands within the individual’s role
3 Management: focuses on the execution process and tasks
required of the innovation and uses of information and
resources to effectively implement
4 Consequence: speaks to the impact of the innovation on
the affected students
5 Collaboration: focuses on coordination with others during
the implementation of the innovation
6 Refocusing: an exploration of the innovation universally,
including possibly making significant changes to the
innovation itself to enhance the effectiveness of the reform
Figure 1. Stages of concern.
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Stage Description
1 Focuses primarily on the initiation into the role of site
administrator, the development of routine management
skills, and task-oriented junctions of school management
2 Centers largely on enhancing those management skills that
were developed in Stage 1 and mastering or specializing in
specific areas. In Stage 2, leaders tend to gather a larger
view of what it means to be an educational leader, while by
no measure complete. School site changes, while possibly
varied among areas or disciplines, are incremental and
splintered.
3 Illustrates more of a total integration of management and
educational leadership. These leaders understand the inter
workings of the management functions within educational
leadership and utilize the management processes in order
to maximize the educational vision. School site changes
are substantial and aligned with the educational vision of
the organization.
Figure 2. Developmental stages of leadership.
Strategy Description
Top-down
planning
This implementation scheme illustrates cases where
the central office adopted innovations and
announced intent to implement to school site staff.
Grass roots
planning
This project planning strategy involves plans that
are derived by teachers or school site project staff
with little input from central office staff.
Collaborative
planning
This strategy is characterized by project plans that
have relatively equal input from both district and
school-based staff.
No planning This includes implementation plans and strategies
that were formulated externally with little to no
input from any district or school site staff.
Figure 3. Program planning strategies.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
suggested that there are four frames in which every organizations functions:
structural, political, human resource, and symbolic. The researcher utilized the
Case Study Guide and an observation guide as a basis for data collection and
analysis concerning the adequacy of the design and data use. This question
includes two subquestions: (a) What is the nature o f the school’ s leadership? and
(b) What are items o f influence that have shaped the school’ s teacher evaluation
practice?
Framework fo r the Fourth Research Question
The fourth research question asked, How effective is the teacher evaluation
process at the school level? The researcher utilized the Case Study Guide as a
basis for data collection and analysis concerning the adequacy of the design and
data use. Five subquestions were posed: (a) What are the administrators and
teachers perceptions o f the teacher evaluation process? (b) Is there evidence o f
changes in teacher practice emanating from the evaluation process? (c) To what
degree are other school efforts improving teaching practices? (d) What is the cost
effectiveness o f teacher evaluation? and 5) What are the consequences for
perceived “ weak” and “ strong” teachers?
Data Collection Instruments
Due to the qualitative nature of the case study, four types of information
gathering methods were utilized: document review, observation, interview, and
written response in the form of a survey. Instruments include a Case Study Guide
consisting of interviews, artifact collection and analysis and the collection of other
quantitative data, a teacher survey, and an observation guide. These instruments
allowed the researcher to collect specific data related to each research question. Of
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the instruments used for this study, the Case Study Guide focused the researcher on
gathering data through documented evidence, a minimum of six formal interviews,
and multiple observations. The guide and procedures were piloted with a sample
population similar in size and scope to the study sample prior to use. The guide
provided a tool for note taking during the interview sessions, artifact collection, and
the analysis of those artifacts. Further, teacher participants completed a researcher-
prepared survey.
Case Study Guide
Miles and Huberman (1994) recommended the use of interviews to obtain
information about significant factors contributing to the overall understanding of
the study. Likewise, interviews are one of the most critical sources of data in case
studies (Yin, 1989). Following these recommendations, the Case Study Guide was
utilized to enable the researcher to better focus in the one-on-one conversations
with key individuals who could aid the researcher in gaining the needed informa
tion about district and school policy design and practices. Individuals who partici
pated in the interviews were not viewed as simple respondents, but more important,
they were seen as informants (Gall et al., 2003; Yin).
The Case Study Guide was comprised of the following five components:
(a) district leader interviews, (b) site leader interviews, (c) teacher interviews,
(d) observations, and (e) quantitative data. The following is a description of the
interview process used for all six interviews. The researcher using guided but
open-ended questions related to the research questions to structure the interviews.
Initial questions were asked and followed with probing questions as needed for
elaboration or clarification. The informants were asked focused open-ended
71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
questions followed by predetermined probing questions and prompts when
necessary. Interviews were designed to follow-up from the teacher survey to solicit
more in-depth information. Interview questions followed the same themes as the
survey instrument.
The questions were grouped into the categories of teacher evaluation
process, policy, school reform efforts, school culture, and personal beliefs. As
needed, evidence and/or documents to support interview questions or answers were
requested. The district administrators and the site principal provided the docu
ments and artifacts that were requested. The guide provided a framework for data
collection and reporting. The research questions guided the structure of interviews
and observations. It was also used to provide the outline for reporting research
findings in chapter 4. The Case Study Guide components are described below.
The district leaders’ interviews were structured by guiding questions that
were developed to focus the researcher’s investigation of how the district evaluates
and supports teachers to improve teacher practice. Interview topics focused on
(a) district policy, (b) site implementation, (c) evaluation effectiveness, and
(d) accountability. Furthermore, the interview included the district leader’s per
ceptions about the extent and quality of the implementation and the relationship to
instructional reform efforts. The interviews were conducted in the district leaders’
offices, which allowed access to documentation relevant to this interview.
The site leader’s interview was designed to gather evidence of the school’s
teacher evaluation procedures in practice. The site leader’s interview dealt with
(a) implementation of district policy, (b) accountability, (c) integration with
instructional objectives, and (d) factors shaping the evaluation process. Other
critical component areas of focus included other opportunities or programs
72
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
available to teachers to help them improve instructional practice and the level of
district support. The school site leader interview was conducted in the site
administrator’s office, which allowed for access to material that supported this
interview.
Teacher interviews were developed to solicit teachers’ perspectives regard
ing their experiences in being evaluated at King and the evaluation process as a
whole in MUSD. Teachers were released from their assigned duties to participate
in the interview with the researcher. Each 23-question interview was conducted in
the school library. Like all interview participants, teachers were assured that con
fidentiality of information obtained during the interview would be of the highest
level.
The observation guide served as another source of data collection in this
case study. The researcher utilized an observation guide that was developed
collaboratively during the thematic group sessions, which was based largely on
Bolman and Deal’s (1997) four frames. As Gall et al. (2003) and Yin (1989)
stated, multiple sources of evidence strengthens a case study and thus helping the
researcher gain a more comprehensive view of the overall implication of the study.
On each data collection day, the researcher spent time in collecting environ
mental information. The researcher collected evidence from district and school
records, district and school policies and procedures, district and school publica
tions, and electronic sources. A list of collected documents is included in appendix
E. Information collected during each observation was recorded on the observation
guide. Observations were conducted in office support areas and throughout the
school environment, as well as in one faculty meeting. Informal interviews and
conversations were conducted with staff during data collection days. The
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
observation guide provided the researcher with a means of recording descriptive
and reflective information that described the factors influencing both the teacher
evaluation process and other factors influencing student achievement.
The researcher obtained specific quantitative data: 2001-2002,2002-2003,
and 2003-2004 API reports, district- and school-level teacher evaluation data, as
well as teacher non-reelections, teachers on assistance plans, and participation in
the PAR program.
Teacher Survey
An anonymous survey requiring written responses assisted the researcher to
gather data that was not easily observable (e.g., staff motivation, attitudes, and
beliefs). Although considered anonymous, the cover page of the survey requested a
teacher profile of experience, education, and ethnicity. The profile excluded the
teacher’s name. Survey results were analyzed and revisions to questions and tools
were made for future use. The Teacher Survey consisted of 52 items focusing on
(a) district policies and procedures, (b) school procedures for teacher evaluation,
(c) degree of implementation of district policy in school evaluation procedures,
(e) effectiveness of the district and school’s policies and strategies on teacher
practice.
To promote a high response rate, the four-page survey was presented in a
Likert-type scale format. The model gave the research participants an opportunity
to indicate their level of agreement to a variety of statements (Gall et al., 2003).
The 4-point scale allowed teachers to rate the items from 0 to 3. Research question
ratings related to individual beliefs regarding district and school policy, procedures,
design, and strategies of the implementation process were indicated by one of the
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
following responses: 0 = disagree strongly, 1 = disagree somewhat, 2 = agree
somewhat, and 3 = agree strongly.
In summary, the frameworks that conceptualized the four research questions
also provided the blueprint for data collection instrument design.
Data Collection
All data collection took place in the fall semester of 2004. Following the
approval of the dissertation study by district and school administrators, the
researcher sent a follow-up memorandum describing the study, data collection
parameters, and timeline. Frequent telephone conversations and electronic mail
ensured understanding of the scope of the study. The researcher conducted two
rounds of data collection that included interviews, site visits, reviewing of docu
mented evidence, and observations at both district and site levels. Following the
first round of data collection, preliminary data analysis was completed. This initial
analysis allowed the researcher to focus on areas that required further data
collection.
During the data collection process, the researcher assured quality control by
following the three principles of data collection as outlined by Yin (1989). The
researcher (a) used multiple sources of evidence to avoid relying on a sole source,
(b) created a case study database as a means of organizing and documenting data,
and (c) maintained a chain of evidence to reveal the evidence and its source.
In order to gain an understanding of the overall district policy design, the
district administrator interviews were conducted first. Following these interviews,
the researcher interviewed the site administrator and observed four classrooms and
a faculty meeting. In addition, four teachers were interviewed. Teacher surveys
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
were distributed and collected at a staff meeting during the following week.
Informal interviews with the site administrator and teachers occurred during each
site visit. A follow-up interview with the district administrators concluded data
collection. Scheduled rounds of data collection are shown in Figure 4.
Round 1
Day 1 District leader interviews
Day 2 School leader and teacher surveys
Day 3 District observations and teacher
interviews
Round 2
Day 4 School leader interview, direct
observations, and teacher interviews
Day 5 Teacher interviews
Day 6 District leader interviews
Figure 4. Data collection schedule.
All interviews were conducted in the following manner: (a) researcher
introduction, (b) brief study overview presented to the informant, (c) assurance of
information and identity confidentiality, (d) general explanation of the interview
format, and (e) focused interview questions. Documents and reports that support
obtained responses from the interviews were collected from district and school
administrators. “Guidelines for Conducting a Research Interview” (Gall et al.,
2003) was consulted. These guidelines outline protocols related to maintaining
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
confidentiality of research participants, building a rapport with informants, and
using effective questioning strategies.
Data Analysis
The four research questions and the Case Study Guide provided the
structure for analyzing data. The researcher organized and reduced data while
gleaning key information that would highlight the district and school data
collection and usage practices from interviews and observations. Patterns of
participant responses and observed activities were described in comment sections
of the rating form.
The teacher surveys were tallied by grade level and then by subject matter
to determine similarities and differences in teachers’ understanding and beliefs of
the district and school policies and practices as they pertain to teacher evaluation.
The information from the interviews was compared and contrasted with
information gathered from all direct observation conducted. For triangulation
purposes, data gathered through interviews, direct observations, and surveys were
merged for analysis of corroboration. Findings describing key elements of teacher
evaluation and their impact on teacher practice were then reported in the form of a
case study.
Summary
This chapter discusses the research methods utilized in this study. Included
in the discussion are descriptions of the research design, the sample and population,
the instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis. The research study was
guided by four questions. Theoretical frameworks provided the foundation on
which research questions and instruments were based. A K-5 elementary school
77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
was selected for the study. District and school site administrators and teachers
participated in the study. Data collection instruments were (a) a Case Study Guide
that included a series of evidence-based interviews, observations, and collection of
quantitative data; and (b) a teacher survey that served as the written response data
collection instrument. Data collection commenced with district and school
approval, followed by 6 days of data collection. Data were analyzed and reported
in the form of a case study.
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER4
ANALYSIS OF DATA AND FINDINGS
This chapter presents and analyzes the data collected in this case study,
which focuses on teacher evaluation as an instrument to impact teacher practice.
Data collection and analysis was driven by four research questions focusing on
(a) district policy, (b) school site implementation of the policy, (c) factors that the
shape implementation effort, (d) and perceived effectiveness of the teacher evalua
tion process design. Evidence related to each question was gathered at the district,
school site, and teacher levels.
The data consists of qualitative and quantitative information gathered from
a number of sources:
1. A Case Study Guide included formal interviews with the district’s
Associate Superintendent of Human Resources and the district’s BTSA
Coordinator. The researcher also conducted interviews with the Principal and six
principal-selected teachers. Informal observations of the school site and district
environment were conducted;
2. A Teacher Survey with responses from 37 of 44 teachers; and
3. A document review. Table 3 is a matrix indicating which data collection
instruments and questions were used to gather information on each research ques
tion. The matrix identifies areas in which the data were triangulated. The data
were organized and presented topically using these four research questions as
topics.
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3
Instrumentation Organization
Research
question
Teacher
survey
questions
Teacher
interview
questions
Administrator
interview
questions
Document
review Observations
What is the
district’s policy
and strategy for
carrying out
teacher
evaluation?
1,4,6 Stull,
collective
bargaining,
Board
policy,
memoranda,
evaluation
tools
Support for
awareness of
district policy
How does the
school carry out
teacher
evaluation?
3-16 1,2,4,
12, 14
4,6 Single Plan,
School
Professional
Plan,
Evaluation
tools
What factors have
shaped this
school level
effort?
17-52 2, 4,
6-11,
13-23
1-3, 5-13 School culture
and climate
How effective is
the teacher
evaluation
process at the
school level?
5-7,
9-14,
16,
39-41
2-6, 8,
12, 14,
23
4,6 Support for
actual
communica
tion styles and
perceptions
First Research Question: District
Teacher Evaluation Policy
The first research question asked, What is the district’ s policy and strategy
for carrying out teacher evaluation? Federal and state statutes and regulatory
codes, coupled with local school board policy and collective bargaining
80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
agreements, provided structure for this research question. The researcher utilized a
document review guide to analyze the data. The first research question includes the
following four factors: (a) overview of the state policy and law as used in the
district, (b) district policy and procedures for teacher evaluation, (c) district
approaches to teacher improvement and their relations to teacher evaluation, and
(d) district data about teacher performance and use of the data.
To ensure understanding of the design of the MUSD policy, the researcher
examined five contributing factors: (a) an overview of the policy, (b) the process
for policy development, (c) the policy dissemination, (d) the policy implementa
tion, and (e) the funding of the policy.
An Overview o f the Policy
The PGS is a five-step plan for teacher evaluation that encompasses
traditional aspects of evaluation such as classroom observation, feedback, and
summative evaluation. However, what makes the PGS different from the Stull Bill
provisions is the inclusion of formative evaluation features, such as collaborative
goal setting, clear standards for performance and evidence, mid-year goal confer
ences, and professional development that is directly tied to performance goals to
aid teachers in achieving their individual goals. Figure 5 illustrates the various
steps of PGS and the corresponding purpose and rationale of each step.
Each individual professional growth plan is formulated using the CSTP as
criteria at the goal-setting conference, which becomes the guiding document for use
in the formative and summative pieces of the evaluation process.
MUSD has been formulating a professional growth process for over 3 years.
However, it was not until the advent of the requirement of continuous growth and
81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Steps Purpose Rationale
1 Information
meeting
2 Goal-setting
conference
3 Classroom
visitations
Mid-year goal
reflection
conference
End-of-year
goal(s)
reflection and
summative
evaluation
Evaluator/evaluatee(s)
meet to discuss process
and procedures, estab
lish specific timelines
and begin to consider
growth goals.
Provides opportunity
for evaluator and evalu-
atee to discuss and
agree on professional
growth goal(s) for the
evaluatee. Individual
professional growth
plan is formulated at
this conference.
Formal and informal
observations allow the
administrator to view
activities that support
student achievement.
Observations ensure
that teachers have many
opportunities to demon
strate their development
toward aligning teach
ing practice with CSTP.
Evaluator and evaluatee
review progress toward
agreed-upon goals. The
PGP is revisited and
revised if necessary; it
continues to be guiding
document through the
process.
Two-pronged step that
provides opportunity
for evaluatee to self-
assess PGP progress
prior to the summative
evaluation.
2001-02 District Teacher/Evaluator Survey
data and other subsequent feedback in
2002-03 revealed that teachers seldom meet
with evaluators at the beginning of the year
to discuss current process. Due to imple
mentation of the new system, it is now more
critical that teachers understand the process
and have opportunities to ask questions.
It is critical that the evaluatee develop
teacher performance goal(s) rather than
student performance goals. If the evaluate
does not receive proper guidance, PGP will
lack depth and stray from the intent of the
process. 2001-02 survey data showed a
desire for a PGS that is timely and consist
ent district wide, as well as a priority with
evaluators throughout the district.
Observation and input for the specific pur
pose of supporting teacher improvement
helps to overcome the isolation and uncer
tainty that characterizes a great deal of
teaching. 2001-02 survey data showed that
teachers desire more frequent informal
visitations by evaluators.
2001-02 District Teacher/Evaluator Survey
data and other subsequent feedback in
2002-03 revealed that teachers want to use
multiple sources of data as evidence of their
professional growth, including meaningful
conversations with their evaluator concern
ing their growth.
Research indicates that evaluation tools
designed to support growth and develop
ment through use of formative assessment
produce more thoughtful and reflective
practice while satisfying accountability
demands. By law, districts must have end-
of-year evaluation; hence, the summative
evaluation. However, this evaluation is no
longer dependent on only two observations,
but may include multiple sources of
evidence for performance appraisal.
Figure 5. Professional Growth System (PGS). PGP = professional growth plan.
82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
increased student proficiency (i.e., NCLB) that this became a burning cause.
Although both the teachers association and the district administration understood
the importance of the issue, the federal and state mandates made this system a
higher priority for all stakeholders of MUSD. It is intended that this pilot program
provide detailed feedback for final revision of the program as well as be a valuable
experience to those teachers and administrators participating in the pilot. As this
program was created in collaboration with the Maple Teachers Association, it is
designed for use in conjunction with, not in place of, Article 15 of the collective
bargaining agreement (appendix F). The program is also aligned with the CSTP,
using the standards as benchmarks of good teaching practice.
MUSD’s Governing Board unanimously supports the expectation of pro
fessional growth of its teachers and declared unwavering support to raising the
learning and performance of all students. The first reporting of the state API
rankings in 2000 showed King with a statewide ranking of 6 (on a scale of 1-10)
and a score of 695. While this was one of the higher scores in the district at that
time, this was not satisfactory to the Superintendent or the Governing Board. The
Governing Board expects all students to learn in a manner that surpasses those
mandated by the state. This has driven the Board, Superintendent, and community
stakeholders to create expectations that will support and ensure the academic
success of all of their students. These expectations helped King to achieve a 2003
API score of 755, with steady growth annually.
To ensure the success of each student, the District uses student performance
data along with specific ancillary data to map the individual needs for each student.
This approach also lends itself to program evaluation and modification to the
delivery of instruction. The disaggregating of student performance data gives
83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
teachers the ability to pinpoint the deficiencies of each student, thus ensuring that
student personal needs are met. Now that the data identify student needs, it is the
district’s responsibility to provide teachers with the tools necessary to address those
needs.
The Process fo r Policy Development
MUSD has a board policy concerning teacher evaluation that mirrors the
California School Board Association’s recommended Board Policy 4115. In addi
tion, there is an expectation that has transcended the entire district. This expecta
tion and awareness has increased with the approval of the PGS. MUSD, known
throughout the county as a leader in educational reform and teacher support, has a
basic expectation to create and implement policies and procedures that would
ensure that the district not only remains a leader but also exceeds its own standards
of excellence.
In achieving higher standards, the district recognized that it could be more
effective in the evaluation of teachers. According to the BTSA Coordinator, “The
culture had developed into teacher evaluation being unimportant. We had to do it
but it wasn’t important, because it was not significantly linked to improvement.”
The impetus of this realization stemmed from open dialogues between the district’s
teachers association and its Human Resources Department. The district was reeling
from the challenges of NCLB to provide highly qualified teachers and the potential
sanctions associated with the new state accountability system, as well as trying to
provide real solutions to improve student achievement. Overall, district students
were achieving growth on standardized tests; however, all of the student subgroups
were not equally successful. Meanwhile, completed evaluations of district teaching
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
staff were not reflective of any shortfalls in the performance, reflecting this pheno
menon. Consequent of these glowing evaluations, teachers were not prepared to
accept responsibility for any issues of nonperformance. Although district adminis
tration acknowledged that the MUSD teaching staff was very good, they held that
the teachers were not perfect and that evaluations should have been reflective of
room for growth. The teachers association was in agreement with district adminis
tration and saw that the evaluation process could be used as a means for teachers to
receive the targeted assistance that they needed for continuous improvement. The
association was not satisfied with the results of the existing teacher evaluation
process. According to the Associate Superintendent of Human Resources,
We began analyzing student achievement data, finding the gaps in student
performance. Once those areas had been identified, understanding that the
teacher is key to student learning, we looked at avenues to better prepare
our teachers to meet student learning objectives. During the course of this
effort district staff went out to observe every classroom. This is when we
determined that what was happening in classrooms was not being reflected
in the teacher evaluations. It was then that the district consulted the
teachers association with the issue. It seemed that the teachers were looking
for help and support in improving practice. The two groups then decided to
convene a task force to examine the “how to do, what to do to get what we
want.” The task force was charged with redefining the purpose of evalua
tion and to identify research-based practices that would yield the desired
result, improved student achievement. (Personal communication,
November 4, 2004)
Because the district functions in a highly collaborative fashion, a task force
of representatives from all stakeholder groups in MUSD met to discuss ways to
enhance teacher practice and professional growth. In 2001-2002, the task force
administered a survey to all teachers and administrators, seeking their perceptions
of the teacher evaluation process. The task force formulated a preliminary alterna
tive evaluation tool, including professional development, to be field tested in 2002-
03, using the master contract as a guide for the procedures and the timeline. The
85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
district field tested the proposed PGS with teachers selected by task force partici
pants (evaluators). At that time, the PGS was divided into two systems: Phase I
for temporary and probationary teachers and Phase II for veteran teachers with
satisfactory performance ratings. The district continued with that methodology
through 2003-04, field testing the program with 2 to 10 Phase II teachers from each
site, using the proposed PGS with approximately 200 veteran participants.
Due to the survey results and the field test, the task force made changes to
the process and the procedures but not to the philosophy. After the field test, the
two phases were merged, the forms were slightly revised to make them more user
friendly, and a new form was added: Form IIA, Evaluator Request for Additional
Information is used when the evaluator needs more information regarding how the
individual goals relate to the CSTP. In addition, the task force determined that
evaluators needed training in the art of coaching for evaluation and that teachers
needed more training on how to set personal performance goals. Fundamentally,
both groups needed more training and practice using the PGS process and the
procedures.
The result of this survey, the field test, and the many task force discussions
was the district’s current 2004-05 PGS pilot program. This development process
provided buy-in and confidence at all levels of the process. The Associate Superin
tendent of Human Resources and BTSA Coordinator are responsible for the plan
ning, implementation, and monitoring of the PGS at all sites and departments. The
researcher conducted a formal interview with the Associate Superintendent during
which he provided insight into the district’s belief that improving teacher practice
will also increase student learning and performance.
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
According to the district’s BTSA Coordinator, until 3 years ago, the
district’s teacher evaluation process, modeled after the Stull Bill, had evolved to the
point that it had become unimportant. Both teachers and administrators felt that the
process lacked any significant link to the improvement of teacher practice. It was
at this point that the Associate Superintendent, currently the Deputy Superintendent
of Curriculum and Instruction, and the President of the Maple Teachers Association
began conversations regarding student achievement, teacher practice, and teacher
evaluations.
This continuous process began with multiple discussions among a few key
individuals and then slowly expanded to more stakeholders as the potential for a
new system unfolded. In the second year of planning, the district hired a consultant
from a local campus of the California State University to facilitate the process,
maintaining the integrity of the goals. At this point, the group was designated a
task force. Legislation also steered the process in general; however, there was and
continues to be very little direction from the state.
The district task force created the draft policy focusing on the means,
methods, and outcomes of teacher evaluation. The task force reviewed a number of
outside documents and looked at what other districts were doing in this area before
finalizing their policy. Among those documents were the California Education
Code, CDE program advisories, CDE management advisories, California School
Board Association (CSBA) advisories, and the district’s collective bargaining
agreement with the Maple Teachers Association. The district’s expectations,
coupled with board policies and administrative regulations, provide additional
parameters for the use of the PGS in assessing teacher performance and the
delivery of instruction.
87
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The district’s PGS policy was developed with the following goals in mind:
(a) to provide immediate feedback needed by decision makers, (b) to provide focus
and direction on the delivery of instruction, and (c) to improve academic programs
and services, ultimately all contributing to increased public accountability. The
philosophy upon which the PGS is premised involves extensive collaboration and
partnership between teachers and evaluators in improving teacher practice. MUSD
has stated that the fruits of the plan will lead to success for all, particularly students.
The PGS plan document states that professional growth is essential to improving
student achievement.
According to district and site administrators, the district policy is intended
to increase the teachers’ knowledge of teaching strategies in a manner that will
actually make a difference in the classroom during the academic year that is
targeted. The underlying expectation of the policy is to address student needs via
the improvement of instructional delivery. More explicitly, changes in instruc
tional delivery or teacher practice should be driven by student need, as indicated by
student performance data. These data are evident not by standardized test scores
but also by school and individual classroom benchmarks. By focusing instructional
reforms, including teacher practice, to address student needs, the district and its
teachers will always have a convergent focus on what is best for students.
Policy Dissemination
District policies and strategies were disseminated in several ways: A
presentation was made to the Board, a presentation was made to the principals,
and a presentation was made to the teachers association. It has always been the
principal’s responsibility in MUSD to disseminate policy to staff. District
88
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
principals, along with district level administrators, spent 6 hours during a 3-day
retreat discussing the policy, how to disseminate it, and how to support teachers in
their utilization of the policy. Principals were trained in the PGS, receiving support
from several central office administrators in the form of guidance and specific
training in counseling teachers, writing effective individual professional growth
plans, and funding allocations for professional development.
At the school site level, the principal conducted group meetings with
respective evaluatees for the purpose of discussing the evaluation process and
procedures in addition to distribution of the PGS handbook. The district provided
support staff for each site to assist the principal in training and supporting the
school site’s faculty. The training is ongoing. Although the use of PGS is manda
tory, the principal attempted to bring her staff through the change, as opposed to
just simply informing them of the impeding mandate. She attempted to gain a
comfort level with the program among her staff, discussing it enough that everyone
knew its importance and had the information necessary to begin the process.
Policy Implementation
The principal ultimately monitors the implementation of the PGS policy.
An underlying strategy of district and school administration is to monitor academic
progress as well as teacher professional growth and not to wait until the end of the
school year to see what success the school and district has accomplished. When
asked effective implementation of the PGS looks like, the BTSA Coordinator
replied,
The district’s hope is that when a teacher is doing their best, then student
growth occurs. The Associate Superintendent is responsible for perform
ance evaluation and staff development, and ensures training and support for
Principals in the PGS process as well as ensures that teachers are getting
89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
what they need to be successful in the PGS and in the district.
(Appendix F)
A policy implementation of this magnitude takes a great deal of time and
effort in communication with and training of staffs, as well as the monitoring of
processes and results. The district has clearly demonstrated its determination to
raise the learning and performance level of all students: Principals have been
trained in the PGS processes and coaching, the site leadership teams actively
monitor the progress of teacher practice, and there is constant communication with
the district office to assess and improve the implementation process.
Funding o f Policy and Strategy Implementation
The Associate Superintendent of Human Resources indicated that program
support definitely had been given fiscal consideration regarding the district and
school’s policy design. The General Fund underwrote the task force activities in
the development of the program. This also entailed all substitute time and funding
for any needed materials, training of staff, and communication of the plan. This
committee has maintained a budget for 3 years, and it is anticipated by the Associ
ate Superintendent that the task force and budget will remain intact until the pilot is
fully implemented throughout the district. “After that, it will go away and become
and ad hoc committee to revise and/or validate the process as needed.”
The actual costs of PGS activities (i.e., the goal setting conferences and the
observations) are paid from the general fund or from the specific fund from which
the teacher is funded. No additional release time or substitute teacher costs are
necessary because these conferences take place during teacher preparation time or
after school. This time was also set aside for evaluation conferences prior to the
PGS per the Stull model. However, the actual staff development and training of
90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
teachers that is the result of the PGS will be paid for from the site budgets, both
categorical and general funds, dependent on the types of training and the applica
bility to program funding. When asked whether the site administrators were to
receive additional funds for PGS implementation or whether the school site budgets
would be inclusive or reflective of PGS driven expenditures, the Associate Super
intendent firmly responded in the negative. He indicated, “Administrators are
expected to do their homework in advance, prior to the allocation of their school
site funds. They should be knowledgeable of what it is their people are in need of
and plan accordingly.” Although the teacher is a collaborative partner in the
process, the principal is also charged with putting the school and district mission
and needs first.
The Governing Board is fiscally committed to ensuring the use of data to
improve the delivery of instruction and student academic performance. The basic
classroom observations, goal setting conferences, and post-observation conferences
are activities that would be considered fundamental of the basic educational pro
gram and are, therefore, funded by the district’s general fund. Other professional
growth activities are funded from multiple sources. Dependent on the subject
matter of the activities in which teachers will be participating, various site categori
cal funds are utilized and on the occasion that the professional growth activity is a
district-wide focus, district funds may be used. For example, if a teacher and
administrator have decided that the teacher could benefit from Read 180, a district-
adopted reading intervention program, and the district is sponsoring training
sessions, the district would likely fund that inservice activity cost as well as
necessary substitute teacher costs. However, if the goal was training that would
help the teacher to communicate with parents, the site would likely fund that
91
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
training through a site allocation of Title I, which could be used to promote parent
involvement.
All professional development expenditures must satisfy certain stipulations
that are set by the principal. For example, each expenditure must be tied to grade-
level standards in the core academic areas. They also must align to the district and
site goals. The site administrator handles all requests on a case-by-case basis,
matching teacher needs to teacher wants. In handling each request individually, the
site administrator is able to guarantee compliance with the program requirements of
categorical grants such as the School Improvement Plan, Title 1, Title 7, and even
Gifted and Talented Education, and is able to leverage these funds along with
general fund dollars to ensure optimization of program goals as well as the
maximization of program dollars.
Summary o f the Findings fo r the
First Research Question
The first research question sought to identify key policy elements and the
intended results of MUSD teacher evaluation policy design. A document review
template and the Case Study Guide served as a basis for describing MUSD’s
design.
There was evidence that the design of the PGS policy contained four key
elements: policy development, dissemination, implementation, and funding. The
process began with an expectation of quality teacher practice and a useful and
appropriate teacher evaluation system. Both the district administration and the
teachers association shared this expectation. The expectation sparked multiple
discussions among stakeholders. A task force was convened to pursue this policy.
Absent definitive direction from the state but with extensive input from key
92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
stakeholders, the Governing Board unanimously approved district’ expectations for
student performance and teacher professional growth.
The PGS policy follows the MUSD Governing Board’s beliefs that students
should progress at the rate of one to one and one half grade levels per academic
year. In order to accomplish this, the expectation is that all teachers will continu
ously improve instructional practices to better meet the instructional needs of
students. To facilitate this, the policy outlines the process that the district will
utilize in assessing teacher performance. There is also a definite understanding of
the expectation by each stakeholder in MUSD and the part that that person or group
is to play. This district-wide expectation (policy) sets the tone for high standards of
student academic achievement, continuous professional growth for teachers;
standards-based instruction, the use of data to drive educational decisions, and
effective fiscal allocation of resources available to accomplish the mission. There
was evidence that the PGS policy has been and continues to be disseminated to key
stakeholders in numerous ways.
There is an underlying belief that administrators are to monitor teacher
professional growth and practice throughout the year. Classroom observation data
are collected, analyzed, and disseminated to respective teachers in a timely manner.
The district utilizes both categorical and general funds to support the dis
trict’s PGS policy development, implementation, and dissemination. The overall
policy goals are threefold: (a) to facilitate teacher professional development, (b) to
improve the delivery of instruction through improved teacher practice and (c) to
ultimately increase student performance. An additional intent of the policy is to
identify those students needing additional academic support and intervention
services.
93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Second Research Question: School Site
Implementation of District Policy
The second research question asked, How does the school carry out teacher
evaluation? Two subquestions asked: (a) To what extent has the district teacher
evaluation policy been carried out at the school level? and (b) How do the district,
school, and individual teacher hold each other accountable for the teacher
evaluation process?
Three key design elements were used to describe the school site-level
implementation: (a) degree of implementation; (b) accountability for PGS at the
district, school, and individual levels; and (c) improving teacher practice through
implementation of PGS. A case study that describes the school’s implementation
of the key elements is presented in this section.
As standards and accountability continue to be top priorities, King con
tinues to show its commitment to maintaining and improving the quality of the
educational programs provided for their students. Setting high standards as well as
district goals has been the foundation of continuous improvement and accounta
bility for students, teachers, and administrators at King. The school’s expectations
closely resemble those of the district. The staff refuse to forget about those
students who are performing at/or above grade level. To maintain their rigorous
academic program, the school allows students who demonstrate the mastery of the
standards and subject matter to move ahead. Differentiated instruction is the rule,
not the exception. King has over 25 ancillary programs and initiatives to reach
students who may not be demonstrating mastery of content or who may be experi
encing other issues outside of the curriculum that may diminish their ability to
perform academically. The stated goal of this multifaceted intervention scheme is
94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to engage all students in learning, whether the intervention is social, academic, or
emotional.
Degree o f Design Implementation
The task force sets time frames and parameters of PGS implementation.
The PGS, in accordance with the California Education Code, requires that goal
setting be done in October (Figure 6). Post-conference observations are performed
through February, when a mid-year conference is held. At that time, the adminis
trator and teacher work to either revise or refine goals based on the observational
data. In March, a follow-up conference is prescribed as well as an opportunity for
the teacher to reflect on the progress made toward that goal and to plan for future
development. The principal at King follows this timeline (Figure 6) closely in
implementation of the policy.
Although not every teacher in MUSD is evaluated every year, this system provides
a clear road map for future development toward which the teacher should be
working, indicating to the administrator any support that a teacher might need in
development and constituting a starting point of conversation in the next PGS
cycle. Although it is not mandated, an underperforming teacher may be required
by the administrator to be evaluated for two consecutive years. The system is
designed for the administrator who knows the talents and strengths of the staff and
should be able to better ascertain what programs, methods, and strategies will work
best for them. Because of the coaching training provided to all administrators, the
PGS process has led to much more of a coaching environment than an evaluative
environment.
95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Information meeting
Goal-setting conference
Classroom visitations
August (prior to the first student day)
By the 6th week of school (early October)
At least two formal/informal visitations
before winter recess
Mid-year goals conference By end of the 20th week (early February)
End-of-year goal reflection March 25
(submitted by the teacher to
the administrator)
End-of-year goal reflection April 22
(submitted by the administrator
to the teacher)
Summative Evaluation________ May 5
Figure 6. Professional Growth System timetable.
King teachers meet weekly in grade-level clusters to discuss the results of
the appropriate assessments and how they affect their delivery of instruction in
terms of their students’ performance. Teachers collaborate informally and
intermittently to coach and mentor each other between regularly scheduled grade-
level meetings. Every teacher being evaluated at King School in 2004-05 is being
evaluated with the PGS policy.
The interviews with teachers for this study indicated that this process has
led to higher levels of teacher empowerment. The teachers reported that they know
best (a) what students need to succeed, (b) where their strengths and weaknesses
are, and (c) what their interests are. This process allows them to have voice and to
choose what development they will receive and, to some degree, on what they will
ultimately be evaluated. However, the teachers acknowledged that the district and
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
principal should be looking to maintain some level of cohesion with regard to the
overall direction of the school.
School data are collected and disaggregated at both the district and school
site. To the degree that teachers have increased ownership of and commitment to
the process, they take ownership of student achievement. If they are looked at as
the experts on their students and they declare what their students need, then they
are more motivated to ensure that students learn at greater rates.
MUSD is in full swing; the district has implemented the PGS expectations.
Teachers surveyed in 2001 indicated that they wanted many of these specific
changes and the district has stepped up to make that happen. Once the data were
gathered and analyzed from this survey, the task force formulated and disseminated
to stakeholders the new process; the stakes were raised immediately. Teacher
needs and requests were acknowledged and the expectation was heightened that the
district would then address teacher concerns. In viewing the process through the
four frames (Bolman & Deal, 1997), the district acted primarily in a human
resource framework in attempting to resolve teacher concerns, which refers to the
fact that any problem that both teachers and district identified was addressed in a
framework that served the needs or interest of the employees. The task force
attempted to do this by working in the structural frame, designing a system to
address employee concerns.
Teachers received this approach to solving the problem in the symbolic
frame, understanding that the district task force was attempting in good faith to
solve the problem of ineffective and meaningless evaluations. Because of that
perception, teachers now are “buying into” the teacher evaluation process and are
much more committed to making the process valuable in terms of professional
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
growth. Because the system is perceived as that symbolic gesture, the site adminis
trator is able to monitor student performance throughout the school year, ensuring
that each teacher is progressing to meet his or her professional growth and perform
ance goals.
Program Planning Strategies
McLaughlin and Marsh (1978) outlined four general project implementation
planning strategies (see Figure 3), each of which has a very different impact and
success level at the school site. According to these authors, organizational change
efforts in the school environment are most successful and sustainable when the
program planning strategy is of a collaborative nature. MUSD’s teacher evaluation
innovation would primarily be described as collaborative because of its reliance on
various stakeholder inputs. However, the initial development began with a strong
top-down emphasis, since central office and the teacher’s association leadership
agreed that there was a need and defined the initial parameters of the development
of a plan. The collaborative aspect was evident in the second phase of develop
ment: the formation of a task force. The actual implementation of the program is
at the grass roots level, in that individual teachers and administrators—the school
site staff—drive the ongoing effectiveness and success of the program, which is
why it was key to a successful implementation that these groups have significant
commitment to the change effort. According to the principal, “Without it, the PGS
will flounder.” This information was ascertained via document review and
corroborating follow-up interviews.
98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Accountability o f Implementation
D. Marsh (1992) researched the connection of management support to
educational leadership and identified three stages in the development of strong
educational leaders that were able to link the two. Figure 2 provides a description
of these developmental stages of leadership. The researcher utilized this model in
assessing the characteristics of leadership at the school site that impacted policy
implementation.
The description of a Stage 3 leader could most accurately depict the
principal at King. She clearly has a large-scale view of what it means to be an
educational leader. She understands the interworkings of management functions
and utilizes those functions to leverage gains in student learning. She has been
trained in how to be an effective coach, with the purpose of ensuring that the school
program aligns with and is moving toward fulfilling the mission of the district.
This developmental stage of leadership is a very critical piece in being a
credible site leader with teachers and district staff. In order to gamer support for
additional resources or extra staff effort, the site administrator must be able to lead
effectively. The farther evolved the leader on Marsh’s continuum, the more
efficiently and timely the leader can move the organization, whether it be student-
based or school culture. While the principal has been at the site for only 2 years,
she exhibits a solid understanding of the political systems within the school and
district, using those to move the school’s agenda forward.
In the implementation of the PGS, this principal has been extremely effect
ive in capitalizing on the symbolism with which the district acted in the develop
ment of PGS. She has used her own credibility and leadership in a synergistic
way with the district’s actions to enhance commitment and to excite people to
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
participate in the PGS. Those who field tested the instrument at King are still
working on personal professional goals, even though this is their “off year” for
evaluation. Almost all of those who are being evaluated this year are excited; a few
have a wait-and-see attitude, all the while acknowledging that, if things are imple
mented as written, the PGS could be successful in making evaluations meaningful
in the district.
Stages o f Concern
The researcher utilized the Case Study Guide and an observation guide to
gather data related to this question. Based on the research of Hall et al. (1973), the
researcher utilized the Stages of Concern model (see Figure 1) to assess the level of
implementation of the district teacher evaluation policy. Hall et al. suggested that,
as people go through the process of personally adopting an innovation in their local
setting (e.g., new programs or procedures), they progress individually through
seven stages of concern associated with the implementation.
Most teachers indicated that there was awareness of the district’s new
evaluation tool. They indicated little concern over the PGS and have passed Stage
0 (awareness). Teachers have also received adequate information on the pilot pro
gram, thus passing Stage 1 (informational). During the interviews it was evident
that most teachers had reached Stage 4 (consequence), focusing on the impact of
the innovation on students. Very few teachers demonstrated Stage 2 behavior
(personal), centered on their personal concerns of inadequacy or lack of the
administration’s ability to implement the program effectively. No teachers
exhibited behaviors or responses that the researcher interpreted as Stage 3
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(management) behavior or Stage 5 (collaboration) and Stage 6 (refocusing)
behaviors.
While Hall et al. (1973) indicated that all people go through these stages of
concern, the authors were very clear that the stages are not necessarily equal in
terms of duration. In fact, it is quite possible that people can go through consecu
tive stages simultaneously. For example, a teacher can evolve from Stage 2 to
Stage 4, spending very little time in Stage 3, or going through Stages 2 and 3 in
concert. This would explain the gap that the research recognizes in the demonstra
tion of teacher responses. One of the teachers who participated in the interviewing
process stated that this is the best evaluation experience that she has received since
coming to the district nearly 16 years ago.
Improving Teacher Practice Through
Implementation o f PGS
Each participant in this study showed a great deal of pride for the academic
growth of their students. There was an unwavering feeling that the increased
student performance had primarily to do with teacher effort. When asked about
other factors supporting their efforts, the principal was noted for the support and
guidance provided to the classroom learning experience. There seemed to be no
acknowledgement of significant support emanating from the district administration
or the Governing Board.
Teacher Perception
Three of the teachers interviewed also stated that the PGS has had a great
impact on student learning. One teacher stated that the new system allows teachers
to stay out of “ruts in their teaching” and to stay focused on innovations in their
101
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
practice. Two teachers stated that they were concerned that there were too many
state standards. One teacher was agreeable to the concept of the PGS but was
hesitant regarding the final result. This teacher did not find past evaluation experi
ences to be useful with regard to teaching practice, regardless of the individual
principal. When asked whether this was due to personal relationships, the response
indicated nothing personal for the individual but more of a large waste of time and
resources.
As the accountability of public education becomes increasingly demanding,
teachers must ensure that everything that they teach is aligned to state and district
standards and they should be able to discuss and defend why they did what they
did. The researcher did not identify any participant who did not know and under
stand how the state’s mandates were changing the daily program of MUSD. All
teacher participants were asked to complete a 52-question inquiry using a scale of
0 (strong disagreement with the item) to 3 (strong agreement).
Teacher survey items 3 through 5 inquired about the teacher’s awareness
of district teacher evaluation policies as well as the district’s overall vision and
expectations, goals, beliefs, use of assessment measures, and plans included in the
policy design. Table 4 presents the averages of the teacher survey responses. Very
few teachers stated that they were not informed about what MUSD was attempting
to do in this area.
The survey also examined teachers’ understanding of the district’s vision
and expectations. Survey results indicated that the majority of teachers were aware
of district and school policies and strategies on teacher evaluation as a means to
improve teacher practice. The results of the survey also showed that almost all
teachers were aware of MUSD’s teacher evaluation policy and felt that their
102
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4
District Policy and Strategy Planning and Design: Results o f the Teacher Survey
(N= 37)
Item Mean % Agreed
3. I am aware of the district’s policy regarding
teacher evaluation. 2.51 100.0
4. I understand the district’s policy regarding
teacher evaluation. 2.38 94.6
5. I agree with the goals and objectives of my
district’s policy on teacher evaluation. 2.38 97.3
Note. Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 4-point
scale (0 = disagree strongly, 1 = disagree somewhat, 2 = agree somewhat, 3 =
agree strongly). Number of teachers = 37 out of 44 who responded.
administrator was implementing the policy with integrity. Further, there was an
overall confidence in the administrator’s efficacy in evaluating teachers. The
majority of responding teachers agreed that the goal of district policies and
strategies was to increase student performance and the delivery of instruction.
Table 5 illustrates the means and percentages of teacher survey responses
related to King’s teacher supervision and assessment of instructional practices.
Teacher ratings for questions 6-16 reflected the school’s implementation of the
district teacher evaluation policy design. Based on the results, teachers seemed to
feel comfortable with the progress made toward implementation of the PGS.
Survey item 6 received an average response of 2.65 out of a possible 3.
This indicated that teachers clearly agreed that the site administrator was
implementing the district policy with integrity. The data set showed no outliers; all
respondents replied with either agree somewhat or agree strongly.
103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5
School Site Implementation: Results o f the Teacher Survey (N= 37)
Item Mean % Agreed
6. I am satisfied that my site administrators are carrying out
the district’s policy on teacher evaluation with integrity. 2.65 100.0
7. My administrator frequently observes my classroom for
the purpose of evaluation. 1.31 36.1
8. My administrator and I often discuss the instructional
strategies I use in my classroom. 1.47 38.9
9. I view my administrator’s implementation of the teacher
evaluation policies as an integral part of my professional
growth. 2.16 86.5
10. When my administrator visits my classroom, he/she looks
for things which we agreed upon at a pre-conference. 2.00 80.6
11. I receive timely feedback following my observations. 2.17 80.6
12. The teacher evaluation feedback assists me improving
my teacher practice. 2.03 80.6
13. I am confident in my administrator’s ability to evaluate
my instructional practice. 2.31 83.3
14. There are alternative evaluation opportunities (e.g., PAR,
portfolio) available at my school. 1.91 73.5
15. I have participated in an alternative evaluation process
before. 1.28 38.9
16. I believe that my participation in the teacher evaluation
process at this school has led to my professional growth 2.11 83.8
Note. Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 4-point
scale (0 = disagree strongly, 1 = disagree somewhat, 2 = agree somewhat, 3 =
agree strongly). Number of teachers = 37 out of 44 who responded.
104
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Items 7 and 8, which relate to administrator observations and feedback,
received a much lower average (1.31 and 1.47, respectively) indicating possible
dissension among the teachers with respect to these areas. Upon further review of
the data, the deviation of the responses from the mean response indicated that,
while a few strongly agreed and more somewhat agreed, the majority of partici
pants strongly disagreed or somewhat disagreed with the notion that the adminis
trator frequently observes the classroom or that feedback on observation is given.
This variance in responses seems to be attributable to the staged imple
mentation of the PGS. The researcher conducted the survey prior to the timeframe
of observations prescribed by the PGS. Therefore, those participants in Phase II or
Phase III of PGS implementation had not experienced the current level of observa
tion mandated by policy. Both teacher and administrator participants acknowl
edged a deficit in administrator observations prior to PGS. The principal acknowl
edged that, in her first year at the site, she was not in classrooms as frequently as
she would normally expect to be.
When asked to identify the major influences in student achievement,
teachers stated that teacher knowledge and teacher practice were the most signi
ficant factors in improving student achievement. This perception was corroborated
by responses to the interview question, “Why is this school successful?” Teachers
in one-on-one interviews unanimously identified teacher efforts as the chief reason
for success.
When asked whether the new system of evaluation and professional growth
is useful and or meaningful in teachers professional growth and the improvement of
practice, the overwhelming consensus was affirmative. Only one teacher was
105
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
hesitant, although optimistic: “The jury’s still out, but it could be good for
teachers.”
Items 14 and 15 produced a considerably lower score than other survey
items relating to site implementation. Upon further investigation, it appears that
the questions were worded in a manner that caused confusion among respondents.
The district had, but is no longer using, a form of evaluation called “alternative
evaluation.” However, the intent of the question was to probe the respondents
regarding all types of “alternative methods of evaluation,” as opposed to one
specific past district practice. Due to this phenomenon, the responses to these items
may not be valid for the purposes of this study.
Summary o f the Findings fo r the
Second Research Question
The second research question sought to identify key policy elements to
describe the school site-level implementation. The Case Study Guide served as a
basis for describing implementation of the PGS at King.
The school’s expectations closely resembled those of the district. The task
force set timeframes and parameters for PGS implementation. The principal
follows this timeline closely in implementation of the policy.
This principal has been extremely effective in implementing the PGS. She
has used her own credibility and leadership in a synergistic way with the district’s
actions to enhance commitment and to excite people to participate in the PGS. The
teachers strongly agreed that the site administrator was implementing the district
policy with integrity.
Accountability has been slow in coming at the federal and state levels but,
in general, teachers are not responding as policymakers would like. Teachers feel
106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
that they alone know what is best for their students and they do not appreciate the
state attempting to mandate what they do. However, King teachers acknowledge
that the district and principal should set the overall direction of the school. To this
end, these teachers accepted the fact that they are expected to fully execute the
professional growth plans within the teacher evaluation process or risk a negative
evaluation with the possibility of disciplinary action. Administrators are also held
accountable for executing the teacher evaluation process on a larger scale, offering
timely and appropriate feedback to teaching staff. In the event that an administrator
does not implement the PGS appropriately, the administrator may also face nega
tive evaluation and disciplinary sanctions such as a note to the personnel file.
Third Research Question: Factors
Shaping School Reform
The third research question asked, What factors have shaped this school-
level effort? Bolman and Deal’s (1997) four frames provided the theoretical frame
work upon which the research questions were designed. The authors suggested that
there are four frames in which every organization functions: structural, political,
human resource, and symbolic. The researcher utilized the Case Study Guide and
an observation guide as a basis for data collection and analysis concerning the
adequacy of the design and data use. The third question includes two factors:
(a) What is the nature o f the school’ s leadership? and (b) What are items o f
influence that have shaped the school’ s teacher evaluation practice?
The third research question was analyzed throughout the study. Even
though district, principal, teacher interviews, and direct observation contributed to
collection of data to answer the third research question, the teacher survey supplied
the primary data toward answering this question. The survey contained questions
107
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to identify the extent to which teachers felt that the district and school had imple
mented the PGS policy and how successful their results had been. Table 6 sum
marizes the responses to survey items 17-34, regarding perceptions of factors shap
ing the school-level effort, and Table 7 summarizes the responses to survey items
35-52, regarding beliefs about factors shaping the school-level effort.
Nature o f School Leadership
The leadership model at King reflects a distributive style of leadership. The
school is organized in committees such as Relationship by Objective (RBO) and
the leadership team, as well as into grade-level teams.
King’s RBO has decision-making authority with regard to the school’s
working environment and decisions concerning employee working conditions, such
as the assignment of extra duties. For instance, the committee has categorized
adjunct duties at the school site in terms of teacher commitment and determines
how many and what type of assignments for which teachers are eligible to
“volunteer.” All teachers are expected to perform extra duties but the committee
attempts to balance the workload among the staff, as all duties do not have the
same levels of intensity or duration. Those teachers with more intensive assign
ments are limited to one, those with less intensive assigned duties (as categorized
by the RBO) are allowed and even expected to take two or three assignments.
Members of the RBO are classified and certificated representatives, including
grade-level representatives, and front office staff. The representatives are chosen
by the represented groups; some groups take volunteers and others have a rotational
assignment process. The RBO differs from the school’s site council in that it deals
with internal issues primarily affecting school site staff instead of programmatic
108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 6
Factors Shaping the School-Level Effort: Perceptions (N= 37)
Item Mean % Agreed
17. The administration frequently observes my classroom. 1.25 38.9
18. Other instructional support staff (e.g., coaches,
counselors, etc.) frequently observes my classroom. 1.03 19.4
19. I receive meaningful feedback regarding my teaching
following an observation. 2.08 83.3
20. I have discussions with administrators regarding
my teaching. 1.92 72.2
21. I have discussions with instructional support staff (not
including site administrators) regarding my teaching. 1.39 44.4
22. I see the administration’s supervision of instruction
as non-evaluative and separate from formal evaluation
processes. 1.86 65.7
23. I am aware of the specific things that administrators
look for when visiting my classroom. 1.90 72.2
24. I am confident in my administration’s ability to
monitor my instructional practice. 2.14 85.7
25. I believe that my administration’s supervision of
instruction improves my instructional practice. 1.86 72.2
26. I believe that other instructional support staffs
supervision of instruction improves my instructional
practice. 1.42 55.6
27. I have multiple opportunities throughout the year to
participate in professional development activities. 2.49 94.6
28. Teachers are encouraged to collaborate on
instructional matters on a regular basis. 2.51 91.9
29. I collaborate with others on instructional matters
on a regular basis. 2.41 94.6
109
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 6 (continued)
Item Mean % Agreed
30. I am aware of an official professional development
plan that has been prepared to share with the district
and school community at large. 1.94 66.7
31. I have a clear understanding of the professional
development goals for my school. 1.95 67.6
32. Teachers have an active role in developing professional
development goals and objectives. 2.22 86.5
33. I am comfortable going to my school administrators
for support. 2.5 94.6
34. I am aware of the goals and objectives of this school. 2.30 91.9
Note. Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 4-point
scale (0 = disagree strongly, 1 = disagree somewhat, 2 = agree somewhat, 3 =
agree strongly). Number of teachers = 37 out of 44 who responded.
110
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 7
Factors Shaping the School-Level Effort: Beliefs (N= 37)
Item Mean % Agreed
35. I believe in the goals and objectives of this school. 2.20 91.4
36. The values of this school are consistent with my
own values 2.32 94.6
37. The goals and objectives of this school have
contributed to our school’s improvement 2.32 97.1
38. I am satisfied with the professional competence
and teaching ability of my teaching colleagues. 2.57 100.0
39. I am satisfied with the professional competence
and leadership ability of the administration. 2.22 86.5
40. I am satisfied with the professional competence and
leadership ability of the instructional support staff
(e.g., coaches, counselors, etc.). 2.51 100.0
41. I am satisfied with the professional competence
and leadership ability of teachers in leadership
roles at this school. 2.51 100.0
42. Faculty discussions regarding curriculum and
instruction impact our school’s ability to improve. 2.30 94.6
43. Teachers have an active role in making decisions
for the school. 2.22 91.9
44. Teachers have initiated efforts towards school
improvement. 2.38 100.0
45. The majority of school improvement efforts at this
school have been initiated by the district and/or site
administration 1.83 69.4
46. I believe that all students can learn. 2.89 100.0
47. When I really try, I can get through to most students. 2.59 100.0
48. If a student masters a new concept quickly, this might
be because I knew the necessary steps in teaching that
concept. 2.19 86.1
111
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 7 (continued)
Item Mean % Agreed
49. When a student is having difficulty with an assignment,
I am usually able to adjust it to his/her level. 2.49 100.0
50. When the grades/proficiency levels of my students
improve, it is usually because I used my effective
teaching approaches. 2.40 100.0
51. I believe that all students can achieve at high levels. 1.89 66.7
52. The influence of a student’s home environment can
be overcome by good teaching. 1.82 69.4
Note. Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 4-point
scale (0 = disagree strongly, 1 = disagree somewhat, 2 = agree somewhat, 3 =
agree strongly). Number of teachers = 37 out of 44 who responded.
planning and resource allocation issues. When conflict arises among stakeholder
groups, most often the issues would be referred to the RBO committee.
The leadership team is composed of the principal and grade-level repre
sentatives, the school based resource teacher, who facilitates implementation of
instructional programs, and the teacher on special assignment, who functions as
the assistant principal. This team’s focus has to do with the implementation of
instructional programs. It does not appear to function in a policy-making role for
the school.
Grade-level teams are collaborative groups for the teaching staff. This is
where teachers share best grade-level practices and counsel each other in address
ing student needs. Suggestions for implementation of instructional programs often
come out of this collaborative structure and are forwarded to the leadership team
for consideration.
112
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
When asked how leadership is established at the school, teachers indicated
that, outside of the principal and her direct leadership and authority, they consider
their colleagues who are experts in their grade level at instructional delivery as
leaders of the school. It appears that teachers who are expert at their craft are the
true leaders of the school and have a large influence on the teaching staffs, although
this span of influence is only within the grade level in which they teach. When
asked whether these leaders served on the leadership team, the teachers indicated
that they did not. These “leader” teachers were influential to those teachers who
were serving on the leadership team, somewhat “calling the shots behind the
scenes.” They are nonsubversive, silent leaders, who appear to be aligned with the
school mission and goals. One teacher stated, “The leaders [of the teaching staff]
are those who love the kids.”
Taking this informal structure into account may serve to explain in part the
stability of the staff. There is not much turnover of staff at King, and the staff
seems to be a cohesive group. This is not to say that all staff agrees on everything
and that they are all enamored with one another, but it seems that all of the teachers
on staff have some measure of input into the leadership structure. Responses to
item 41 on the teacher survey indicates that teachers have confidence in their
colleagues’ ability to teach effectively. Also, it seems that every teacher has a
place to voice his or her concerns. Whether it is at a grade level meeting, a leader
ship team meeting, the RBO, or other adjunct roles, each teacher has an avenue for
input. So, to the extent that there is trust in the efficacy of the teaching staff and
there is definite ability for input for all, cohesiveness of the staff and longevity of
assignments are the positive consequences.
113
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This leadership structure focuses on the human resource frame of Bolman
and Deal’s (1997) four frames. There are multiple points of input in the decision
making process, attending to the cultural need for inclusion. The teacher inter
views revealed that teachers felt that they were well represented and that their
inputs were taken seriously by the site administration. The principal stated that
these teams and committees allowed her to manage these inputs in an organized
way. They also allowed teachers and staff to deliberate on the information and
commit to the decisions at an early stage.
This leadership structure is also of the political frame in terms of the dis
tribution of power. The principal maintains the balance of power; however, by
teachers having some distributed power and decision-making authority, the
principal’s power is even greater. Instead of having all of the responsibility and
having to “sell” every decision to the teachers who will face consequences of the
decision, the principal needs only to guide the decision-making process, using her
absolute veto authority to overturn a decision if critically necessary. Other than
those occasions, the leadership committee will attempt to bring the teaching staff
along the implementation process.
Other Efforts That Impact Culture
High Expectations
The Board of Education, the district leadership, and the school site have set
very high expectations for student performance. Survey items 46-50 indicate that
teachers perceived most students as able to achieve at high levels. In Table 8, the
average scores for these questions reveal that teachers agreed to high expectations
for student learning. These questions also indicate that teachers at the site felt that
114
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 8
Teachers ’ Perceptions o f Effectiveness: Results o f the Teacher Survey
Item Mean % Agreed
5. I agree with the goals and objectives of my district’s
policy on teacher evaluation. 2.38 97.3
6. I am satisfied that my site administrators are carrying
out the district’s policy on teacher evaluation with
integrity. 2.65 100.0
7. My administrator frequently observes my classroom
for the purpose of evaluation. 1.31 36.1
9. I view my administrator’s implementation of the
teacher evaluation policies as an integral part of
my professional growth. 2.16 86.5
10. When my administrator visits my classroom,
he/she looks for things which we agreed upon
at a pre-conference. 2.00 80.6
11. I receive timely feedback following my observations. 2.17 80.6
12. The teacher evaluation feedback assists me improving
my teacher practice. 2.03 80.6
13. I am confident in my administrator’s ability to
evaluate my instructional practice. 2.31 83.3
14. There are alternative evaluation opportunities (e.g.,
PAR, portfolio, etc.) available at my school. 1.91 73.5
16. I believe that my participation in the teacher
evaluation process at this school has led to my
professional growth 2.11 83.8
39. I am satisfied with the professional competence and
leadership ability of the administration. 2.22 86.5
40. I am satisfied with the professional competence and
leadership ability of the instructional support staff
(e.g., coaches, counselors, etc.) 2.51 100.0
115
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 8 (continued)
Item Mean % Agreed
41. I am satisfied with the professional competence and
leadership ability of teachers in leadership roles at
this school. 2.51 100.0
Note. Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 4-point
scale (0 = disagree strongly, 1 = disagree somewhat, 2 = agree somewhat, 3 =
agree strongly). Number of teachers = 37 out of 44 who responded.
their efforts were directly related to increases in student learning. During the inter
views this finding was corroborated by teachers responding that they felt that they
were the single most important input to student learning. They unanimously
reported that teacher effort was the single most important factor in the school’s
academic success with its students. However, in survey items 50-51, the scores
indicate that the teachers somewhat disagreed that all students can meet the high
expectations or that a teacher’s efforts can necessarily overcome a negative home
environment (Table 8).
Parental Involvement
While the school’s socioeconomic demographic has declined overall since
the school’s opening, the level of parent involvement has remained extremely high,
with the King Parent Teacher Organization (PTO) being very influential in the
school culture. While it is the PTO, King parents are in the leadership of this
organization, and the parents are representative of all student ethnic groups and
socioeconomic classes. Many parent volunteers are active with the school’s
various programs. The school hosts a year-end barbeque, inviting all of the
116
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
parents, students, teachers, and community members to participate. This event and
numerous others during the year serve to bring the parents and community into the
school and make all stakeholders partners in the educational process. The principal
attested, “Due to the shared expectation that King students will perform at high
academic levels, the PTO is very active, raising money annually to buy books,
computers, and/or other supplemental materials for use by the students.”
Accountability in School Culture
All teachers surveyed were aware of changing state and federal accounta
bility mandates and there were mixed emotions about dealing with accountability.
MUSD holds that the state is correct in mandating certain assessments and forms of
accountability for success or failure. A number of teachers commented that they
are the ones “in the trenches” and that they know what is best for their students.
However, an equal number of teachers agreed with the steps that the state and
district are taking to ensure the success of their students.
Teachers reported that, although the Principal was doing well in leading the
school, she has not been there long enough to bring about significant changes and
that district administrators were too far removed from the classroom to understand
the needs of the students. Who is accountable to whom and for what? This ques
tion is being asked throughout the state. Although the teachers agree with the state
holding the district accountable for the performance of its students, the district
holding the site principal accountable, site administrators holding teachers account
able, and, in turn, teachers holding their students accountable for their efforts,
teachers strongly disagreed with the manner in which the state is attempting to
accomplish this task of accountability. Teachers avowed that the success at King
117
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
was due to their intrinsic motivation and their in the classroom. “We hold our
selves to high standards,” one teacher interviewee stated.
The principal stated that, although there has been an increase in student
performance on standardized tests, including the school’s API score, there is still a
great deal of work to be done in this area. Although teachers feel that they are now
being held accountable for student academic performance by the state and district,
they appreciate the fact that neither their salaries nor promotions are dependent on
student academic performance. When questioned about the Governor’s Perform
ance Award Program, teachers were very disappointed in the fact that, at anything
other than an underperforming school, they would not be entitled to a reward. One
teacher stated, “There is no reward for being continuously good at what you do.”
When questioned as to the reasons that King had made continuous growth
prior to her arrival, the principal stated, “It is because of a top-notch teaching staff
and their caring, as well as the stability of the staff.” In the past 2 years, no new
teachers were hired at the site.
District administration substantiated this portrayal: “King school is suc
cessful due to high quality teachers, strong site leaders, as well as consistency of
site leaders, coupled with a stable staff.” The site has had only had three principals,
including the current principal. The first was promoted to a high school principal-
ship and the second retired from service in that position. Both were considered by
the district as high-caliber leaders, as is the current principal.
118
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Summary o f the Findings fo r the
Third Research Question
The third research question sought to identify factors that influence the
school’s implementation effort. Two key elements were identified: (a) the nature
of school leadership and (b) other factors that influence teacher evaluation process.
Nature o f School Leadership
As the leadership structure at King focuses on the human resource frame,
there are multiple points of input in the decision-making process, attending to the
general cultural need for inclusion. There is evidence of teacher trust in the
efficacy of the teaching staff as a whole. Also, the leadership structure allows for
input from all; cohesiveness of the staff and longevity of assignments are the
positive consequences.
King’s leadership structure also focuses on the political framework of the
four frames, which focuses on the distribution of power. The principal maintains
the balance of power; however, teachers having some distributed power and
decision-making authority makes the principal’s power even greater.
Other Factors Influencing
Implementation o f Teacher
Evaluation
There were three major factors influencing the teacher evaluation process at
King: high expectations, parental involvement, and accountability.
The Board of Education, as well as district leadership, set forth high
expectations for student performance through the development and approval of the
PGS. The school site also has very high expectations for its students. These high
expectations are the premise upon which all other educational programs and
interventions are built.
119
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The administrator and the teaching staff cite parental involvement as a huge
impact on the implementation of the teacher evaluation process at King. The
principal stated, “Parents are very supportive of the educational process and spend
hundreds of hours per year in increasing the school’s level of materials and
resources, in addition to attending classroom and school events.” Because of this
investment, parents are very vocal in school matters. Issues that impact the direct
instruction of students, such as the basis for teacher evaluation, are of major
importance to the PTO. Parental involvement has provided an important partner
ship component to the school culture that promotes student learning in a
community setting. The parent involvement at King adds a dimension of
accountability for student learning at the school site.
Although the teachers agreed with the state holding the district accountable
for the performance of its students, the district holding the site principal account
able, site administrators holding teachers accountable, and teachers holding their
students accountable for their efforts, teachers strongly disagreed with the manner
in which the state was attempting to accomplish this task of accountability. How
ever, teachers appreciated the fact that neither their salaries nor promotions were
dependent on student academic performance.
Fourth Research Question: Effectiveness
of Policy and Strategy Design
The fourth research question asked, How effective is the teacher evaluation
process at the school level? The researcher utilized the Case Study Guide as a
basis for data collection and analysis concerning the adequacy of the design and
data use. Five subquestions under this research question were: (a) What are the
administrators ’ and teachers ’perceptions o f the teacher evaluation process?
120
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(b) Is there evidence o f changes in teacher practice emanating from the evaluation
process? (c) To what degree are other school efforts improving teaching practices?
(d) What is the cost effectiveness o f teacher evaluation? and (e) What are the
consequences for perceived “ weak” and “ strong” teachers?
Although effectiveness is very much a subjective measure in its generic
definition, for the purposes of this study, effectiveness was defined in a four-part
rubric (see Figure 7).
No Some Moderate
effectiveness is effectiveness is effectiveness is Effectiveness is
perceived perceived perceived perceived
The evaluation The evaluation The evaluation The evaluation
process is believed process is believed process is believed process is
not to impact to have limited to impact teaching believed to
teaching practices impact on teaching practices positively impact
practices teaching practices
AND OR
OR AND
Staff members are Most staff
not satisfied with Some staff members are Staff members are
the evaluation members are satisfied with the satisfied with the
process satisfied with the evaluation process evaluation
evaluation process process
AND OR
OR AND
There is no There is
documented There is limited documented There is
evidence that documented evidence that documented
supports the evidence that supports the evidence that
evaluation process supports the evaluation process supports the
is being utilized to evaluation process is being utilized to evaluation
support improved is being utilized to support improved process is being
teacher practice support improved teacher practice utilized to support
teacher practice improved teacher
practice
Figure 7. Rubric of effectiveness.
121
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Teachers ’ and Administrators ’ Perceptions
o f the Teacher Evaluation Process
Teachers ’ Perceptions
The teachers indicated that the teacher evaluation process prior to the PGS
had been relatively useless to them in improving their instructional practice.
During the interviews, teachers stated that, regardless of the principal and the
principal’s perceived effectiveness, they had not experienced a teacher evaluation
process that was beneficial to their instructional practice. The principals were
rarely able to provide valuable feedback to the teacher, as they had little to no time
to perform observations and the feedback that they provided was based on 5 to 10
minutes of instructional observation per school year.
Since the PGS, teachers seem to have significantly more confidence that the
teacher evaluation process will aid them in improving their practice in the class
room. It seems that the teachers felt that evaluation and professional growth were
finally being taken seriously, coming from a district-wide task force and being
implemented with adequate resources for training of administrators and teachers.
The deliberate and gaited implementation has, in some ways, instilled a sense of
confidence and assurance in teachers that the PGS may be this district’s answer.
Administrators ’ Perceptions
The administrators also indicated that the teacher evaluation process prior to
the PGS was relatively meaningless. While administrators had been required to
perform the evaluations annually, rarely did the evaluations reflect the adminis
trators’ true perceptions of teacher effectiveness and practice. There were indica
tions that the administrators did not always feel supported by the district office in
the negative evaluation and/or ultimate termination of poorly performing teachers.
122
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Therefore, there was little motivation to spend the requisite time to document the
poor performance of underperforming teachers. Also, there was no strong focus
from the district level regarding teacher evaluation. What was looked at was
whether evaluations were performed by the contractual and statutory deadlines, not
necessarily the content of the evaluations or outcome with respect to classroom
practice. This being the case, evaluation became a cursory task performed to
comply with the state law.
Administrators indicated that, with the implementation of the PGS system,
not only were district-level administrators watching and assessing the success of
the new system, there was also sufficient support to site administrators to assist
underperforming teachers in improving instructional practice and in releasing
teachers due to continued underperformance, as necessary.
Evidence o f Changes in Teacher Practice
Emanating From the Evaluation Process
Prior to the PGS system, there was no evidence that teacher practice at King
was impacted at all by the teacher evaluation process. The process was a stand
alone, mostly summative evaluation process from year to year. Teachers received
the feedback from the administrator in late spring, when there was very little time
for them to modify practice. As teachers were not evaluated annually, unless there
was a negative evaluation, there was no immediate follow-up to any suggestions
that might be noted in the evaluation. When the teacher was evaluated again, 2 to 3
years later, there was rarely any reference or follow-up to the prior evaluation.
Now that the district is implementing the PGS, all parties are hopeful that
the evidence will strongly show changes in teacher practice. However, it is pre
mature to speculate whether this is probable. The field test was reported to be
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
successful, but those persons had yet to be reevaluated; therefore, it is yet to be
seen whether this process will show significant evidence of changes in teacher
practice or whether any changes that may be noted are sustainable.
Degree to Which Other School Efforts
Improve Teaching Practices
Results based on the combined teacher surveys and teacher interviews
indicated that teachers felt that students excel only if the teachers perform and
execute solid instructional practice. No matter the instructional program or
materials, the bottom line of the equation is teacher effort and effectiveness.
Teachers also noted that these efforts come primarily from an intrinsic motivation
to be the most effective practitioner that a teacher can be, not from any external
mandate or consequence. One teacher admitted that he felt empowered at King:
“We are the experts and we know what our children need to succeed. I love it here
[at King] because we are treated as such and allowed to provide instruction
accordingly.” Teachers noted that the culture of the school was very conducive to
individualized instruction and student learning: “We know our kids and we know
instruction, so we are encouraged to collaborate and share best practices.”
Administrators had a slightly different view of the world with regard to
student achievement. While they agreed with the teachers’ assessment that teacher
effort is critical to continual student success, administrators also cited aligned
standards-based curriculum, adequate training for teachers and administrators, and
high expectations for both students and staff as important factors. These factors
have been in place at King, albeit as isolated factors. The PGS is an attempt to use
standards-based curriculum and the CSTP as the foundational parameters for
training and professional development, adding to that targeted professional growth
124
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
goals and high expectations of teacher effort and student learning, achieved through
collaboration between the teacher and administrator and including honest and
timely feedback to teachers.
Cost Effectiveness o f Teacher Evaluation
The execution of the Stull bill evaluation model costs districts significant
resources. Costs include teacher and administrator salaries for the time spent in
classroom observation, teacher release time for conference meetings, substitute
salaries, evaluation write-up, and the processing of evaluation forms. What is more
costly to a school than all of these factors, however, is the opportunity cost of the
principal not focusing on other issues that could be critical and pressing to the
operation and culture of the school. The same is true for teachers being released
from the classroom for evaluation conferences when students need their undivided
attention to ensure student engagement and student learning. As long as evaluation
is perceived as being useless in terms of enhancing teacher practice, these resources
are wasted. However, if the evaluation process has profound impact on teacher
practice, then the benefits outweigh the costs. With MUSD’s PGS, the evaluation
process has more opportunity to influence teacher practice with professional
development training linked to performance goals. This additional factor in the
evaluation process costs the district no more than the prior Stull model; resources
that were used for professional development and substitute salaries will be the same
resources allocated toward that purpose under the new system.
125
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Consequences fo r Perceived “Weak”
and “ Strong ” Teachers
Prior to the PGS, there were very few perceived consequences of being a
“weak” teacher. The California Education Code (2003) provides permanency of
employment for fully credentialed teachers after 2 years of service. Once a teacher
achieves permanency, the evaluation process is considered to be a nonfactor, and
there is no incentive or consequence if a teacher does not choose to improve.
Teachers have to do something extraordinarily offensive or illegal in order to be
disciplined or terminated.
The former evaluation process offered no significant incentive for teachers
to be considered as “strong.” According to the Associate Superintendent, a strong
teacher was not necessarily discemable from a weak counterpart based solely on
evaluations. They looked remarkably similar. If there were any “incentives” at all
in being considered as a strong teacher, it would be that principals likely did not
perform regular evaluations on teachers whom they considered to be strong.
Pressured with so many other responsibilities and competing priorities, adminis
trators often did not feel that evaluation of strong teachers was necessary.
The PGS has conceivably changed all of this. Strong teachers have an
incentive to get even better because their administrators will validate them and they
will get to focus their growth goals in areas that they primarily determine. The
principal will largely prescribe the goal setting for weak teachers until they meet
the basic CSTP standards. If a teacher remains below par, he or she will be referred
to the PAR panel and may be subject to progressive discipline.
126
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Summary o f the Findings fo r the
Fourth Research Question
The fourth research question examined the effectiveness of the teacher
evaluation process at King. Effectiveness was defined as meeting the following:
1. The evaluation process is believed to positively impact teaching
practices, and
2. Staff members are satisfied with the evaluation process, and
3. There is documented evidence that supports that the evaluation process
is being utilized to support improved teacher practice
Administrators ’ and Teachers ’
Perceptions o f the Teacher
Evaluation Process
The teachers indicated that the teacher evaluation process prior to the PGS
had been relatively useless to them in improving their instructional practice. Since
the PGS, teachers seem to have significantly more confidence that the teacher
evaluation process will aid them in improving their practice in the classroom. It
seems that the teachers felt that evaluation and professional growth were finally
being taken seriously.
The administrators also indicated that the teacher evaluation process prior to
the PGS was relatively meaningless. While administrators were required to
perform the evaluations annually, rarely did the evaluations reflect the
administrators’ true perceptions of teacher effectiveness and practice. There were
indications that the administrators did not always feel supported by the district
office in the negative evaluation and/or ultimate termination of poorly performing
teachers. Administrators indicated that, with the implementation of the PGS
system, not only were district-level administrators watching and assessing the
127
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
success of the new system but there was sufficient support to site administrators to
assist underperforming teachers in improving instructional practice and in releasing
teachers due to continued underperformance, as necessary.
Evidence o f Changes in Teacher
Practice Emanating From the
Evaluation Process
Prior to the PGS system, there was no evidence that teacher practice at King
was influenced by the teacher evaluation process. The process was a stand-alone,
mostly summative evaluation process from year to year. When the teacher was
evaluated 2 to 3 years later, there was rarely any reference or follow-up to the prior
evaluation. Now that the district is implementing the PGS, all parties are hopeful
that the evidence will strongly show changes in teacher practice. However, it is
premature to speculate whether this is probable.
Other School Efforts Improving
Teacher Practice
Teachers stated that students excel only if they perform and execute solid
instructional practice. No matter the instructional program or materials, the bottom
line of the equation is teacher effort and effectiveness. Teachers also noted that
these efforts come primarily from an intrinsic motivation to be the most effective
practitioner that a teacher can be, not from any external mandate or consequence.
In addition to solid instructional practice, administrators cited factors such
as aligned standards-based curriculum and adequate training for teachers and
administrators, as well as high expectations for both students and staff. These
factors exist in MUSD and at King; however, the PGS is an attempt to incorporate
128
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
all of these pieces into a cohesive process for optimal benefit to teachers and
students.
Cost Effectiveness o f Teacher
Evaluation
The PGS costs the district no more than the prior Stull model of teacher
evaluation. Resources that were used for professional development and substitute
salaries are the same resources allocated toward that purpose under the new system.
What is more costly to a school than all of these factors, however, is the opportun
ity cost of the principal not focusing on other issues that may be critical and press
ing to the operation and culture of the school. As long as evaluation is perceived as
being useless terms of enhancing teacher practice, these resources are wasted.
However, if the evaluation process has profound impacts on teacher practice, then
the benefits outweigh the costs. With MUSD’s PGS, the evaluation process has
more opportunity to impact teacher practice with professional development training
linked to performance goals.
Consequences fo r Perceived
"Weak” and “ Strong” Teachers
Prior to the PGS, there were very few perceived consequences of being a
weak teacher. The PGS has changed all of this. Strong teachers have an incentive
to get even better because their administrators validate their intrinsic motivation
and skill, and they get to focus their growth goals in areas that they primarily
determine. Weak teachers have their goals prescribed to them until they meet the
basic CSTP standards. If a teacher remains below par, he or she is referred to the
PAR panel, and may be subject to progressive discipline.
129
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Summary
This chapter reviews the findings, analysis, and interpretation of data for
this study. Data gathered at the district and school levels provided answers to
each of the four research questions guiding this study. The discussion includes a
description of the design of the district’s PGS policy for teacher evaluation, an
overview of the district dissemination of intended and desired results, and the
funding plans of the district and site.
130
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Overview
While there has been much research about student performance, there has
been very little research on the direct use of teacher evaluation to improve teacher
practice that impacts student learning. The lack of this focus led this group of
researchers on the quest to gain a better understanding of how schools and school
districts are using data to improve student performance. The challenge for future
researchers is to take this study and to spread the word of best practices. The key
design elements, the extent to which the design has been implemented, and the
adequacy of design were of major importance and the main focus of the study.
Purpose o f the Study
The study explored and assessed teacher beliefs and perceptions of the
teacher evaluation process to ascertain its usefulness from a teacher perspective.
Ultimately, the purpose of this study was to examine whether teacher evaluation
was a useful tool to reform teacher practice and, if not, what elements could be
changed to facilitate usefulness of the evaluation process. The study described how
one well-performing elementary school utilized the teacher evaluation process to
improve the teacher practices, which allowed for higher academic achievement in
its students.
Four research questions guided this study:
1. What is the district’s policy and strategy for carrying out teacher
evaluation?
131
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2. How does the school carry out teacher evaluation?
3. What factors have shaped this school level effort?
4. How effective is the teacher evaluation process at the school level?
Significance o f the Study
There is little current evidence of a significant linkage of teacher evaluation
goals and feedback or other strategies to increases in student achievement in this
era of educational accountability. The goal of this study was to identify key design
elements of teacher evaluation instruments that can aid in improving the delivery of
instruction and student performance.
Research Methodology
This study was part of a larger thematic study examining teacher evaluation
policy and implementation throughout California. Teacher evaluation data and
school site student performance data were collected over a 6-week period via
document reviews, questionnaires, and interviews. The collective findings of this
thematic group, which is representative of school districts in southern California,
will be presented in a separate report at a future date. A qualitative epistemology
was used in designing data gathering techniques.
Sample and Population
This study was delimited to a K-5 school within a K-12 public school
district. The district and school selected for this study met the following criteria:
(a) the school was considered a high-academic-performing school, currently having
an API score greater than 700; (b) the school had experienced at least 3 years of
consecutive API growth; and (c) the school had outperformed its statewide API
132
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ranking on the similar schools rank by at least 1 point. The selected district,
MUSD, located in southern California, had a district-wide API of 706 and was
situated in an urban setting.
Instrumentation
The methodology was qualitative in nature. The descriptive-analytic
approach provided a means for conducting an in-depth case study of teacher
evaluation practices in a California school district. Data collection instruments
were designed based on theoretical frameworks related to each research question.
Five instruments were used to collect four types of data for this study: interviews
of teachers and administrators, surveys of teachers, observations of participants,
and a review of documents containing quantitative information.
Instrument Design
Instrument design began with theoretical frameworks for each of the four
research questions and data collection instruments developed during the summer of
2004 by the thematic dissertation group. The research questions were framed to
gather information addressing issues of district policy, site implementation, ade
quacy of the process with regard to teacher practice, and other factors influencing
teacher practice. The group developed a data needs chart to ensure that each
research question was appropriately addressed by the data collection instruments
that were utilized in the study.
Data Collection Instruments
Due to the qualitative nature of the case study, four types of information-
gathering methods were utilized: document review, observation, interview, and
133
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
written survey responses. Instruments included a Case Study Guide consisting of
teacher and administrator interviews, artifact collection and analysis, and the
collection of other quantitative data, a teacher survey, and an observation guide.
These instruments allowed the researcher to collect specific data related to each
research question.
Data Collection
All data were collected during the fall semester of 2004. The researcher
conducted two rounds of data collection, including interviews, site visits, review of
documented evidence, and observations at both district and site levels. Following
the first round of data collection, preliminary data analysis was completed. This
initial analysis allowed the researcher to focus on areas where further data collec
tion or clarification was necessary. The second round of data collection consisted
of six teacher interviews. Informal interviews with the site administrator and
observations occurred during each site visit. A follow-up interview with the district
administrators concluded data collection.
Data Analysis
The four research questions, along with the Case Study Guide, provided the
structure for analyzing data. The teacher questionnaires were tallied by grade level
and then by evaluation status to determine similarities and differences in teachers’
understanding and beliefs about district and school policies and practices as they
pertain to teacher evaluation.
The information from the interviews was compared and contrasted with
information gathered from observations. For triangulation purposes, data gathered
through interviews, observations, and questionnaires were merged for analysis.
134
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Findings describing key elements of teacher evaluation and their impact on teacher
practice were reported in the form of a case study.
Summary of the Findings
Data analysis revealed several findings in this research study. Findings for
each research question pointed to themes that influenced MUSD’s policy develop
ment and process design and the school’s policy dissemination and implementation
process. The findings for each research question and a discussion of themes are
reported in this section.
The First Research Question
The first research question sought to identify key policy elements of the
MUSD teacher evaluation policy design, designated PGS. There was evidence that
the design of the PGS contained four key elements of the program: development,
dissemination, implementation, and funding.
Policy development began with an expectation of quality teacher practice
and a useful and appropriate teacher evaluation system. A task force was convened
to convert this expectation into process. Absent definitive direction from the state
but with extensive input from key stakeholders, the Governing Board unanimously
accepted the task force’s expectations for student performance and teacher pro
fessional growth by approving the PGS.
There was an underlying belief and expectation that administrators and lead
teachers are to monitor teacher professional growth and practice throughout the
year. There was evidence that the PGS policy information has been and continues
to be disseminated to key stakeholders in numerous ways.
135
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Board of Education expects classroom observation data to be collected,
analyzed, and disseminated to respective teachers in a timely manner. There was
evidence that the school site administrator understood the implementation expecta
tions and was implementing the PGS in a manner consistent with those expecta
tions. The district utilizes both categorical and general funds to support the
district’s PGS policy development, implementation, and dissemination.
The overall policy goals are threefold: (a) to facilitate teacher professional
development, (b) to improve the delivery of instruction through improved teacher
practice, and (c) to ultimately increase student performance.
The Second Research Question
The second research question sought to identify key policy elements to
describe the school site-level implementation.
Data gathered for this question demonstrated a clear process for implement
ing the PGS. The district implemented a comprehensive evaluation process to
include the development and monitoring of professional growth plans. These plans
are monitored and revised for teacher use to encourage professional growth and
enhance teacher practice. The school principal follows this timeline closely in
implementation of the policy. Every teacher being evaluated at the school in 2004-
O S was evaluated via the PGS policy.
The ultimate goal of this policy is to create lifelong learners who are
constantly improving teaching practice. There is evidence that both teachers and
administrators are held accountable for the success of the PGS. This system is a
high priority for MUSD, and teacher and administrator attention to this area is
136
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
encouraged by the potential consequence of negative evaluation or disciplinary
action.
The Third Research Question
The third research question sought to evaluate the factors that have shaped
the school’s implementation effort. Key factors that were identified were (a) the
nature of school leadership, and (b) other influences that have shaped teacher
evaluation at the school.
Although the principal provides the primary structure and guidance for
school operations, there are multiple points of input in the decision-making process.
The school’s leadership structure focuses on shared decision making. This
structure allows teachers and staff to deliberate on information and decisions and to
commit to the decisions early in the process. This leadership configuration may
partially account for the stability of the teaching staff. There is evidence of teacher
trust in the efficacy of the teaching staff as a whole, and those considered as expert
teachers are admired as mentors and leaders, shaping teacher practice at the site.
The leadership structure also allows for input by all; staff cohesiveness and
longevity of assignments are the corresponding positive consequences.
The other major factors influencing the teacher evaluation process at the
school were high expectations for students and staff, high levels of parental
involvement, and a school culture of accountability for student achievement.
The Fourth Research Question
The fourth research question examined the effectiveness of the teacher
evaluation process at King, as defined by perceptions and observable evidence.
137
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This question also examined other school efforts that improved teacher practices
and the cost effectiveness of teacher evaluation.
Administrators and teachers indicated that the teacher evaluation process
prior to the PGS had been relatively useless to them in improving their instructional
practice. Since the PGS, both groups seemed to have significantly more confidence
that the teacher evaluation process will aid them in improving their practice in the
classroom. Administrators and teachers indicated that there is sufficient support to
site administrators and to teachers to improve the instructional practices of under
performing teachers and to release teachers for continued underperformance, as
necessary.
Prior to the PGS system, there was no evidence that teacher practice at this
school was influenced by the teacher evaluation process. Now that the district is
implementing the PGS, all administrators and teachers anticipate that the evidence
will show strong positive changes in teacher practice. However, it is premature to
speculate whether this is eminent.
Teachers expressed the opinion that students will excel only if teachers
execute solid instructional practice. No matter the instructional program or
materials, the bottom line of the equation is teacher effort and teacher effectiveness.
In addition to solid instructional practice, administrators also cited aligned
standards-based curriculum, adequate training for teachers and administrators, and
high expectations for both students and staff. The PGS is an attempt to incorporate
all of these pieces into a cohesive process for optimal benefits to teachers and
students.
The PGS costs the district no more than the prior Stull model of teacher
evaluation. The true test of cost effectiveness for any teacher evaluation process is
138
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the opportunity cost of the principal not focusing on other issues that may be
critical and pressing to the operation and culture of the school. As long as evalua
tion is perceived as being useless in terms of enhancing teacher practice, the time
and money expended to implement teacher evaluation is wasted. However, if the
evaluation process has profound impacts on teacher practice, then the benefit of
improved teacher practice and gains in student achievement far outweigh the costs.
With MUSD’s PGS, the evaluation process has more opportunity to impact teacher
practice with professional development training linked to performance goals.
Prior to the PGS, there were very few perceived consequences of being a
weak teacher. There was no incentive or consequence if a teacher did not choose to
improve practice. With the PGS, strong teachers have an incentive to get even
better because their administrators will validate their intrinsic motivation and skill
arid they will be permitted to focus their growth goals in areas that they primarily
determine. Weak teachers will have their goals prescribed to them until they meet
basic CSTP standards. If a teacher remains below par, he or she will be referred to
the PAR panel and may be subject to progressive discipline.
Conclusions
The context in which MUSD’s PGS was designed and implemented was a
desire to ensure that the district teachers would continue to make MUSD students
successful in learning. Data gathered and analyzed according to key components of
effective design and strategy implementation provided support for this finding.
King is in full stride in implementing the district’s intended policy design.
Consistent evidence provided through interviews, observations, and questionnaires
139
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
showed the progress and alignment between the district policy and the local
school’s implementation of that policy.
Discussion o f Findings
The data analysis presented many findings. This section consolidates those
findings into three major themes for consideration in the teacher evaluation pro
cess: research-based practices, leadership, and collaboration.
Research-Based Practices
The literature indicates that teacher evaluation has not been utilized as an
effective method to improve teacher practices. On the surface, this study contra
dicts that theory in that the PGS model utilized by MUSD is specifically designed
to impact teacher practice. However, the reason the PGS was developed was that
the district recognized that the Stull model of teacher evaluation, used previously
by MUSD, was ineffective in improving teacher practice. The Associate Super
intendent of Human Resources reported,
The prior evaluation model simply did not meet our needs. With enhanced
standards and increased accountability aimed at the classroom, we simply
had to retool our model to meet multiple objectives. All of these objectives
are aimed at preparing better preparing teacher to meet the educational
needs of our students.
Thus, district staff introduced research-based practices into the evaluation process,
such as collaborative goal setting and clear expectations tied to standards for the
teaching profession, in order to make the process effective and worthwhile for
teachers and administrators. The district also ensured professional development at
all levels of the organization to make the PGS successful.
140
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Leadership
Leadership is a critical component of the successful implementation of this
pilot. In the past, leadership had taken the position that teacher evaluation was a
mandatory activity required by the California Education Code (2003). While no
argument was presented by the district leadership against the execution of perform
ance evaluations, no alternative rationale was recommended to support the import
ance of these evaluations. While there was no conscious effort to downplay the
evaluation process, the district’s BTSA coordinator said, “Principals did not feel
pressure to make the process meaningful, nor did they feel supported by district
leadership in completing a negative evaluation on a teacher.” Hence, by default,
there was no priority placed on teacher evaluation except to meet the statutory
deadline. One teacher who had been employed at multiple sites throughout the
district stated, “ I have never had a meaningful evaluation. They come in once the
whole year, and I know when they are coming. I pick which lesson to deliver and
they watch me for five to ten minutes. My whole evaluation is based on that.”
This teacher had yet to be evaluated using the PGS model.
District leadership changed its stance on teacher evaluation with the PGS.
The official stated position that the district has taken is that teacher evaluation is
vital in the improvement of teacher practice. The leadership has placed a strong
focus on its role and importance in increasing student achievement. Teacher
interviews indicated that teachers are the most important element in a child’s
learning and the district level policy has little to do with that process.
While it is true that the teacher is of utmost importance with regard to
student learning, the district leadership set policy and culture, the parameters or
environment where that learning takes place. Learning environment and access to
141
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
educational opportunities are significantly affected by district policy. Current
literature indicates that educational leadership, at both site and district levels, has a
large impact on school culture and, ultimately, student achievement. Not only does
leadership matter; it is second only to teaching among factors impacting student
achievement (Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004).
MUSD administrators also stated that they have a significant impact on the
successful implementation of the PGS as well as student learning at large. Accord
ing to the Associate Superintendent of Human Resources,
The Board and Superintendent set the tone and direction of the district and
with out that support, implementation would not be successful. We have
that here. Also without support and training the initiative or any process
falls flat on its face.
While the overall policy and support for implementation emanates from the
task force and the Governing Board, the school principal is responsible for the
actual implementation at the site. Site leadership is vital to the success of the pro
cess. The principal at King is new to the school (2 years), so there is little history
to compare previous and current leadership styles. The distributed leadership that
the principal displays lends itself nicely to this type of program implementation.
The literature indicates that shared leadership and collaboration result in increased
ownership and enhanced program implementation (H. W. Marsh, 1987).
Collaboration
The district method of promoting this change was collaboration by the
certificated bargaining unit, district administration, and principals to provide a
common focus and to get all of them moving in the same direction. Collaboration
by all stakeholders also ensures district-level support and training for staff, appro
priate allocation of resources, and promotion of teacher leadership. Teacher
142
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
leadership was definitely evident at this school. When asked, “Who besides the
principal do you consider as leaders at King school?” teacher respondents spoke
unanimously identified teachers and grade-level experts as leaders of the school.
One teacher stated that he was not influenced by the leadership team decisions as
much as decisions and discussions in his grade-level collaboration meetings. As
observed in a faculty meeting, teachers were very empowered and emotionally
invested into the school. The staff richly and respectfully debated decisions that
impacted communications with parents and community about student welfare. The
principal acted as facilitator of this process. The principal noted, “I see myself as a
coach, providing guidance and direction to a very capable and expert staff that
genuinely cares for King students and families.”
Implications o f the Findings
There is a need for stakeholders to reach some level of consensus on the
direction that public education is heading. Policy makers must understand that
there is more to accountability than high-stakes testing and curriculum alignment.
Although this study focused on one high-performing school, many schools and
school districts in California are not performing at acceptable levels. As policy
makers continue to monitor overall student performance, it is critical to include
individual teacher practices in the process, as instructional practice has been shown
to be the most significant factor in student learning. Until there is a concrete
direction for educational reform, teacher practices will never consistently reflect
current educational reforms or individual student needs.
Teacher evaluation is part of teacher supervision and should focus on
reinforcing practices that contribute to the success of student learning or
143
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
strengthening practices that will contribute to student learning and eliminating
those that do not. Analyzing teaching on the basis of student learning is consistent
with cognitive perspectives on teaching that consider (a) what students should be
able to do, (b) what the teacher can do to foster such learning, (c) how successful
the teacher has been in achieving desired student outcomes, and (d) how the teacher
should teach the lesson the next time.
Although teacher evaluation can take many forms, research shows that the
process must focus on student learning. Evaluation should also assess teacher
practice. This approach has been proven successful in developing increased
ownership, reflective judgment among teachers, and increases in student scores on
standardized tests (Halligan, 1999). However, the shift in focus may require staff
development for teachers and administrators as well as changes to a collective
commitment and school culture. Improved professional development would be
more effective than a behaviorist, carrot-and-stick approach, and it would potenti
ally improve evaluation outcomes if incorporated in a manner similar to that of the
PGS.
Shortfalls in student achievement are not merely a student problem; they are
also an educator problem. Is there a need for students and parents to take
ownership of the problem also? Yes. However, educators are held accountable in
total. While parents should be invited and encouraged to participate in student
learning, educators and teachers have the charge to motivate and inspire those
children and parents to greater heights of achievement in learning. NCLB legisla
tion holds educators accountable even if parents are not willing to help. If children
attend school, they must perform at proficiency or better. There is no option.
Should this goal not be met, the whole society will suffer. NCLB is built on this
144
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
premise. While the legislation is not close to perfect, its educational goals are
admirable, even necessary. If teachers do not believe that every single child can
and will learn, regardless of socioeconomic status, ethnicity, language, or home
life, then who will teach them? How will they get through the system? What
problems will society face, once public education has failed them? If Johnny is not
educationally qualified to get a job to support his family, then Johnny will resort to
crime to support his family.
Recommendations for Practice
MUSD must continue to refine the PGS. Classroom teachers, as well as
teachers on special assignment, counselors, coaches, project administrators and
other certificated instructional staff, are currently evaluated utilizing versions of
the PGS. Classified employees could also benefit from the PGS concept, although
the standards would need to be alternatively defined instead of using the CSTP.
Furthermore, the district would need to address this inclusion of classified
employees through the collective bargaining process. The concept of goal setting
to achieve enhanced job performance with professional development support could
benefit everyone in the educational environment. District staff exists to enhance
the instructional environment for students.
Throughout this process, the site administrator spends a great deal of time in
observing and delivering feedback for teachers and comparing instructional prac
tice to student performance. This information is then utilized to modify and or
make alterations to the teacher’s individual lesson plans. A problem with the
implementation of the PGS is that there is currently no concrete measure of levels
of implementation. There is no evidence of a rubric for successful implementation.
145
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The success of the PGS implementation is solely subjective. This may present a
problem in implementation across school sites because the level of implementation
could easily vary, as it is contingent on the site administrator’s perceptions of
effective implementation and effective teacher practice.
In MUSD fashion, school leaders in California and those responsible for
professional development and facilitating change should ensure that teachers and
their colleagues receive the focused training in the areas outlined in the professional
growth plans. There is a greater need for training in different styles of teaching and
how to satisfy the needs of each student. When resources such as time and money
are allocated, there should be a system to ensure that the expenditure is aligned
with district goals and objectives.
In examining the teacher’s role and responsibility in reaching the expecta
tions laid out by the district, the researcher found that teachers are held accountable
by their evaluations only. The site administrator is held more accountable than
those who have the ability to directly affect student learning and performance. This
is a consequence of not only the collective bargaining but also accountability legis
lation such as PSAA and NCLB. This dilemma illustrates the urgency in imple
menting a system of evaluation that is focused on student learning goals and mean
ingful in impacting classroom practices. The district’s expectations are clear cut
and, because of this, it is easy for the two sides, administration and teaching staff,
to support each other in this reform effort.
The results of this study provide a road map for any school district or
individual school that wants to improve teacher practices through the use of the
teacher evaluation process. This will allow schools and districts to create a founda
tion on which to build. This researcher does not advise other districts to implement
146
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the PGS “off the shelf.” The PGS is a well-thought-out, research-based process
that meshes well with the culture of MUSD. Districts seeking to implement such a
program should consult their own board policies and collective bargaining agree
ments, then assess the district culture to determine how to implement features of
the PGS to maximize the potential benefits.
In the implementation of a professional growth plan it is critical that all
stakeholders understand what is expected of them from the outset. Goals of the
teacher evaluation process must be aligned to those expectations and be clearly
articulated and disseminated among all stakeholders. Only then will the features of
the PGS function in the intended manner.
The two most valuable features of the PGS are the coupling of professional
development with collaborative goals setting, the tying of those goals to school
improvement plans or strategic plans, and the assurance of multiple opportunities
for formative administrator input into the evaluation process in a time frame that
would benefit the development and enhancement of teacher practice coinciding
with Stull bill parameters and timelines. Besides clear expectations, these two
features provide teachers and administrators with the tools to focus on activities
that lead to the enhancement of teacher practice.
Suggestions for Additional Research
This study was conducted in an academically high-performing school, with
an academic performance index of over 700 and a commitment to maintain this
status. The findings related to the design, implementation, and effectiveness of the
district’s teacher evaluation policy. Additional studies should consider a greater
147
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
analysis of how high-performing schools ensure that teacher practices are success
ful and effective.
A study should be performed to evaluate the effectiveness of the system
after the process has been fully implemented. Findings related to perceptions of
effectiveness as well as a quantitative comparison of evaluation results pre- and
postimplementation of the PGS would provide in-depth data as to the actual impact
of the system.
The scope of this study was delimited to one elementary school. This study
should be expanded to include an entire district or a sample of like schools, as
ranked by the state for API rankings.
Additional sources of information that might be helpful to future
researchers are included as appendix G.
148
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
REFERENCES
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
REFERENCES
Adams, D. (1996). Fundamental considerations: The deep meaning of Native
American schooling, 1880-1900. In E.R. Hollins (Ed.), Transforming cur
riculum for a culturally diverse society (pp. 27-58). Mahwah, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Anyon, J. (1996). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. In E.R. Hollins
(Ed.), Transforming curriculum for a culturally diverse society (pp. 179-
203). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Barker, J. (1992). The business o f paradigms [videotape]. Burnsville, MN: Chart
House International Learning Corporation.
Barrett, J. (1986). The evaluation o f teachers. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearing
house on Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED278657)
Barth, P., & Mitchell, R. (1994). Smart start: Elementary education for the 21st
century. Golden, CO: North American Press.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers’ per
spective on how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Jour
nal o f Educational Administration, 38(2), 130-41.
Bolman, L., &Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Boyd, V., & Hord, S. M. (1994, November). Principals and the new paradigm:
Schools as learning communities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
BTSA basics. (2001). Retrieved February 21,2004, from http://www.btsa.ca.gov/
BTSA_basics.html
Bullough, R. V., Jr., Clark, D. C., & Patterson, R. S. (2003). Getting in step: Ac
countability, accreditation and the standardization of teacher education in
the United States. Journal o f Education for Teaching: International Re
search and Pedagogy, 29(1), 35-51.
Calhoun, E. (1994). How to use action research in the self-renewing school. Al
exandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
California Department of Education. (2000). Selected statewide data for the year
2003-04. Retrieved October 20, 2004, from http://datal.cde.ca.gov
.dataquest/state
150
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
California Department of Education. (2002). Public Schools Accountability Act o f
1999. Retrieved October 28, 2002, from http//www.cde.ca.gov/psaa
California Education Code. (2003). Article 11: Evaluation and assessment o f
performance o f certificated employees (Sections 44660-44665). Sacra
mento: Secretary of State.
California Schools Boards Association. (1999). CSBA sample board policy 4115:
Certificated personnel evaluation/supervision. Sacramento: Policy Refer
ence UPDATE.
Calvo, N., Carlos, L., Guth, G., Hayward, G., Holtzman, D., & Schneider, S.
(1999). Evaluation of California's standards-based accountability system:
Final report November 1999. Sacramento: WestEd and California Depart
ment of Education.
Carroll, S. (2005). RAND report shows California schools lag behind other states
on almost every objective measurement. Retrieved January 5, 2005, from
www.rand.org
Carroll, S., Krop, C., Arkes, J., Morrison, P., & Flanagan, A. (2005). California’ s
K-12public schools: How are they doing? Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Charles A. Dana Center. (2000). Equity-driven achievement-focused school dis
tricts: A report on systemic school success in four Texas school districts
serving diverse student populations. Austin: University of Texas at Austin.
Christy, K., & McNeil, L. (2000, November). Excellence in administrator prepa
ration programs: How will we know? Presented at the annual meeting of
the Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration, Nashville,
TN.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2001). Constructing outcomes in teacher education: Policy,
practice and pitfalls. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 9(11). Re
trieved November 11, 2001, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9nl 1/html
Crandall, D. P., Eiseman, J. W., & Seashore Lewis, K. (1986). Strategic planning
issues that bear on the success of school improvement efforts. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 22(3), 21-53.
Danielson, C. (2001). New trends in teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership,
58(5), 12-15.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1983). Teacher evaluation in the organizational context: A
Review of the literature. Review o f Educational Research 53, 285-328.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998, November). Using standards to support student
success. Paper presented at the Asilomar Symposium on Standards, Stu
dents, and Success, Redwood City, CA.
151
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. (1995). Policies that support profes
sional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 597-604.
EdSource, Inc. (2000). National accountability movement offers lessons for Cali
fornia. Palo Alto, CA: Author.
EdSource, Inc. (2001a). Aligning California’ s education reforms: Progress made
and the work that remains. Palo Alto, CA: Author.
EdSource, Inc. (2001b). California's new academic standards take hold. Palo
Alto, CA: Author.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths o f educational reform.
Bristol, PA: Falmer.
Fullan, M. (1994). Change forces: The depths o f educational reform. Bristol,
PA: Falmer. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED373391)
Gall, M. P., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An intro
duction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Gall, M. P., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An intro
duction (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gallagher, J. J. (2002). The society’ s role in educating gifted students: The role
o f public policy. Storrs, CT: National Center for Gifted/Talented.
Gratz, D. B. (2000). High standards for Whom? Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 681-687.
Hall, G. E., Wallace, R. C., & Dossett, W. A. (1973). A developmental conceptu
alization o f the adoption process within educational institutions. Austin:
University of Texas, Research and Development Center for Teacher Educa
tion.
Halligan, K. C. (1999). The impact o f collaborative critical inquiry on teacher
development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut,
Storrs.
Hawley, W., & Rosenholtz, S. (1985). Good schools: What research says about
improving student achievement. Peabody Journal o f Education, 61(4), 1-
178.
Hawley, W., & Valli, L. (1998). Guide to the National Partnership for Excellence
and Accountability in Teaching. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Teaching and Teacher Education.
Heatley, E. (2002). The use o f data to improve instruction. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
152
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Hertling, E. (2000). Evaluating the results o f whole-school reform. Retrieved
August 14, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/
ed446345.html
Hessel, K., & Holloway, J. (2002). A framework for school leaders: Linking the
ISLLC standards to practice. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services.
Hoffman, J.V., Assaf, L.C., & Paris, S.G. (2001). High-stakes testing in reading:
Today in Texas, tomorrow? The Reading Teacher, 54, 482-494.
Hollins, E. (2003, Fall). CTSE 635 course notes. Los Angeles: University of
Southern California.
Huberman, A.M., & Miles, M. B. (1984). Innovation up close: How school im
provement works. New York: Plenum Press.
Iwanicki, E. (2001). Focusing teacher evaluations on student learning. Journal o f
the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 58(5), 57-59.
Jackson, B. (2004). GreatSchools.Net. Retrieved August 19, 2004, from http://
www.greatschools.net
Johnson, D., & Rudolph, A. (2001). Critical issue: Beyond social promotion and
retention—Five strategies to help students succeed. Retrieved December
8,2004, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/atrisk/
at800.htm
Johnson, J. (1997). Data-driven school improvement. Eugene: University of
Oregon.
Joki, R. A. (1982). Make teacher competency your policy. American School
Board Journal, 169, 32.
Jordan, H., Mendro, R., & Weerasinghe, D. (1997, November). Teacher effects on
longitudinal student achievement: A preliminary report on research on
teacher effectiveness. Paper presented at the National Evaluation Institute,
Indianapolis, IN. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University,
CREATE.
Khanna, R., Trousdale, D., Pennell, W., & Kell, J. (1999, March). Supporting data
use among administrators: Results from a data-planning model. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research As
sociation, Montreal.
King, D. (2002). The changing shape of leadership. Educational Leadership,
59(8), 61-63.
Knoff, H. M., & Batsche, G. M. (1995). Project ACHIEVE: Analyzing a school
reform process for at-risk and underachieving students. School Psychology
Review, 24, 579-603.
153
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Kohn, A. (2000). Burnt at the high stakes. Journal o f Teacher Education, 51,
315-327.
Konnert, M. W., & Augenstein, J. J. (1995). The school superintendency: Lead
ing education into the 21st century. Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How
leadership influences student learning. New York: Wallace Foundation.
Linn, R. (2000). Assessment and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2),
4-16.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educa
tional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.
Louis, K. S., & Miles, M. (1990). Improving the urban high school: What works
and why. New York: Teachers College Press.
Marsh, D. (1992). Enhancing instructional leadership: Lessons from the Califor
nia School Leadership Academy. Education and Urban Society, 24, 386-
409.
Marsh, H. W. (1987). Students'evaluations o f university teaching: Research
findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research.
Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
Mauer, E., & Zimmerman, E. (2000). Mentoring new teachers. Thrust for
Educational Leadership, 29(3), 26-28.
McCombs, J., Nataraj, S., Barney, H., Darilek, H., & Magee, S. (2004). Achieving
state and national literacy goals, a long uphill road: A report to Carnegie
Corporation o f New York. New York: RAND.
McGehee, S. (2004, August). Leadership retreat [workshop]. Ontario, CA:
Ontario-Montclair School District, Robert B. Hardy Staff Development
Center.
McLaughlin, M. (1991). The Rand Change Agent study: Ten years later. In A.
Odden (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 143-155). Albany:
State University of New York Press.
McLaughlin, M., & Marsh, D. (1978). Staff development and school change.
Teachers College Record, 50(1), 69-94.
Miles, M. (1993). Forty years of change in schools: Some personal reflections.
Education Administration Quarterly, 29(2), 213-248.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative
data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
154
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and
science teachers and student achievement. Economics o f Education Review,
13(2), 125-145.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000a) The nation’ s report card: An
introduction to the national assessment o f education progress (NAEP).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved Jannuary, 17,
2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/ubsinfo.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000b). Statistics o f state school
systems, statistics o f public elementary and secondary school systems,
statistics o f nonpublic elementary and secondary schools, projections o f
education statistics to 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk.
Washington, DC: Author.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF). (1996). What
matters most: Teaching for America’ s future. New York: Author.
No Child Left Behind Act o f2001. (2002). Retrieved October 26, 2002, from
http//www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/esea/factsheet.html
Noyce, P., Perda, D. & Traver, R. (2000). Creating data-driven schools.
Educational Leadership 57(5), 52-56.
Oakes, J. (1992). Test-driven school reform and the disadvantaged. Education
Digest, 55(1), 20-23.
Odden, A., & Marsh, D. (1988). How comprehensive reform legislation can
improve secondary schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 593-598.
Odden, A. R., & Odden, E. R. (1995). Educational leadership for America's
schools. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Odden, A., & Picus, L. O. (2000). School finance: A policy perspective (2nd ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Olson, L. (1999). Rating the standards: Quality counts’99. Education Week, 18,
8- 10.
Powell, R. (2000). Case-based teaching in homogeneous teacher education
context: A study of preservice teacher’s situative cognition. Journal o f
Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 389-410.
Public Schools Accountability Act o f1999. (2002). Retrieved October 28, 2002,
from http//www.cde.ca.gov/psaa/
155
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Pulliam, J. D., & Van Patten, J. (1995). History o f education in America (6th ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Reeves, D. (2000). The 90/90/90 schools: A case study. In D. Reeves (Ed.),
Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning organizations (pp. 185-
196). New York: Citibank Resource Bank, Center for Performance
Assessment.
Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1995a). Educational assessment reassessed: The
usefulness of standardized and alternative measures of student achievement
as indicators for the assessment of educational outcomes. Educational
Policy Analysis Archives, 3(6). Retrieved November 15, 2002, from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v3n6.html
Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1995b). The Tennessee Value Added Assessment
System (TVA AS): Mixed model methodology in educational assessment.
In A. J. Shinkfield & D. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Teacher evaluation: Guide to
effective practice (pp. 337-350). Boston: Kluwer.
Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects o f teachers
on future student academic achievement. Knoxville: University of Ten
nessee, Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.
Schmoker, M. (1996). Results: The key to continuous school improvement. Al
exandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement (2nd
ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Devel
opment.
Schwarzenegger, A. (2005). State of the state address to the joint session of the
California Legislature. Sacramento: California Secretary of State.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1991). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective
(2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Spillane, J. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers’ efforts to reconstruct
their practice: The mediating role of teachers’ zones of enactment. Journal
o f Curriculum Studies, 31(2), 143-175.
Stringfield, S., & McHugh, B. (1998). Implementation and effects o f the Mary
land Core Knowledge Project: Third-year evaluation report. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools.
Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2000). Alternative approaches to supervision: Cases
from the field. Journal o f Curriculum and Supervision, 15, 212-235.
Sykes, G., & Darling-Hammond, L. (Eds.). (1999). Handbook o f teaching and
policy: Teaching as a learning profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
156
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. (1999). Better by design? A consumer's guide to
schoolwide reform (Executive summary 2001). Retrieved August 14, 2004,
from http://www.edexcellence.net
Tucker, M. & Codding, J. (1998). Standards for our schools: How to set them,
measure them, and reach them. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Education Secretary Paige addresses First
Annual Teacher Quality Evaluation Conference. Retrieved July 25, 2004,
from http://www.ed.gov/print/news/speeches/2002/06/061102.html
Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom
practices and student academic performance. Educational Policy Analysis
Archives, 70(12). Retrieved July 28, 2002, from
http\lI epaa. asu. edu/epaa/v 1 O n 12/
Wheelock, A. (1998). Extra help and support in “ most standards” and prevent
grade retention. Retrieved July 28, 2002, from
http://www.csteep.be.edu/ctestweb/retention2.html.
Whittaker, A., Synder, J., & Freemen, S. (2001). Restoring balance: A chronol
ogy of the development and uses of the California Standards for the Teach
ing Profession. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(1), 85-107.
Wise, A. E., Darling-Hammond, L., McLaughlin, M. W., & Bernstein, H. T.
(1984). Teacher evaluation: A study o f effective practices. Santa Monica,
CA: RAND.
Woolever, R. (1985). State-mandated performance evaluation of beginning
teacher educators. Journal o f Teacher Education, 36(2), 22-25.
Woolfolk, A. E. (2004). Educational psychology (9th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Wright, P. S., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom con
text effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation.
Journal o f Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57-67.
Xuan, M., Erickson, J. B., & Thomas-Strong, G. (1995). Making data work for
you: A guide to resources for program developers and youth advocates. In
dianapolis, IN: Indiana Youth Institute.
Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
157
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDICES
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A
PROFESSIONAL GROWTH SYSTEM
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Maple Unified School District
2004-2005
Professional Growth System Pilot
Handbook
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s
Section I Introduction
Handbook Introduction
MUSD Professional Growth System - Philosophy
MUSD Professional Growth System - Overview
MUSD Professional Growth System - Timeline
Section II Step-Bv-Sten Guide to the MUSD Professional Growth System
Step 1 Information Meeting; Purpose, Rationale, and Tips for Best Practice
Step 2 Goal(s) Setting Conference; Purpose, Rationale, and Tips for Best
Practice
• Professional Growth Plan-Form I
• How to Complete Form I
Step 3 Classroom Visitations; Purpose, Rationale, and Tips for Best
Practice
• Formal Observation-Form IV
• How to Complete Form IV
Step 4 Mid-Year Goal(s) Reflection Conference; Purpose, Rationale, and
Tips for Best Practice
• Mid-Year Goal(s) Reflection - Form II
• How to Complete Form II
• Evaluator Request for Additional Information - Form IIA
• How to Complete form IIA
Step 5 End of Year Goal(s) Reflection and Summative Evaluation;
Purpose, Rationale, and Tips for Best Practice
• End of Year Goals Reflection-Form III
• How to Complete Form III
• Summative Evaluation-Form V
• How to Complete Form V
161
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Section III Additional Resources
Frequently Asked Questions
Professional Growth Plan Samples
Improvement Plan Sample
California Standards for the Teaching Profession
Descriptions of Practice - Standards One through Five
Sources of Evidence
Data Possibilities - Standards One and Two
Record Sheet - Standards One and Two
What is Evidence?
Skills and Attitudes for a Reflective Conversation
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Section I Introduction
Handbook Introduction
MUSD Professional Growth System - Philosophy
MUSD Professional Growth System - Overview
MUSD Professional Growth System - Timeline
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
H a n d b o o k I n t r o d u c t i o n
This handbook is designed to facilitate the 2004-2005 Professional Growth System
(PGS) district-wide pilot process. Section I contains the philosophical foundation
written by the evaluation task force in response to information gathered through
surveys and conversations with teachers and administrators throughout the district.
The user is provided an Maple Unified School District Professional Growth System
Overview describing the system “at a glance,” and noting reference pages where
the reader can find step-by-step guiding information. This is followed by the 2004-
2005 Professional Growth System timeline including dates, steps and materials for
effective and efficient completion of the field test process.
Section II of this handbook provides step-by-step guides including the purpose,
rationale, tips for best practices, forms, and form completion details for each of the
five Professional Growth System steps. Section III includes a number of additional
resources to support evaluatees and evaluators in their implementation of this
process.
It is the intention of the evaluation task force that the 2004-2005
Professional Growth System pilot provide rich feedback for the proposed
process and a valuable experience for all participating teachers and
administrators. This handbook does not take the place of the master
contract between the Maple Teachers Association (CTA/NEA) and the
Maple Unified School District. For further information, consult the master
contract, Article 15: Evaluation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Task Force Members
Christine Boris, Teacher, El Camino High School
Alma Casillas, Teacher, Palmquist Elementary
Joe Farley, Deputy Superintendent
Randi Gibson, Principal, Mission Elementary School
Mary Gleisberg, Principal, McAuliffe Elementary School
Frank Gomez, Principal, Santa Margarita Elementary School
Ed Heatley, Associate Superintendent, Human Resources
Pat Kurtz, Program Specialist, Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment
Program
David Lee, President, [Maple] Teachers Association
Duane Legg, Teacher, El Camino High School
Aaron Marcy, President, [Maple] Teachers Association, 2002-2003
Dian Miller, Coordinator/Consulting Teacher, Peer Assistance and Review
Program
Shelley Jacobs, Teacher, Reynolds Elementary School
Diana Shreves, Assistant Principal, King Middle School
Dennis Smith, Teacher/Librarian, El Camino High School
Jay Van Kempen, Teacher, McAuliffe Elementary School
Scott Woodward, School Based Resource Teacher, Reynolds Elementary School
165
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
P r o f e s s i o n a l G r o w t h S y s t e m - P h i l o s o p h y
At the core of the [Maple] Unified School District (MUSD) Professional Growth
System, is collaboration between the teacher and the administrator, with the ulti
mate goal being improved student performance, improved teaching practice, and
professional growth of teachers. Professional growth is essential to improving stu
dent achievement. Evaluation of teaching practice is interconnected with profes
sional growth.
In support of improving student achievement, the California Department of Educa
tion and the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing developed the Cali
fornia Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP). The CSTP are designed to
guide teachers as they define and develop their teaching practice. The MUSD Pro
fessional Growth System is intended to aid teachers in their professional growth,
using the CSTP as guidelines.
In recognition of teachers, and in response to their individual needs, the MUSD
Professional Growth System is designed to support, encourage, and evaluate the
success of permanent teachers who have received overall ratings of “satisfactory”
on prior teacher evaluations, and to provide non-tenured teachers and teachers on
assistance plans with the additional guidance and support they deserve, as they
progress in developing their teaching practice. In all cases, teachers and evaluators
collaborate to establish a Professional Growth Plan (PGP) that meets the individual
needs of the teacher.
Formal and informal classroom observations serve to allow administrators to
observe the activities taking place in support of student achievement. In addition,
observations ensure that teachers will have many opportunities to demonstrate their
development toward aligning their teaching practice with the CSTP.
The philosophy embodied in the MUSD Professional Growth System is that col
laboration between teachers and their evaluators will improve teacher performance
and stimulate professional growth. The result will be improved student achieve
ment and greater success for everyone in our school community. The process will
be meaningful and beneficial to the interest of students, teachers and administra
tors.
166
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
P r o f e s s i o n a l G r o w t h S y s t e m - O v e r v i e w
1. Information Meeting
Prior to the first student day, August 30,2004, evaluator and evaluatee(s) meet
to discuss the evaluation process and procedures. During this meeting, the
evaluator provides orientation materials thoroughly identifying the evaluation
process and all associated procedures. This meeting may be conducted as a
group meeting.
2. Goal Setting Conference
By the sixth week, October 4 through 8, the evaluator and evaluatee meet to dis
cuss and establish professional development goals that are aligned with the Cali
fornia Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) and promote professional
growth, collaboration and student learning. Prior to this conference, the evalu
atee writes a proposed professional development goal. During the conference,
the evaluatee and evaluator discuss and mutually agree upon annual goals. The
Professional Growth Plan (PGP)-Form I must be finalized by the end of the sev
enth week, October 15. Mutually agreed upon visitations, initiated by either the
evaluator or evaluatee, are recorded in the action steps or sources of evidence/
data box. The evaluator and evaluatee schedule the Mid-Year Goals Reflection
Conference date. Should circumstances change and the established goals cannot
be met, it is the responsibility of the evaluatee to notify the evaluator so that new
goals can be established.
3. Classroom Visitations
Evaluators make frequent classroom visitations related to the progress of evalu
atee’s PGP (Form I) and the CSTP. The purpose of these visitations is to provide
opportunities for the evaluatee and evaluator to reflect on the professional
growth process. These visitations may include informal observations or formal
written observations initiated by either the evaluator or evaluatee. Temporary
and probationary teachers receive two formal classroom observations according
to the master contract, Article 15: Evaluation. If a teacher has an assistance
plan, the evaluator provides a detailed outline of assistance which may include
informal and formal observations.
4. Mid-Year Goals Reflection Conference
By the end of the 20th week of the school year, February 4, the evaluatee pro
vides the evaluator with a brief written reflection of the progress made toward
goals. This will include a restatement of goals, progress toward goals, effect on
student learning, and the collaborative means used to accomplish the goal. At
that time, the evaluatee and evaluator revisit goals and plan the next steps (see
Form II).
167
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Should circumstances change and the established goals cannot be met, it is the
responsibility of the evaluatee to notify the evaluator so that new goals may be
mutually re-established, if necessary. Evaluatees will develop a revised PGP if
their participation in the PGP process is determined by the evaluator to detract
from the evaluatee’s instructional and professional performance. The new plan
will include formal observations at the discretion of the evaluator.
If the evaluator has significant concerns regarding achievement of “Meets Stan
dards” for all six CSTP areas (see Form V), consideration should be given to
writing an assistance plan to address the concerns at this time (see Form IIA).
An assistance plan requires a minimum of two formal observations and confer
ences for the remainder of the school year. A teacher may or may not remain
on an assistance plan for the next school year. This determination is made by
the evaluator at the summative evaluation upon review of observation notes,
assistance plan goals and other evidence/data sources.
5. End of Year Goabst Reflection and Summative Evaluation
By March 25, the evaluator briefs the evaluatees on the End of Year Reflection -
Form III. The evaluatee completes Form III independent of the evaluator and
gives it to the evaluator by April 22 for use in the summative evaluation and
conference.
Prior to 30 days before the end of school, May 5, the evaluator prepares the
Summative Evaluation. Using all data collected from classroom visitations,
written reflections, goals review conference, and other sources of data, the
evaluator and evaluatee discuss:
• progress toward completion of goals,
• various evidence,
• future goal setting, and
• areas of concern, if any.
The Summative Evaluation-Form V is reviewed and signed during this confer
ence. When agreement cannot be reached, the evaluator maintains final respon
sibility for evaluation. The evaluatee may attach a written response to the
evaluation (see master contract: Article 15: Evaluation). Any such response is
attached to the Summative Evaluation - Form V prior to placement in the evalu
atee’s personnel file. If there are areas of concern, evaluatees are notified in the
summative evaluation and an assistance plan (see Form VI) may be developed
with the evaluatee. If the evaluatee receives an overall “unsatisfactory” evalua
tion or “unsatisfactory” ratings in any of the CSTP, their evaluator will prepare a
written assistance plan.
168
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
RELATED FORMS
Professional Growth Plan - Form I
Mid-Year Goals Reflection - Form II
Evaluator Request for Additional Information - Form IIA
End-of-Year Reflection - Form III
Formal Observation - Form IV
Summative Evaluation - Form V
Assistance Plan Template - Form VI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
P r o f e s s i o n a l G r o w t h S y s t e m T i m e l i n e 2004-2005
August 25-August
27 (Prior to first
student day...)
In fo r m a tio n M e e t in g : Group Meeting
■ The evaluator conducts a meeting with all evaluatees for the purpose o f discussing
the evaluation process and procedures and distributing the Handbook.
Handbook
CSTP
October 4 - 8
(By the 6th week...)
October 15
Go a l Se t t in g Co n fe r e n c e: Individual Meeting unless evaluatees are working as a
cohort.
■ The evaluator and evaluatee meet to discuss and establish evaluatee’s professional
development goal(s). Use
Professional Growth Plan Goal(s) - Form I.
■ At the end o f the conference, schedule the Mid-Year Goals Reflection Conference.
■ Finalize PGP - Form I by October 15,2004.
Proposed Goal
Handbook
Form I
August 30-June 16 Classro om v isita tio n s:
■ Both formal and informal classroom visitations are a part o f the MUSD PGS.
■ Evaluators or evaluatees may initiate a visitation at any time during this process.
■ Dates of visitations are recorded on the PGP - Form I in the VISITATION column.
Handbook
Form I
February 4
(By the end of the
20th week...)
M id-Ye a r Goals R e fl e c t io n C o n fe r en c e: Individual Meeting unless
evaluatees are working as a cohort.
■ The evaluatee provides the evaluator with a brief written reflection o f their progress
toward goal(s) using Mid-Year Goal(s) Reflection - Form II.
■ The evaluatee and evaluator revisit goals, discuss progress and plan next steps.
■ At this time, evaluatee and evaluator may revise goals & request formal
observations.
■ If the evaluator has concerns regarding a teacher’s ability to meet a CSTP, this is a
good time to develop an improvement plan and address those concerns.
Handbook
F orm ll
Form IIA
Multiple sources of
evidence/data
CSTP
" 4
O
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
April 22 E nd-o f-Ye a r Go a l(s)R e fle c t io n C o n fe r en c e: Individual Meeting
■ Evaluator holds a short meeting to explain the end of year reflection and to
distribute the End -of-Year
Reflection - Form III (by March 25).
■ Evaluatee completes Form III prior to the conference (by April 22)
Handbook
Form I, 2,3,5
Form IV if
applicable
Multiple Sources of
evidence/Data
April 22-May 5
(Prior to 30 days
before the last
student day...)
Su m m ative E v a lu a tio n: Individual Meeting
■ Evaluator completes Summative Evaluation - Form V prior to the conference.
* Evaluatee & evaluator discuss the evaluator’s appraisal of the PGP and the
evaluatee’s use o f the CSTP in daily practice. Goals are set for future continued
professional growth.
■ Summative Evaluation - Form V is signed by both parties and sent to human
resources (by May 5).
■ If there are areas of concern, the evaluatee is notified and an improvement plan may
be developed.
■ Evaluatee has the right to attach a rebuttal to the summative evaluation.
Section II Step-bv-Steo Guide to the MUSD Professional Growth System
Step 1 Information Meeting; Purpose, Rationale, and Tips for Best Practice
Step 2 Goal(s) Setting Conference; Purpose, Rationale, and Tips for Best Practice
• Professional Growth Plan-Form I
• How to Complete Form I
Step 3 Classroom Visitations; Purpose, Rationale, and Tips for Best Practice
• Formal Observation-Form IV
• How to Complete Form IV
Step 4 Mid-Year Goal(s) Reflection Conference; Purpose, Rationale, and Tips for
Best Practice
• Mid-Year Goal(s) Reflection - Form II
• How to Complete Form II
• Evaluation Request for Additional Information - Form IIA
• How to Complete Form IIA
Step 5 End-of-Year Goal(s) Reflection and Summative Evaluation; Purpose,
Rationale, and Tips for Best Practice
• End-of-Year Goals Reflection-Form III
• How to Complete Form III
• Summative Evaluation-Form V
• How to Complete Form V
172
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1. Information M i i i inc. (Prior to A t cl st 30)
Prior to the first student day (August 30, 2004), evaluator and evaluatee(s) meet to discuss
the Professional Growth System (PGS) process and procedures. During this meeting, the
evaluator provides orientation materials identifying the PGS process and all associated
procedures. This meeting may be conducted as a group meeting.
PURPOSE RATIONALE
The Information Meeting is held with the
evaluator and the evaluatee(s) to famil
iarize the evaluatee(s) with the PGS and
establish timelines for the process. The
evaluatee may ask questions, review the
forms and begin to consider a professional
growth goal for the year utilizing the Cali
fornia Standards for the Teaching Profes
sion (CSTP).
At this time, the evaluator should describe
how the PGS process differentiates for
temporary, probationary, permanent
teachers and permanent teachers with
assistance plans. Should an assistance
plan be in effect, refer to your master
contract (15.1.8. Employee Assistance
Plans) for guidance and reference.
The 2001-2002 Teacher/Evaluator Survey
and subsequent debriefs in 2002-2003, re
vealed that teachers seldom meet with their
evaluators at the beginning of the year to
discuss the current evaluation process. Be
cause this is a new system, it is essential that
teachers understand the process and have
opportunities to ask questions prior to estab
lishing their professional growth goal(s).
In site debriefs, teachers expressed the desire
to participate in a professional growth sys
tem that is consistent, follows the designated
timeline, and provides relevant feedback.
Beginning the school year with an emphasis
on following the PGS timeline and identify
ing procedures establishes the professional
growth of teachers as a high priority.
TIPS FOR BEST PRACTICE
Schedule approximately 30 minutes for a group information meeting.
Provide PGS orientation materials to the evaluatees at the meeting. The human
resources department provides these materials to all participants.
Evaluators explain the process and describe the procedures to the evaluatee(s).
Evaluators describe how the PGS process differentiates for temporary, probation
ary, permanent teachers and permanent teachers with assistance plans.
Evaluators and evaluatees have a working knowledge of the CSTP and know how
to gather evidence for each standard.
Evaluators explain how an evaluatee is meeting or not meeting the teaching stan
dards. (What kind of assessment tool will be used?)
Evaluatees begin to contemplate a professional growth goal in preparation for the
goal setting conference.
173
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2. GOAL(S) Si: I I INC. ( OM I Kl M I (OCTOBER 4-8)
By the sixth week of school (October 4-8), the evaluator and evaluatee meet to discuss and
establish professional growth goals aligned with the CSTP and promoting professional
growth, collaboration, and student learning. Prior to this conference, the evaluatee consid
ers a proposed professional development goal(s). Teachers with similar goals may meet
with the evaluator as a cohort to facilitate teamwork and collaboration. During the confer
ence, the evaluatee(s) and evaluator discuss and mutually agree upon annual goals. The
Professional Growth Plan (PGP)-Form I must be finalized by the end of the seventh week
(October 15). Mutually agreed upon visitations, and/or formal observations initiated by
either the evaluator or evaluatee, are recorded in the visitations section of Form I. The
evaluator and evaluatee schedule the Mid-Year Goal(s) Reflection Conference date. Should
circumstances change and the established goal(s) cannot be met, it is the responsibility of
the evaluatee to notify the evaluator so that a new goal(s) is established.
PURPOSE RATIONALE
The Goal Setting Conference provides the
opportunity for the evaluator and evaluatee
to discuss and mutually agree upon a pro
fessional growth goal(s) for the evaluatee.
The evaluatee considers his/her current
practice and self-assesses an area(s) for
professional growth using the CSTP as
criteria. The PGP developed at this confer
ence becomes the guiding document to use
in formative assessment and in the summa
tive evaluation.
Temporary, probationary and permanent
teachers on assistance plans discuss the
formal observation cycle with the evalu
ator. Refer to master contract (15.1.8. Em
ployee Assistance Plans and 15.1.5 Class
room Observations) for guidance/reference.
The Goal Setting Conference is the most
crucial part of the process and requires spe
cial attention. It is important that the evalu
atee develops a teacher performance goal(s)
rather than student performance goals. If the
evaluatee does not receive the proper guid
ance in this stage of the process, the PGP
will lack depth and stray from the intent of
the process.
Recording the deadline date for the Mid-
Year Goal(s) Reflection Conference at this
time builds on the 2001-2002
Teacher/Evaluator Survey request for a pro
fessional growth system that is a priority
among evaluators, is consistent throughout
the district, and follows designated time
lines.
TIPS FOR BEST PRACTICE
• Evaluatees prepare a draft PGP to use in the conference. The intent of the evalua
tion task force is to provide the teacher with the opportunity to develop his/her own
professional goal(s) whenever possible. However, it is the responsibility of the
evaluator to guide the evaluatee toward a goal(s) that improves teaching practice
and increases student achievement.
• Evaluatees attend a site-based training on using the CSTP to develop a useful PGP.
Evaluatees use this information in the Goal Setting Conference.
• The Goal Setting Conference is held by the end of the sixth week of school (Octo
ber 8) and the evaluator assists evaluatee in clarifying the difference between
teacher performance goals and student goals.
• The evaluatee and evaluator record the deadline for the Mid-Year Goals Reflection
Conference at this time. The Mid-Year Goal(s) Reflection Conference should be
completed by February 4.
174
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. C l a s s r o o m V i s i t a t i o n s - F o r m a l & I n f o r m a l O b s e r v a t i o n s
Evaluators make frequent classroom visitations related to the progress of the evaluatee’s
Professional Growth Plan (PGP)-Form I and the CSTP. The purpose of these visitations is
to provide opportunities for the evaluatee and evaluator to reflect on the professional
growth process. These visitations may include informal observations or formal written
observations initiated by either the evaluator or evaluatee.
PURPOSE
Classroom observations, formal/ informal,
serve to allow administrators to observe the
activities taking place in support of student
achievement. In addition, observations
ensure that teachers will have many op
portunities to demonstrate their develop
ment toward aligning their teaching
practice with the CSTP.
Reference Section III Additional Re
sources, for optional tools to use in gather
ing evidence of the CSTP in daily practice.
RATIONALE
The 2001-2002 Teacher/Evaluator Survey
and subsequent debriefs in 2002-2003 re
vealed that teachers desire more frequent
informal visitations by evaluators. Also,
teachers welcome purposeful feedback re
lated to their professional growth goal(s).
The PGS is designed to encourage frequent
classroom visitations. Observation and input
for the specific purpose of supporting
teacher improvement helps to overcome the
isolation and uncertainty that characterizes a
great deal of teaching (Walsh, 1987).
TIPS FOR BEST PRACTICE
During the Goal Setting Conference the evaluatee and evaluator discuss and plan
for classroom visitations (See PGP-Form I). The evaluator or evaluatee may record
scheduled classroom visitations in the visitation section of the PGP. The evaluatee
may record visitation dates and notes from the evaluator’s visits.
Evaluatees or evaluators may specify the CSTP which will be observed during the
classroom visitation. This narrows the focus of the visitation and provides rele
vancy for the observation. The teaching standards observable in lesson delivery
are Standards 1, 2, and 3.1.
If circumstances interrupt the scheduled appointments for classroom visitations,
the party changing the appointment notifies the other at least one day in advance.
Evaluators provide some form of immediate, relevant feedback to the evaluatee
after a classroom visitation. This does not require a formal conference and may
include a short note or a brief conversation at a time conducive to reflection.
If a formal observation is scheduled, the evaluator follows the Formal Observation
Cycle consisting of the pre-conference, formal classroom observation, post-obser
vation conference, and the written report of observation (see Formal Observation-
Form IV and Section III Additional Resources, Skills and Attitudes for a Reflec
tive Conversation, Descriptions of Practice for CSTP one through five, Source of
Evidence, Evidence vs. Opinion, Data Possibilities).
175
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4. M id -Y e a r G o AI.(S) Rl I I I ( I ION ( OM I Kl \< I (IlCkl \KY 4)
By the end of the 20th week (February 4), the evaluatee provides the evaluator with a brief
written reflection of the progress made toward his/her goal(s). This includes a restatement
of the goal(s), progress towards the goal(s), effect on student learning, and the collabora
tive means used to accomplish the goal(s). The evaluatee and evaluator revisit goal(s) and
plan the next steps (see Form II).
Should circumstances change and the established goal(s) cannot be met, it is the responsi
bility of the evaluatee to notify the evaluator and new goals may be mutually re-established
if necessary. Evaluatees, whose participation in the Professional Growth Plan (PGP)
process is determined by the evaluator to distract from the evaluatee’s instructional and
professional performance, develop a revised PGP. The new plan may include formal ob
servations by the evaluator.
PURPOSE
During this conference, the evaluatee and evaluator
review the evaluatee’s progress toward his/her pro
fessional growth goal(s) and make determinations
regarding next steps. The PGP is revisited and con
tinues to be the guiding document for formative as
sessment and the summative evaluation.
If the evaluator has significant concerns regarding
achievement of “Meets Standards” for all six CSTP
areas (see Form V), consideration should be given to
writing an assistance plan to address the concerns. An
assistance plan requires formal observations and con
ferences for the remainder of the school year. For
more information reference the master contract
(15.1.8. Employee Assistance Plans).
TIPS FOR BEST PRACTICE
• Be aware that the deadline for completing mid-year conferences (February 4) coin
cides with the beginning of the second semester. A roving substitute may facilitate
this segment of the PGS.
• Prepare for conference. Evaluatee prepares a brief written reflection (Mid-Year
Goals Reflection Conference-Form II) of progress made toward PGP goal(s) and
organizes any additional sources of evidence/data (student work, plan book, class
room assessment results, etc.) that he/she wants to include in the conference. The
evaluator reviews the evaluatee’s PGP and organizes data from classroom observa
tions and informal and formal conferences. This is a good time for the evaluator to
review coaching skills - listening, paraphrasing, and clarifying (Tabor training).
• Evaluator and evaluatee use this time to talk about the progress the evaluatee is
making toward accomplishing his/her professional growth goal(s). If the goal(s)
cannot be met, use this time to establish a new goal and develop a new plan.
• If the evaluator has concerns about the evaluatees use of the CSTP in their daily
practice, a discussion should be held and Form IIA should be completed to docu
ment next steps (see master contract, Article 15.1.7.1.).
• The evaluatee leaves this conference with an understanding of the next steps, feed
back from the evaluator, and support for continued professional growth.
• To ensure the timeline is followed and to instill assurance in the evaluatee that the
culture around evaluation is changing, this is a good time to schedule the Summa-
tive Evaluation Conference date.
176
RATIONALE
The 2001-2002 Teacher/Evaluator
Survey and subsequent debriefs in
2002-2003 indicated that teachers
want to use multiple sources of
data as evidence of their profes
sional growth. Teachers also want
to have meaningful conversations
with their evaluator about that
growth. The Mid-Year Goal(s)
Reflection Conference provides
that opportunity.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5. END-OF-YEAR COAL(S) Rl I I I ( I ION AM) SlMMATIVK l.\ M l \ I ION
By March 25, the evaluator briefs the evaluatees on the End-of-Year Reflection-Form III.
The evaluatee completes the End-of-Year-Form III independent of the evaluator and gives
it to the evaluator by April 22 for use in the Summative Evaluation Conference.
Prior to 30 days before the end of school (May 5), the evaluator prepares the Summative
Evaluation Form-V. Using all data collected from classroom visitations, written reflections,
the goal(s) review conference, and other sources of data, the evaluator and evaluatee dis
cuss progress toward completion of goals, the various evidence, and future goal setting.
The Summative Evaluation-Form V is reviewed and signed during this conference. When
agreement cannot be reached, the evaluator maintains final responsibility for evaluation.
The evaluatee may submit a written response to the evaluation. Any such response is at
tached to the Summative Evaluation-Form V prior to placement in the evaluatee’s person
nel file. If there are areas of concern, evaluatees are notified in the Summative Evaluation
and an assistance plan may be developed with the evaluatee. If overall performance is de
termined to be unsatisfactory by the evaluator, an assistance plan is required (see master
contract, Article 15.1.8.2.).
PURPOSE
The End-of-Year Goal(s) Reflection-Form
III provides the opportunity for the evalu
atee to self-assess his/her Professional
Growth Plan (PGP) progress prior to the
Summative Evaluation Conference.
The Summative Evaluation-Form V meets
the state requirement for the end of the year
teacher evaluation which is conducted at
least once every other year.
Using all evidence/data collected from
classroom visitations, written reflections,
goal(s) review conferences, and other
sources of information, the evaluator and
evaluatee discuss and assess the results of
the PGP. In addition, the evaluator assesses
whether or not the evaluatee meets the six
CSTP.
For more information reference the master
contract (Article 15: Evaluation).
RATIONALE
Research indicates that evaluation systems
designed to support growth and develop
ment through use of formative assessment
produce more thoughtful and reflective
practice while satisfying accountability
demands. The PGS was designed with this
information in mind.
By law, districts must have an end of year
evaluation, therefore, the PGS concludes in
the Summative Evaluation. This evaluation
is no longer dependent upon two observa
tions, but may include multiple sources of
evidence/data that can be used for per
formance appraisal.
177
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TIPS FOR BEST PRACTICE
• In order to meet the PGS timeline, it is recommended that the evaluator schedule
summative evaluation conferences no later than the weeks of April 18 through April
29.
• The meeting to brief evaluatees on the End-of-Year Goal(s) Reflection-Form III may
be a group meeting.
• The evaluatee completes Form III prior to the conference for the evaluator to use in
completing the Summative Evaluation-Form IV.
• The evaluatee may bring multiple sources of evidence/data to the summative confer
ence.
• The evaluator should bring notes from classroom visitations that support the use of the
CSTP in the evaluatee’s daily practice. Evaluators should have some evidence/data of
the use of the six CSTP in order to determine whether or not an evaluatee meets each
standard (see Section III Additional Resources, Skills and Attitudes for a Reflective
Conversation, Descriptions of Practice for CSTP one through five, Source of Evidence,
Evidence vs. Opinion, Data Possibilities).
• The evaluator and evaluatee review the evidence/data that each bring to the summative
conference and discuss the evaluatees progress toward completion of the goal(s) and
the use of the CSTP in his/her daily practice.
• One goal of the summative conference is to mutually agree upon the progress of the
evaluatee toward meeting the goal(s) of the PGP and the ability of the evaluatee to
meet the CSTP. If agreement cannot be reached, the evaluator maintains final respon
sibility for the Summative Evaluation. A second goal of the summative conference is
to identify areas for independent professional development for the next school year.
• The Summative Evaluation is finalized, signed and sent to human resources no later
than May 5, 2005.
178
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Section III Additional Resources
Frequently Asked Questions
Professional Growth Plan Samples
Improvement Plan Template
California Standards for the Teaching Profession
Descriptions of Practice - Standards One through Five
Sources of Evidence
Data Possibilities - Standards One and Two
What is Evidence?
Skills and Attitudes for a Reflective Conversation
Paraphrasing
Clarifying
Mediational Questions
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Professional Growth System Frequently Asked Questions
1. How does the Professional Growth System differ for temporary teachers, proba
tionary teachers, teachers on assistance plans and permanent teachers?
The only difference between the Professional Growth System for temporary
teachers, probationary teachers, teachers on assistance plans and permanent
teachers is the formal observation requirement. All temporary teachers,
probationary teachers, and teachers on assistance plans will continue to
have at least two formal observations followed by personal conferences
yearly. Formal observations are not required for permanent teachers unless
deemed necessary by the evaluator.
2. Will all teachers receive inservice in the California Standards for the Teaching
Profession (CSTP)?
All teachers were trained in the CSTP during the 2003-2004 school year.
This provides a common language for the evaluators and evaluatees when
discussing Professional Growth Plan Goals. As new teachers enter the Dis
trict, they will receive training in the CSTP if needed.
3. Will the District assist teachers in learning how to write the Professional
Growth Plan (PGP)?
Yes. The district will provide trainings for administrator/teacher teams in
August, 2004. The administrator/teacher team will receive training materi
als for their staff who are participating in the PGS pilot during the 2004-
2005 school year. District support will be available throughout the year to
help sites implement the PGS process.
4. How does a Professional Growth Plan (PGP) differ from the previous alterna
tive evaluation?
The alternative evaluation focused on a project designed by the evaluatee.
The PGP centers on pedagogical practices contained in the California Stan
dards for the Teaching Profession. Each teacher will determine an area of
professional growth and identify a CSTP that relates to that area.
180
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Professional Growth System is designed to develop teaching practice in
order to increase student achievement. Evaluators and evaluatees engage in
conversations throughout the year based on classroom visitations and the
teacher’s Professional Growth Plan. The End of Year Reflection and Sum
mative Evaluation are based on data gathered during the visitations and the
conversations about the Professional Growth Plan.
5. In the traditional evaluation system, classroom visits required a significant
amount of time preparing formal written observations. How do classroom visits
in the Professional Growth System model differ?
The PGS classroom visitations may include formal and informal observa
tions and may be initiated by the evaluator or evaluatee. Standards 1, 2 and
3.1 are observable in the classroom setting. If a formal observation is
scheduled, the Formal Observation Cycle (pre-conference, formal class
room observation, post-conference and written report of observation) must
be followed. Form IV and the PGS Process provide guidance on this topic.
Classroom visitations are a cornerstone of the PGS. The formal and infor
mal observations are scheduled by the evaluator and the evaluatee during
the Goal Setting Conference.
6. Are all CSTP viewed as equally important in the Professional Growth System?
As noted on all the forms, all teachers are accountable for implementing all
of the CSTP in their daily practice.
7. How does an informal observation differ from a “walk through” observation?
There may be some similarities, but the essential difference is that an in
formal observation focuses on gathering evidence/data to use in reflective
conversation about the evaluatee's Professional Growth Plan.
8. What is the purpose of the Mid-Year Goal(s) Reflection Conference?
There are three purposes: providing coaching and encouragement to the
evaluatee, the making of mid-course correction, if needed, and formal revi
sion of the PGP, if needed. This is the time for administrators to identify
any concerns about whether or the teacher needs additional support to meet
any of the CSTP.
181
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9. The End of Year Reflection is due 30 days before the end of the school year.
This seems very early and comes at a time when testing and other end of year ac
tivities are hitting a peak. Why this date?
This timeline is specified in the teachers’ master contract, Section 15.1.7.
10. How do evaluators determine teacher competency in all of the CSTP?
Evaluators use and evaluatees provide multiple sources of evidence/data
gathered through classroom visitations and reflective conversations.
Sources of evidence/data include, but are not limited to, student work,
lesson plans, formal and informal observations and conversations.
11. Where do I get the forms?
All forms are available from the Office of Human Resources. Electronic
versions will also be available by August 2004.
12. Why is the Goal Statement to be written on Forms I-V? Isn’t this redundant?
This planned redundancy allows both the evaluator and evaluatee to focus
on specific elements ofprofessional growth. Using the online forms enables
users to “ copy and paste ” with ease.
Source: [Maple] Unified School District, Human Resources Department
182
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX B
TEACHER SURVEY
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Survey: Teacher Evaluation and Supervision
Instructions: The Dissertation Committee is very interested in gathering your perceptions as a
member of the staff with regards the direct and indirect factors affecting the teacher evaluation and
supervision processes currently taking place at this school. Below is a short survey containing a
series of statements for you to evaluate based on your knowledge of the school. Please be as
honest as possible, as your responses are completely anonymous and will only be used to
produce findings on issues related teacher evaluation and supervision. You may rate each of
the statements below on a four-point Likert Scale as follows:
0 = Strongly Disagree
1 = Disagree
2 = Agree
3 = Strongly Agree
Background Information:
1) Number of years as a teacher: (Please circle one)
0-1 yrs. 2-5 yrs. 6-10 yrs. 11 yrs. +
2) Number of years at this location: (Please circle one)
0-1 yrs. 2-5 yrs. 6-10 yrs. 11 yrs. +
Policy: Teachers ’ knowledge and perceptions o f official documents regarding the teacher
evaluation process.
3)
I am aware of the district’s policy regarding teacher evaluation. 0 1 2 3
4)
I understand the district’s policy regarding teacher evaluation. 0 1 2 3
5)
I agree with the goals and objectives of my district’s policy
on teacher evaluation. 0 1 2 3
6)
I am satisfied that my site administrators are carrying out the
district’s policy on teacher evaluation with integrity. 0 1 2 3
Teacher Evaluation: The extent to which the administration actively participated in the formal
evaluation process, as mandated by the California Education Code, which may have included
observations, data collection, feedback, goal setting, and improvement strategies.
7) My administrator frequently observes my classroom for the
purpose of evaluation. 0 1 2
8) My administrator and I often discuss the instructional strategies
I use in my classroom. 0 1 2
9) I view my administrator’s implementation of the teacher
evaluation policies as an integral part of my professional growth. 0 1 2
184
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10) When my administrator visits my classroom, he/she looks for
things which we agreed upon at a pre-conference. 0
11) I receive timely feedback following my observations. 0
12) The teacher evaluation feedback assists me improving my
teacher practice. 0
13) I am confident in my administrator’s ability to evaluate my
instructional practice. 0
14) There are alternative evaluation opportunities (e.g. PAR,
portfolio, etc.) available at my school. 0
15) I have participated in an alternative evaluation process before. 0
16) I believe that my participation in the teacher evaluation process
at this school has led to my professional growth. 0
2 3
2 3
Ongoing Teacher Supervision: The extent to which the administration actively participated in a
supervision process through observations, data collections, feedback, goal setting, and improvement
strategies.
17) The administration frequently observes my classroom.
18) Other instructional support staff (e.g. coaches, counselors, etc.)
frequently observe my classroom.
19) I receive meaningful feedback regarding my teaching following
an observation.
20) I have discussions with administrators regarding my teaching.
21) I have discussions with instructional support staff (not including
site administrators) regarding my teaching.
22) I see the administration’s supervision of instruction as
non-evaluative and separate from formal evaluation processes.
23) I am aware of the specific things that administrators look for
when visiting my classroom.
24) I am confident in my administration’s ability to monitor
my instructional practice.
25) I believe that my administration’s supervision of instruction
improves my instructional practice.
26) I believe that other instructional support staffs supervision
of instruction improves my instructional practice.
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2 3
185
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
School Efforts: Teacher’ s perception o f school-based procedures, and activities, not including
direct supervision, which may have led to school improvement.
27) I have multiple opportunities throughout the year to participate
in professional development activities. 0
28) Teachers are encouraged to collaborate on instructional
matters on a regular basis. 0
29) I collaborate with others on instructional matters on a regular basis. 0
30) I am aware of an official professional development plan that
has been prepared to share with the district and school
community at large. 0
31) I have a clear understanding of the professional development
goals for my school. 0
32) Teachers have an active role in developing professional
development goals and objectives. 0
School Culture: Teacher’ s perception o f "the way we do things around here. ‘
33) I am comfortable going to my school administrators for support. 0
34) I am aware of the goals and objectives of this school. 0
35) I believe in the goals and objectives of this school. 0
36) The values of this school are consistent with my own values. 0
37) The goals and objectives of this school have contributed
to our school’s improvement. 0
38) I am satisfied with the professional competence and teaching
ability of my teaching colleagues. 0
39) I am satisfied with the professional competence and leadership
ability of the administration. 0
40) I am satisfied with the professional competence and leadership
ability of the instructional support staff (e.g. coaches, counselors,
etc.). 0
41) I am satisfied with the professional competence and leadership
ability of teachers in leadership roles at this school. 0
42) Faculty discussions regarding curriculum and instruction
impact our school’s ability to improve. 0
43) Teachers have an active role in making decisions for the school. 0
2
2
2
2
186
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44) Teachers have initiated efforts towards school improvement.
45) The majority of school improvement efforts at this school
have been initiated by the district and/or site administration.
Teacher Beliefs: The teacher’s belief that he/she can make a difference in student
46) I believe that all student can learn. 0
47) When I really try, I can get through to most students. 0
48) If a student masters a new concept quickly, this might be
because I knew the necessary steps in teaching that concept. 0
49) When a student is having difficulty with an assignment,
I am usually able to adjust it to his/her level. 0
50) When the grades/proficiency levels of my students improve,
it is usually because I used my effective teaching approaches. 0
51) I believe that all students can achieve at high levels. 0
52) The influence of a student’s home environment can be
overcome by good teaching. 0
earning.
2
2
2
2
By Stefanie Pannell Phillips
187
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX C
DATA NEEDS CHART
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research
Question
Data Needs Data Sources Instrumentation
1 &2 Document Review
• Stull Evaluation Forms
(school, in house district)
• Other evaluation
instruments
• Stull Bill Legislation/Ed
Code 44660-44665
• Collective Bargaining
Agreement (tenure)
• Minutes from meetings
• Accountability trail (from
site to HR)
• School Policy
• NCLB
• California Standards for the
Teaching Profession
• School Single Plan for
Student Achievement
• School Professional
Development Plan
• Accreditation/Program
• BPs and ARs
• Quality Review
Documentation
• District Office
• State and Federal
• Human
Resources
• School
Administrators
• School Site
Teachers
• Archives
• Gathering
information
from various
sources; district
sample Stull
evaluation
forms; district
professional
growth plan
1,2,3 Survev and Quantitative Data
• History
• Teacher (tenure)
• Evidence Staff
Development
• Board Policy
• CBEDs Reports
• Grade Book
• BTSA
• PAR
• Survey for
Teachers
• Survey for
Administrators
• Interview
• Questionnaire
• SSC
• Website
• SARC
• School Hard
Book/Policy
• PTA/PSA
• Credential(s)
held;
subjects/grade
levels teach
• Knowledge
Level of
Evaluation
Process
189
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1,2, 3,4 Interviews ('i.e. individual:
focus group)
•
• Teachers
• Site and district
Administrators
• Human Resources
• Curriculum & Instruction
• Educational Services
• Content Coaches/Mentors
• Professional Development
Consultants
• Teacher Union Reps
• Administrative Reps
• Interviews will be
conducted on
case study using
focus groups
• Rubric
interview
questions for
focus groups
1,2, 3,4 Observations
• Observations on
school site
• (Language in
Faculty room/
body language,
intonation of oral
responses
• Perceptions (e.g.
self efficacy, job
satisfaction,
teacher morale)
• Showcased
(trophies or
academic
achievements?)
• How many
student
assemblies?
• Award
ceremonies and
for what?
• Faculty meetings:
who does the
talking?
• Rubric tool(s)
• Pre & Post- Conference, &
Stull Observation
• School Site Council
Meeting
• School Board Meetings
• Professional Development
Workshops and notes
• Classified Personnel
• Classrooms instructional
strategies
• Culture
• Departmental/Grade/Collab
oration Meetings
190
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX D
CASE STUDY GUIDE
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Administrator Interview
School Efforts: Teacher’s perception of school-based procedures, and activities, not including
direct supervision, which may lead to school improvement.
Ouestion \s F.\ idenccil Dominant Frame Rationale
1. Why is this school
successful?
2. What school wide
programs and/or
strategies have been
implemented to
improve student
achievement?
3. What efforts impact
instructional practice?
4. How are these school
efforts reflected in the
teacher evaluation
process?
5. Explain your school’s
plan for professional
development and its
link to the school’s
success.
6. How are individual
teacher professional
development goals
and objectives linked
to the evaluation
process?
7. Who decides what and
how professional
\ development is
offered?
192
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
School Culture: Teacher’s perceptions of “the way we do things around here.”
Ouestion As Evidenced Dominant Frame Rationale
8. How are school site
decisions made?
9. Where does the
leadership come
from at the school
site?
10. How is conflict
resolved at the
school?
11. How is information
communicated at the
school site?
12. Whom do you view
as school leaders?
13. What is celebrated
here?
193
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Teacher Interview
Policy: Teachers’ knowledge and perceptions of official documents regarding the teacher
evaluation process.
Question As Evidenced Dominant Frame Rationale
1. How would you
describe your dis
trict’s policy on
teacher evaluation?
2. How does the
teacher evaluation
process affect your
practice in the class
room?
3. What modifications
would you recom
mend for the
teacher evaluation
policy that would
improve your prac
tice?
Teacher Evaluation: The extent to which the administration actively participated in the
formal evaluation process, as mandated bv the California Education Code, which may have
included observations, data collection, feedback, goal setting, and improvement strategies.
Question As Evidenced Dominant Frame Rationale
4. Describe your ex
periences with the
evaluation process.
5. What are the
strengths and weak
nesses of the evalua
tion process at this
school?
6. What elements of
the evaluation
process are effective
in improving
teacher practice?
194
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Teacher Supervision: The extent to which the administration actively participate in the su
pervision process through observations, data collections, feedback, goal setting, and improve
ment strategies.___________ _______________ __________________ ^ _____________
Ouestion As Evidenced Dominant Frame Rationale
7. Outside of the evalua
tion process, what
types of interactions
do/have you engaged
in with administra
tion, colleagues and
other educators re
garding instruction?
8. Outside the evaluation
process, what types of
instructional feedback
are you given?
School Efforts: Teacher’s perception of school-based procedures, and activities, not including
direct supervision, which matf lead to school im jrovement.
Ouestion As Evidenced Dominant Frame Rationale
9. Why is this school
successful?
10. What school wide
programs and/or
strategies have been
implemented to im
prove student
achievement?
11. What efforts impact
instructional practice?
12. How are these school
efforts reflected in the
teacher evaluation
process?
13. Explain your school’s
plan for professional
development and its
link to the school’s
success.
195
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14. How are individual
teacher professional
development goals
and objectives linked
to the evaluation
process?
15. Who decides what and
how professional de
velopment is offered?
School Culture: Teacher’s perceptions of “the way we do things around here.”
Question As Evidenced Dominant Frame Rationale
16. How are school site
decisions made?
17. Where does the lead
ership come from at
the school site?
18. How is conflict re
solved at the school?
19. How is information
communicated at the
school site?
20. Whom do you view
as school leaders?
21. What is celebrated
here?
196
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Teacher Beliefs: The teacher’s belief that he/she can make a difference in student learning.
Question As Evidenced Dominant Frame Rationale
22. Do you believe that
you are a valued
member in this
school? Why/Why
not?
23. What factors do you
believe contribute to
student learning?
Notes
197
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Observation Template
Notes
Purpose of Activity
Date/Location
Participants
General Sense
Is this activity reflective
of policy/mandate
implementation?
Is this activity reflective
of the teacher evaluation
process?
Does this activity reflect
teacher improvement or
student achievement
strategics?
Discuss the instructional
leadership present.
What are the perceptions
of the school site and its
functions?
Describe the
relationships/interactions
taking place.
Dominant Frame and
rationale
198
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Document Review Analysis, p.
Title of
Document
Date of Review
Type of
Document
Author/Dccision-
\laker
Location of
Source
How closely is
this document
related to school
policy on teacher
evaluation?
How closely is
this document
related to other
school level
efforts?
Linkages stated
within document
to improve
practice
Reflections
Further
questions for
consideration
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Document Review Analysis, p2.
Title of Document Date of
Review
Notes
Stull Evaluation Forms
(school, district)
Stull Bill
Legislation/Education
Code 44660-44665
Collective Bargaining
Agreement
California Standards for
the Teaching Profession
(CSTP)
Single Plan for Student
Achievement
School Professional De
velopment Plan
Accreditation/Program
Quality Review
Demographic Data
No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Legislation
Meeting Minutes
Board Policy(ies)
District Memorandum/
Policy Bulletins
By Stefanie Pannell Phillips
200
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX E
LIST OF COLLECTED DOCUMENTS
AND ARTIFACTS
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
MUSD Evaluation Forms
PGS guidelines
King School Application for California Distinguished School Award
California Academic Performance Index (API) Information
King API data for 2000-01,2001-02,2002-03
Public Schools Accountability Act
MUSD Strategic Plan & Objectives
King Grade Level Meeting Template Agenda
MUSD Board of Trustee meeting minutes
District programmatic information from the web site
State Education Codes Related to Teacher Evaluation
202
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX F
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ARTICLE 15: EVALUATION
15.1. Evaluation Procedures
The purposes of the evaluation system are to (1) improve the
delivery of educational services, (2) provide constructive
assistance to employees, and (3) rate the service of employees
to the District.
15.1.1. Probationary Employees
All probationary employees will be evaluated in
writing at least once each school year, and this
written evaluation will be transmitted to employees
not later than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the end
of the student year in which the evaluation takes
place.
15.1.2. Permanent Employees
All permanent employees will be evaluated in writing
on a continuing basis, at least once every other year,
and this written evaluation will be transmitted to
employees not later than thirty (30) calendar days
prior to the end of the student year in which the
evaluation takes place.
15.1.3. Goals and Objectives
Prior to the end of the seventh school week of the
appropriate semester, employees scheduled for
evaluation and their Evaluators will meet to establish
acceptable goals and objectives upon which
evaluations will be based. In the event mutual
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
consent cannot be reached on the goals and
objectives, Evaluators will inform Evaluatees, in
writing, of the goals and objectives on which final
evaluations will be based. If Evaluatees do not
concur, they may submit written statements indicating
why the goals and objectives prepared by their
Evaluators are not appropriate, and those statements
will become part of their official evaluation
documentation.
15.1.3.1. Prior to setting goals and
objectives, Evaluatees will be given
copies of existing relevant sections of
the goals and objectives of their
Evaluators, schools, and/or
departments.
15.1.3.2. If during the course of the
evaluation period, mitigating
circumstances arise that require
changing goals and objectives,
modifications may be initiated by
Evaluators or Evaluatees, and any
amended goals and objectives will be
established in accordance with 15.1.3.
15.1.3.3. A subcommittee comprised of
the District and the Association
negotiating teams shall meet to resolve
205
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
outstanding issues (regarding
unsatisfactory ratings) in the new
Professional Growth System (PGS).
15.1.3.3.1. The PGS shall be
piloted Districtwide as the
evaluation system during
the 2004-2005 school year.
15.1.3.3.2. Following the pilot,
focus groups will provide
feedback, and appropriate
notification, if any, will be
made.
15.1.3.3.3. The Agreement reached
by this subcommittee shall
be submitted to the
District and the
Association negotiation
teams for potential
agreement.
15.1.3.3.4. Upon agreement, any
recommendation shall be
submitted for ratification.
15.1.4. Basis for Evaluation
15.1.4.1. Evaluations of all employees
will include, but not be limited to,
consideration of the following:
206
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15.1.4.1.1. Goals and objectives of
employees.
15.1.4.1.2. The progress of
students toward standards
of expected student
achievement.
15.1.4.1.3. Instructional
techniques and strategies.
15.1.4.1.4. Adherence to curricular
objectives.
15.1.4.1.5. The Professional
Growth System (PGS) will
be submitted for
ratification as the
exclusive evaluation
program commencing with
the 2005-2006 school year.
15.1.4.1.6. Establishment and
maintenance of suitable
learning environments,
including classroom
Control.
15.1.4.1.7. And, performance of
other duties normally
required as
207
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
adjunct to the regular
assignments of employees.
15.1.4.2. Evaluation of student progress will be
based upon standards expected of students at
each grade level in each area of study.
Information to support evaluations will be
obtained through a variety of sources including,
but not limited to classroom observations,
student work products, judgments,
responsibilities carried, criterion-referenced
tests, and anecdotal records.
15.1.4.3. The basis for objective evaluation and
student progress assessment will be data
collected related to standards of expected
student growth and progress.
15.1.4.4. Evaluation of noninstructional
employees will be based on their fulfillment of
defined job responsibilities.
15.1.5. Classroom Observations
15.1.5.1. Evaluations of
classroom performance will include at
least two (2) formal
classroom/assignment observations of
thirty (30) minutes each, with one (1)
completed prior to December 15.
Observations will be followed by
208
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15.1.5.2.
personal conferences between
Evaluators and Evaluatees, normally
within five (5) workdays, (this timeline
may be extended by mutual agreement),
unless the primary Evaluator finds that
the observation was completely
satisfactory and that a formal
conference is not necessary, in which
case the Evaluatee will sign the
observation report and return it to the
Evaluator to distribute copies as
indicated on the report itself. Evaluators
will prepare written classroom
observation reports for conferences that
will be presented to and may be
discussed with Evaluatees. If
Evaluators have concerns about
performances of Evaluatees in any of
the observed areas, Evaluators will
discuss those concerns with Evaluatees
at the post-observation conferences.
Continuing concerns will be reduced to
writing and given to Evaluatees, along
with assistance plans.
Except in cases of significant
violations of job duties, work rules, or
209
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15.1.5.3.
15.1.5.4.
professional competence, at least three
(3) formal and scheduled
classroom/assignment observations will
take place prior to issuance of final
annual evaluations with overall ratings
of unsatisfactory.
Classroom observations may
be made by more than one administrator
provided that administrators who are
not the primary Evaluators have
discussed the goals and objectives with
Evaluatees prior to observations.
Evaluatees or their primary Evaluators
may request that formal, scheduled
classroom observations be done by
other administrators.
Nothing herein will prevent
Evaluators from making unscheduled
classroom observations in addition to
formal, scheduled observations.
Unscheduled classroom observations
are formal observations as opposed to
informal walk-throughs or drop-in visits.
If Evaluators have concerns about
performances of Evaluatees in any of
the observed areas, Evaluators will
210
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
discuss those concerns with Evaluatees
at post-observation conferences.
15.1.6. Lesson Plans
15.1.6.1. All employees will be
responsible for preparing daily lesson
plans and having them available for
review; however, they will not be
required to turn in the lesson plans.
15.1.6.2. If employees fail to leave
lesson plans for substitutes on at least
two (2) occasions within a school year,
they may be required by their immediate
administrators to turn in lesson plans
for the remainder of that school year.
15.1.7. Final Annual Evaluations
15.1.7.1. There should be no
surprises in final evaluations; therefore,
negative comments will not be included
unless Evaluatees have previously been
notified in writing of the area(s) of
concern and provided opportunities for
written responses.
15.1.7.2. Evaluators and
Evaluatees will meet to discuss
evaluations not later than thirty (30)
calendar days prior to the end of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
student year in which the evaluation
takes place.
15.1.7.3. Evaluatees will
have the right to initiate written
responses to their evaluations. These
responses will become attachments to
the evaluations and will be placed in the
personnel files of Evaluatees.
15.1.7.4. In the event
Evaluatees receive unsatisfactory
evaluations, Evaluators will provide
Evaluatees with specific
recommendations about areas of
needed improvement, and Evaluators
will offer assistance intended to help
Evaluatees improve.
15.1.7.5. Employees will
not be required to participate in
evaluations of other employees, nor will
self-evaluations be included in the
formal evaluations except those staff
members who volunteer and qualify to
participate in an alternative evaluation;
however, at the option of their
immediate administrators, department
212
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
chairpersons may be required to serve
as resources in employee evaluations.
15.1.8. Employee Assistance Plans
15.1.8.1. Employee
Assistance Plans are written plans, with
timelines, to help employees who
voluntarily request assistance or for
whom remediation is recommended by
their immediate administrators.
Employee Assistance Plans will not be
required in instances of egregious
behavior by employees or when notices
of unprofessional conduct have been
issued.
15.1.8.2. If employees
receive overall unsatisfactory
evaluations or unsatisfactory ratings in
any areas designated in 15.1.4.1, their
Evaluators will prepare written
assistance plans with specific timelines
and strategies that will include, but not
be limited to, the following:
15.1.8.2.1. Identification of specific
deficiencies.
15.1.8.2.2. Detailed outline of
assistance.
213
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15.1.8.2.3. Specific expectations.
15.1.8.2.4. Date by which
deficiencies must be corrected.
15.1.8.2.5. Method for
reassessment.
15.1.8.3. If final
evaluations contain areas ranked as
unsatisfactory, assistance plans will be
implemented for the following school
year.
15.1.8.4. Before plans are
implemented, Evaluatees and their
Evaluators will meet to discuss and
review Employee Assistance Plans,
including timelines for reassessment.
At the end of reassessment periods,
Evaluatees and Evaluators will meet
again to discuss progress of Evaluatees.
Evaluators may require Evaluatees to
continue on assistance plans until
reaching satisfactory levels of
performance.
15.1.8.5. Employee
Assistance Plans may include, but will
not be limited to (1) weekly meetings
with their Evaluators to review the
214
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15.1.8.6.
lesson plans of Evaluatees, (2) having
administrators or other teachers’ model
lessons, (3) providing Evaluatees with
released time to observe other classes,
or (4) attendance at in-service training or
other applicable courses. If Evaluators
require Evaluatees to take specific
training or in-service for which there is a
fee, the District will pay for the cost of
the required training. Evaluators will
meet regularly with Evaluatees to
monitor progress on assistance plans.
Employees who receive overall
unsatisfactory evaluations or
who are within the duration of notices
of unprofessional conduct (pursuant to
Education Code Section 44932 of the
2001 Edition) will not be eligible to
receive step increases or anniversary
increments (see Section 8.18).
Employees will have the right to appeal
to the District Personnel Administrator
whose decision will be final. If
employees achieve overall satisfactory
evaluations when they are reassessed
as specified in Employee Assistance
215
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Plans, they will receive step increases at
the next pay period.
15.1.8.7. “Overall unsatisfactory
evaluation” will mean a final annual
evaluation in which three (3) or more
areas are ranked as unsatisfactory by
the Evaluator.
Source: [Maple] Unified School District, Human Resources Department
216
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX G
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
217
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
American Federation of Teachers. (1998). Assuring teacher quality: It’ s union
work. Washington, DC: Author.
Anderson, R. H. (1993). Clinical supervision: Coaching for higher performance.
Lancaster, PA: Techomic.
Andrews, R. L., & Smith, W. F. (1989). Instructional leadership: How principals
make a difference. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Cur
riculum Development.
Annenberg Institute for School Reform. (2003). Voices in urban education: Re
thinking accountability. Providence, RI: Author.
Ardovino, J., Hollingsworth, J., & Ybarra, S. (2000). Multiple measures. Thou
sand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2001). Helping stu
dents or harming schools? Alexandria, VA: Author.
Baez, B., & Centra, J. A. (1995). Tenure, promotion, and reappointment: Legal
and administrative implications. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Higher Education.
Benveniste, L., Camoy, M., & Rothstein, R. (2003). All else equal: Are public
and private schools different? New York: Routledge Falmer.
Berk, R. (1988). Fifty reasons why student achievement gains does not mean
teacher effectiveness. Journal o f Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1,
345-364.
Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (1998). Research in education (8th ed.). Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Binkley, N. (1995). Reforming teacher evaluation policy: A qualitative study of
the principal’s role. Journal o f Personnel Evaluation in Education, 9, 223-
232.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principal’s instructional leadership and teacher de
velopment: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly,
35, 349-378.
Blumberg, A. (1980). Supervisors and teachers: A private cold war (2nd ed.).
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Boe, E., Bobbitt, S., & Cook, L. (1997). Whither didst thou go? Journal o f Spe
cial Education, 30, 371-389.
Bridges, E. M. (1992). The incompetent teacher: Managerial responses (Rev.
ed.). Philadelphia: Falmer.
218
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Bridges, E. M., & Groves, B. R. (2000) The macro- and micropolitics of personnel
evaluation: A framework. Journal o f Personnel Evaluation in Education,
13, 321-337.
Brock, L. B., & Grady, L. M. (2001). From first-year to first-rate: Principals
guiding beginning teachers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Crown Press.
Brown, B. (1992). Why governments run schools. Economics o f Education, 11,
287-300.
Bruning, R. H. (1999). Cognitive psychology and instruction. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill Prentice-Hall.
Byrnes, J. P. (1996). Theories o f cognitive development and learning. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
California Department of Education. (2001). Parents guide to the similar schools
rank based on the Academic Performance Index. Retrieved September 13,
2004, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/tayac/ap/documents/simschlOOb.pdf
Caracelli, V. J., & Perskill H. (Eds.). (2000). The expanding scope o f evaluation
use. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Carroll, S., & Schnier, C. (1982). Performance appraisal and review systems.
Glenville, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Chapman, J. (1990). School-based decision-making and management. Washing
ton, DC: Falmer.
Chubb, E. J., & Moe, M. T. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’ s schools.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Cibulka, J. G. (1995). The reform and survival of American public school: An
institutional perspective. In R. L. Crowson, L. W. Boyd, & B. H. Mawhin-
ney (Eds.), The politics o f education and the new institutionalism: Rein
venting the American school (pp. 7-22). Washington, DC: Falmer.
Clark, D., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting
the right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Clune, W., & Witte, J. F. (Eds.). (1990). Choice and control in American educa
tion. Washington, DC: Falmer.
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McParland, J., Mood, A. M., Wein-
feld, F. D., et al. (1966). Equality o f educational opportunity. Washington,
DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Coleman, J. S., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982). High school achievement:
Public, Catholic, and private schools compared. New York: Basic Books.
219
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Committee for Economic Development. (2001). Measuring what matters: Using
assessment and accountability to improve student learning. Retrieved Au
gust 14,2004, from http://www.ced.org/docs/report/report_education.pdf
Conley, S., & Gould, J. (1997). Knowledge- and skill-based pay through collec
tive bargaining lens. Educational Policy, 11, 403-425.
Cooper, J. M. (1982). Supervision of teachers. In H. E. Mitzel (Ed.), Encyclo
pedia o f educational research (2nd ed., pp. 1824-1834). New York: Free
Press.
Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. (1985). Supervision for intelligent teaching. Educa
tional Leadership, 42(4), 28-33.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative approaches. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing
among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation: To enhance profes
sional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Cur
riculum Development.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1986). A proposal for evaluation in the teaching profes
sion. Elementary School Journal, 86, 531-551.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A
review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives,
5(1). Retrieved November 11,2001, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8nl/
Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining “highly qualified” teach
ers: What does “scientifically-based research” tell us? Education Re
searcher, 31(9), 13-25.
Davis, B., & Hentschke, G. (2002). Changing resource and organizational pat
terns: The challenge of resourcing education in the 21st century. Journal
o f Educational Change, 3(4), 135-159.
Donahue, P., Voelkl, K., Campbell, J., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). The NAEP1998
reading report card for the nation and the states. Washington, DC: Na
tional Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement.
Drake, T. L., & Roe, W. (1999). Theprincipalship (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Simon & Schuster.
Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology o f learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
220
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Duke, D. L. (1995). The move to reform teacher evaluation. In D. L. Duke (Ed.),
Teacher evaluation policy: From accountability to professional develop
ment {pp. 1-12). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Dwyer, C. A. (1994). Criteria for performance-based teacher assessments: Valid
ity, standards, and issues. Journal o f Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8,
135-150.
Ebmeier, H. (2003). How supervision influences teacher efficacy and commit
ment: An investigation of a path model. Journal o f Curriculum and Super
vision, 18(2), 110-141.
Ebmeier, H., & Nicklaus, J. (1999). The impact of peer and principal collaborative
supervision on teachers’ trust, commitment, desire for collaboration, and ef
ficacy. Journal o f Curriculum and Supervision, 14, 351-378.
EdSource, Inc. (1998). Shifting the focus to learning: California’ s accountability
debates—State experts discuss how accountability can improve student
achievement. Palo Alto, CA: Author.
EdSource, Inc. (1999). What to expect from California’ s new accountability law.
Palo Alto, CA: Author.
Ellett, C. D., & Garland, J. (1987). Teacher evaluation practices in our largest
school districts: Are they measuring up to “state-of-the-art” systems?
Journal o f Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1, 69-92.
Ellis, T. (1984a). Dismissing incompetent teachers. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clear
inghouse on Educational Management.
Ellis, T. (1984b). Teacher competency: What administrators can do. Eugene,
OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
Fact book 2002: Handbook o f educational information. (2002). Sacramento:
California Department of Education, Office of the Superintendent.
Finn, C., & Kanstoroom, M. (2000). Improving, empowering, dismantling.
Public Interest, 140. Retrieved February 8, 2004, from http://www
.findarticles.eom/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_2000_Summer/ai_63856604
Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., & Kelly, C. (1987). Teachers and the law. New York:
Longman.
Frase, L. E., & Streshly, W. (1994). Lack of accuracy, feedback, and commitment
in teacher evaluation. Journal o f Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8, 47-
57.
Frymier, J. (1998). Accountability and student learning. Journal o f Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 12, 233-235.
221
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Fullan, M. G., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning o f educational
change. New York: Teachers College Columbia Press.
Gamoran, A. (1996). Student achievement in public magnet, public comprehens
ive and private city high schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 18, 1-18.
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordan, J. M. (2001). Supervision and
instructional leadership: A developmental approach (5th ed.). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Gordon, S. P., & Maxey, S. (2000). How to help beginning teachers succeed (2nd
ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Devel
opment.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual
framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274.
Grissmer, D., & Kirby, S. (1997). Teacher turnover and teacher quality. Teachers
College Record, 99, 45-56.
Haberman, M. (1995). The dimensions of excellence in programs preparing teach
ers for urban poverty schools. Peabody Journal o f Education, 70(2), 24-43.
Haefele, D. L. (1993). Evaluating teachers: A call for change. Journal o f Per
sonnel Evaluation in Education, 7 , 21-31.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (1998). Teachers, schools, and aca
demic achievement. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Re
search.
Heath, M. (2002). Electronic portfolios for reflective self-assessment. Teacher
Librarian 30(1), 19-23.
Henig, J. R. (1995). Rethinking school choice: Limits o f the market metaphor.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hentschke, C. G. (1996). Beyond competing school reforms: A redefinition of
public in public schooling. Education and Urban Society, 29, 474-489.
Herman R. E., & Gioia, J. L. (1998). Lean and meaningful. Winchester, VA:
Oakhill.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2002). The teacher shortage: A case of wrong diagnosis and
wrong prescription. National Association o f Secondary School Principals
News Bulletin, 56(631). Retrieved August 29, 2002, from http://www.nassp
.org/news/bltn__teachershort0602.html
222
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher short
age. Educational Leadership, 60(8),30-33.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1988). The personnel
evaluation standards: How to assess systems for evaluating educators.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kirst, W. M., Hayward, C. G., & Fuller, B. (2000). Governance and accountabil
ity. In E. Burr, G. C. Hayward, B. Fuller, & M. W. Kirst (Eds.), Crucial
issues in California education 2000 (pp. 79-94). Berkeley, CA: Policy
Analysis for California Education.
Lashway, L. (2002). Developing instructional leaders. Eugene, OR: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
Levine, R., Rathbun, A., Seldon, R., & Davis, A. (1998). NAEP’ s constituents:
What do they want? Report of the NAEP constituents survey and focus
groups. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Lewis, A. C. (1982). Evaluating educational personnel. Arlington, VA: Ameri
can Association of School Administrators.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1984). Teachers: Their world and their work. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1999). Teachers transforming their world and their
work. New York: Teachers College Press.
Linklider, B. L. (1995). The effects of peer coaching cycles on teacher use of a
complex teaching skill and teachers’ sense of efficacy. Journal o f Person
nel Evaluation in Education, 9, 55-68.
Lipka, J. (1996). Toward a culturally based pedagogy: A case study of one
Yup’ik Eskimo teacher. In E.R. Hollins (Ed.), Transforming curriculum for
a culturally diverse society (pp. 205-226). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Loofbourrow, S. (1996). Collective bargaining: Maximizing school board leader
ship. West Sacramento: California School Boards Association.
Loup, K., Garland, J. S., Ellett, C. D., & Rugutt, J. K. (1996). Ten years later:
Findings from a replication study of teacher evaluation practices in our 100
largest school districts. Journal o f Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10,
203-226.
Lunnenburg, F. C., & Omstein, A. C. (1991). Educational administration: Con
cepts and practices. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Machell, J. (1995). The teacher evaluation environment: An examination of at
tributes related to teacher growth. Journal o f Personnel Evaluation in Edu
cation, 9, 259-273.
223
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Madsen, J. (1996). Private and public school partnerships: Sharing lessons about
decentralization. Washington, DC: Falmer.
Mauer, E., & Zimmerman, E. (2000). Mentoring new teachers. Thrust for Educa
tional Leadership, 29(3), 26-28.
Mawhinney, H. B. (1995). The new focus on institutions and the reinvention of
schooling. In L. W. Boyd, R. L. Crowson, & B. H. Mawhinney (Eds.), The
politics o f education and the new institutionalism: Reinventing the Ameri
can school (pp. 23-42). Philadelphia: Falmer.
McGreal, T. (1983). Successful teacher evaluation. Alexandria, VA: Association
of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McLaughlin, M., & Pfeifer, R. S. (1988). Teacher evaluation: Improvement, ac
countability, and effective learning. New York: Teacher College Press.
McQuarrie, F. O., & Wood, F. H. (1991). Supervision, staff development, and
evaluation connections. Theory Into Practice, 30, 19-96.
Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in edu
cation (Rev. ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Morey, A., Benzuk, N., & Chiero, R. (1997). Preservice teacher preparation in the
United States. Peabody Journal o f Education, 72(1), 4-24.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1994). Data compendium for the NAEP
1992 Reading Assessment o f the Nation and the States: 1992 NAEP trial
state assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2000). The nation’ s report card: An
introduction to the national assessment o f education progress (NAEP). Re
trieved January, 17,2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp
National Education Association. (1997). Status o f the American public school
teacher 1995-96. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Nelson, J. L., Carlson, K., & Palonsky, S. B. (1996). Critical issues in education
(3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nummela, R.C., & Caine G. (1991). Making connections: Teaching and the
human brain. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curricu
lum Development.
Odden, A. (1999). Making better use of resources for educational reform. In D.
D. Marsh (Ed.), 1999 ASCD yearbook: Preparing our schools for the 21st
century (pp. 143-164). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
224
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Odden, A. (2000). The costs of sustaining educational change through compre
hensive School reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 433-438.
Orlich, C. D. (2000). Education reform and limits to student achievement. Phi
Delta Kappan, 81, 468-472.
Ovando, M. N. (2001). Teachers’ perceptions of a leamer-centered teacher
evaluation system. Journal o f Personnel Evaluation in Education, 15, 213-
231.
Perrone, V. (1997). Reflections on teaching: Learning to teach and teaching to
learn. Teacher’ s College Record, 98, 636-652.
Popham, W. J. (1988). Judgment-based teacher evaluation. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Preskill, H., & Torres, R. T. (2000). The learning dimension of evaluation use. In
V. J. Caracelli & H. Perskill (Eds.), The expanding scope o f evaluation use.
(pp. 25-37). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pulliam, J. D., & Van Patten, J. J. (1999). History o f education in America (7th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary
School Journal, 83, 427-452.
Rand Corporation. (1981). A study o f alternatives in American education. Vol. 7:
Conclusions and policy implications. Santa Monica, CA: Author.
Reagon, T., Case, K., Case, C. W., & Freiberg, J. A. (1993). Reflecting on “re
flective practice”: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal o f Person
nel Evaluation in Education, 6, 263-277.
Reese, C. M., Miller, K. E., Mazzeo, J., & Dossey, J. A. (1997). NAEP 1996
mathematics report card for the nation and the states. Washington, DC:
National Center for Educational Statistics.
Root, D., & Overly, D. (1990). Successful teacher evaluation: Key elements for
success. National Association o f Secondary School Principals Bulletin,
74(527), 34.
Rose, L. C., & Gallup, M. M. (2002). The 34th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup
Poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan,
84(1), 41-56.
Rothman, R. (2000). Bringing all students to high standards: Report on National
Education Goals Panel field hearings—Lessons from the states. Washing
ton, DC: National Education Goals Panel.
225
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Sadovnik, R. A., Cookson, W. P., Jr., & Semel, F. S. (2001). Exploring education:
An introduction to the foundation o f education (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Sando, J. P. (1995). Implementation o f teacher evaluation systems that promote
professional growth. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California.
Schalock, H. A., & Schalock, M. D. (1993). Student learning in teacher evaluation
and school improvement: An introduction. Journal o f Personnel Evalua
tion in Education, 7, 103-104.
Schneider, M., Teske, P., & Marschall, M. (2000). Choosing schools: Consumer
choice and the quality o f American schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni
versity Press.
Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers
in education and the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers Col
lege Press.
Shinkfield, A. J., & Stufflebeam, D. (1995). Teacher evaluation: Guide to effec
tive practice. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk,
text and interaction (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Skoglund, K. W. (1999). How to address inadequacy of classroom performance.
Journal o f Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13, 297-306.
Slim, N. (2004). The influence o f governance structure on teacher evaluation
practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Cali
fornia.
Smyth, J. W. (1993, March). Towards a critical consciousness in the instructional
supervision o f experienced teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Council of Professors of Instructional Supervision, Houston, TX.
Sperry, D. J., Daniel, P. T. K., Huefner, D. S., & Gee, E. G. (1998). Educational
law and the public schools: A compendium (2nd ed.). Norwood, MA:
Christopher-Gordon.
Spring, J. (1993). Conflict on interest: The politics o f American education (2nd
ed.). New York: Longman.
Stark, J. S., & Lowther, M. A. (1984). Predictors of teachers’ preferences con
cerning their evaluation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20, 70-
106.
226
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Starratt, R. J. (1997). Should supervision be abolished? Yes. In J. Glanz & R.
Nevill (Eds.), Educational supervision: Perspective, issues, and controver
sies (pp. 4-12). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Stiggins, R. J. (1986). Teacher evaluation: Accountability and growth system—
different purposes. NASSP Bulletin, 70, 51-58.
Stiggins, R. J. (1988). The design and development of performance assessments.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 6(3), 33-42.
Stiggins, R. J., & Bridgeford, N. J. (1985). Performance assessment for teacher
development. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7 , 85-97.
Stiggins, R. J., & Duke, D. L. (1986). Research on teacher evaluation: The case
for a commitment to teacher growth. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional
Education Laboratory.
Stiggins, R. J., & Duke, D. (1988). The case for commitment to teacher growth
research on teacher evaluation. New York: State University of New York
Press.
Strike, K., & Bull, B. (1981). Fairness and the legal context of teacher evaluation.
In J. Millman (Ed.), Handbook o f teacher evaluation (pp. 301-343). Bev
erly Hills, CA: Sage.
Stronge, J. H. (2002). Qualities o f effective teachers. Alexandria, VA: Associa
tion for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1988). Personnel evaluation standards. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001). Evaluation models2 . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Pullin, D. (1998). Achieving legal viability in personnel
evaluations. Journal o f Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 215-231.
Sullivan, K. A., & Zirkel, P. A. (1998). The law of teacher evaluation: Case law
update. Journal o f Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 367-380.
Swanson, D. B., Norman, G. R., & Linn, R. L. (1995). Performance-based assess
ments: Lessons from the health professions. Educational Researcher,
24(5), 5-11.
Talbert, J. E. (1988). Conditions of public and private school organization and
notions of effective schools. In T. James & H. M. Levine (Eds.), Compar
ing public and private schools, Vol. 1: Institutions and organization (pp.
161-188). Philadelphia: Falmer.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New
York: Falmer.
227
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Thomas, D. M. (1979). Performance evaluation of educational personnel. Phi
Delta Kappan Educational Foundation Fastback, 135, 7-59.
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. (2001). A TIMMS primer. Retrieved from
http://www.edexcellence.net
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Study o f education resources and federal
funding: Final report. Retrieved March 5, 2005, from http://
216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:XdjsbFSlR8 AJ :www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/
PES/esed/ serff_execsum.doc+%22study+of+education+resources+and+fed
eral+funding%22&hl=en
Walker, E. M. (2002). The politics of school-based management: Understanding
the process of devolving authority in urban school districts. Educational
Policy Analysis Archives, 10(33). Retrieved August 13, 2002, from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/vl 0n33 .html
Webb, D. L., & Norton S. M. (1999). Human resources administration: Person
nel issues and needs in education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Simon &
Schuster.
Weiss, E. M., & Weiss, S. G. (1998). New directions in teacher evaluation.
Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Educa
tion.
Wilson, B., & Wood, J. A., (1996). Teacher evaluation: A national dilemma.
Journal o f Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10, 75-82.
Wise, A. E. (1988). Two conflicting trends in school reform: Legislated learning
revisited. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 458-333.
Wood, F. H., & Lease, S. A. (1987). An integrated approach to staff development,
supervision, and teacher evaluation. Journal o f Staff Development, 8, 52-
Zepeda, S. J. (2002). Linking portfolio development to clinical supervision: A
case study. Journal o f Curriculum and Supervision, 18, 83-102.
Zepeda, S. J., & Ponticell, J. A. (1998). At cross-purposes: What do teachers
need, want, and get from supervision? Journal of Curriculum and Supervi
sion, 14, 68-87.
Zirkel, P. A. (1996). The law of teacher evaluation: A self-assessment handbook.
Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
228
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Asset Metadata

Creator Phillips, Stefanie Pannell (author)

Core Title An analysis of perceptions and implementation of California's teacher evaluation process in a K--5 public school and its impact on teacher practice

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, administration,Education, Teacher Training,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Gothold, Stuart (committee chair), Halvorsen, Thomas (committee member), Hocevar, Dennis (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-380455

Unique identifier UC11340353

Identifier 3180456.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-380455 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3180456.pdf

Dmrecord 380455

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Phillips, Stefanie Pannell

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 au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA